EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION 1

Equal Access to Education for All Students

Adrian E. Duarte

College of Southern Nevada

EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION 2

Adrian Duarte

Dale Warby

EDU 210

Date (05/10/2018)

Equal Access to Education for All Students

As stated by former Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire, “One of the most

powerful tools for empowering individuals and communities is making certain that any

individual who wants to receive a quality education can do so.” It is unequivocal to say that all

students should be permitted to attain an education if they have the ability to, regardless of

whether or not they have a disability or not, especially in the United States. All around the world,

we are faced with humanitarian issues involving education. Not only are there over 774 million

adults around the world who are illiterate, 32 million just from the United States (Strauss, 2016),

but there are several countries around the globe, several coming primarily from Africa, where

girls are banned from attaining an education (Coughlan, 2017). To the topic that all individuals

should be permitted an education, should students with disabilities be allowed to attain an

education? Who holds the power to make these decisions? After all, the United States

Constitution does not mention the topic of education, and the rights of all education matters are

reserved to the states per the Tenth Amendment. In other words, should a school or school

district reserve the right to discriminate against these types of students? Moreover, in the

proposed case, a high school principal, Debbie Young, denies a request from the parents of

Jonathan, who happens to be a severely disable tenth-grade student. The principal argues that due
EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION 3

to a costly expense and a belief that school is not the best suit for Jonathan, she refuses to allow

him to enroll in her school.

Students with disabilities are protected under federal law, prohibiting any discrimination

towards them. To Jonathan and his parent’s defense, the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA) mandates special education programming for students; thus, Young, despite her

authority, cannot overrule the legislation enacted by the federal government. Johnson who is

mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. Students who are

protected under IDEA are those with “Mental retardation, hearing impairments, speech of

language impairments, visual impairments, emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments,

autism, traumatic brain injury, multiple disabilities, or specific learning disabilities,” as defined

in School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications (2006) by Author Julie Underwood

(Underwood, 2006, pg. 143). This case is nearly identical to the 1972 court case Mills v. Board

of Education of District of Columbia, where the schools expelled and refused admission of

students with disabilities. In the case, the school argues an absence of sufficient funding or

resources to provide an education to disabled children. Ultimately, the district court found the

practice was “In violation of the Equal Protection Clause and ordered the school board to provide

equal access to education for disabled students” (Mills v. Board of Education of District of

Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866, 1972). Although Young may argue that the cost of ensuring that

Johnson has an equitable education will be expensive, she is unable to restrict a student from

attaining an education because of their disability per the establishment of this legislation.

Furthermore, Johnson may also argue, in addition to his argument that the schools are

unable to make a discriminatory decision prohibiting students with disabilities from enrolling in

schools based on expenditures, that accommodations should be implemented that would allow
EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION 4

students with disabilities to attain an education. Based on the ruling from the court case of Board

of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, the school must provide

adequate education, even if it is not parallel to the education being provided to other students

without disabilities. The Supreme Court’s opinion on the case was that “The school did not have

to provide the best education, but one reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits”

(Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176,

1982). In addition, as corroborated in School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications

(2006) by Author Julie Underwood, despite the cost, “IDEA… mandate[s] that schools provide

students with related services necessary for the child to benefit from special education”

(Underwood, 2006, pg. 152). Moreover, due to the school and high school principal denying

Johnson enrollment, they are violating federal legislation. Although Johnson may possess certain

disabilities, based on the ruling of Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School

District v. Rowley, Johnson is still able to attain an education at this public institution. The notion

Young presents stating that school is not the right place for Johnson is incredulous and

unsubstantiated, given that there are several options and accommodations to be made for him,

including providing Johnson instruction in a special education or resource classroom with trained

teachers, or even allowing Johnson’s nurse to be present during the school day.

When students are present at schools, teachers and administrative faculty have a duty to

protect the student body from unreasonable risks. Furthermore, based on the opinions in New

Jersey v. TLO, it is stated that “Teachers and school administrators act in loco parentis in their

dealings with students: their authority is that of the parent, not the State, and is therefore not

subject to the limits of the Fourth Amendment” (New Jersey v. TLO, 469 US 325, 1985). With

that being said, to Principal Young’s defense, it is within her duty as an administrator to do what
EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION 5

is best for the school and other students at the school. Nevertheless, by prohibiting Johnson from

enrolling, despite violating federal laws and partaking in unethical behavior, she is in fact saving

money for other programs and is acting within her limits of duty.

Moreover, Young may also argue that she is abiding by the nation’s Constitution. The

United States Constitution’s Tenth Amendment states that, “The powers not delegated to the

United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States

respectively, or to the people” (U.S. Const. amend. X). Similarly, the Supreme Court case of

Collector v. Day, the Justices ruled “The States within the limits of their powers not granted, or,

in the language of the Tenth Amendment, 'reserved,' are as independent of the general

government as that government within its sphere is independent of the States” (Collector v. Day,

78 U.S. 113, 1871). Furthermore, to her defense, she would argue that as allocated by the

Constitution, states hold the ultimate decision to decide whether or not they will permit a certain

class of students into the schools and the type of curriculum to be implemented, at the discretion

of education funding for the state.

My stance on whether students with disabilities should be allowed to attain an education

is unequivocal, in that I concur for all students, regardless of race, sex, religion, age, or disability

should be allowed to have an education. There are no binary standards on what is required to

attain an education. Growing up all through elementary to high school, I have attended public

schools with students who had disabilities, in accordance to federal laws including IDEA and

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Regardless of the type of institution, public or private, or

the form of instruction, in-person or virtual, education is limitless to its extent so that all

individuals can receive one. When it comes to the case of Debbie Young, I certainly believe that

the false dichotomization in her decision that she presents is unconscionable and is not defensible
EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION 6

based on the facts of state and federal court case rulings. As stated in the ruling from the case of

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, Johnson is entitled to attaining an education

at the school regardless of what the principal says, for if schools condone and partake in these

discriminatory practices, then they are “In violation of the Equal Protection Clause and ordered

the school board to provide equal access to education for disabled students” (Mills v. Board of

Education of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866, 1972). Moreover, in the court case of Board

of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, the Court found that the

school must provide adequate education, even if it is not equivalent to the education being

provided to other students without disabilities, ultimately ruling, “The school does not have to

provide the best education, but one reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits” (Board

of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 1982).

Indisputably, students with disabilities must and should be allowed to attain a fair education, for

it is mandated by federal laws and the rulings of state and local courts, and also it is the ethical

and morally-right thing to do.

EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION 7

References

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176

(1982)

Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1871)

Coughlan, S. (2017, October 11). 10 Toughest Places for Girls to go to School. Retrieved from

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41558486

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (1972)

New Jersey v. TLO, 469 US 325 (1985)

Strauss, V. (2016, November 01). Hiding in Plain Sight: The Adult Literacy Crisis. Retrieved

from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/11/01/hiding-in-

plain-sight-the-adult-literacy-crisis/?utm_term=.070206f02e74

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

U.S. Const. amend. X