Education Of Students With Disabilities

Education Of Students With Disabilities

Chapter 8 Assignment Submission ( Portfolio Artifact # 5)

Sarah Kerschgens

EDU 210 Nevada School Law

Dr. Dale Warby

February 26, 2018

Education Of Students With Disabilities
2

In the South of the US , in an affluent school district, a seasoned high school principal
Debbie Young has refused the request from the parents of a severely disabled tenth grader, to
allow their son to attend one of the schools in her district. The young boy Jonathan has multiple
disabilities and would require constant care by a specially trained nurse. Young herself taught as
a special education teacher before becoming a principal so she has the expertise to know what
her school can offer this child and what it can't. She also can judge whether the school can offer
what is best for Jonathan or not. On the other side are the parents who want their son to be
included in a normal school setting, believing they know what is best for their son and also as
parents, wanting the best for their son. Jonathan is protected under the IDEA Act , has the right
to a free and appropriate education, identification and nondiscriminatory evaluation, an
individualized education program , in the least restrictive environment and to procedural due
process but on the other side of the coin courts have ruled under the LRE provision that a
student could be served outside of the neighborhood school if another school offered a program
that the student needed. This is what Young wants as she feels the expense of taking in Jonathan
would be immense and that the school in her district is not the right place for Jonathan.

The question here is what is relevant :

Is placing Jonathan in his neighborhood school relevant to his education?.
Or which special education setting in appropriate to Jonathan's individual needs?.

In support of Young is the case W. BY & Through N.W v Northwest R-1 Sch. Dist. 813
F.2.d 158 (1987). Here a family appealed to the courts to have their child attend a mainstream
school . A.W was an elementary school- aged boy with Down's syndrome. The court found that
he was so severely retarded and had only minimal self care abilities. The court denied the parents
appeal , stating that his interactions with his non-handicapped pears would be limited to mere
observations. Also in light of the minimal benefit A.W would receive if placed in the mainstream
school , and the fact that there was no teacher certified to teach severely retarded children like
A.W the benefit is insufficient to justify a reduction in unquestioned benefits to other
handicapped children which would result from an inequitable expenditure of the finite funds
available. This is also the case with Young, even though she works in an affluent school district
the costs involved for the school are not justified as Jonathan would not benefit from the
mainstream school due to his severe handicaps.

Also in favor of Young is the case MARK A. v. GRANT WOOD AREA EDUC.
AGENCY 795 F.2d 52 (1986). Here the parents of a severely handicapped girl appealed against
the placement of their daughter in a school solely based for handicapped children. Here the court
Education Of Students With Disabilities
3

ruled “Although Handicare may indeed offer the best educational opportunities for Alleah, "the
Act does not require states to make available the best possible option”. Here the parents wanted
their daughter to be taught in an integrated setting like Jonathan's parents but the courts felt that
she was better of in a purely handicapped setting , just as Young feels. In both cases mentioned ,
the courts have acted on which special education was appropriate to the children's needs and not
on which neighborhood school was relevant for their education.

In favor of Johnathan's parent's would be the case SPRINGDALE SCH. DIST. # 50 OF

WASH. COUNTY v. GRACE 693 F.2d 41 (1982). In this case the family of a young deaf child
appealed to have their daughter in a mainstream setting with a certified teacher to help her. The
courts “agreed she would benefit and learn more in a School for the deaf but also agreed that
under the Deaf, the Act did not require the state to provide her with the best possible education.
Moreover, we noted that Sherry's attendance at the Springdale School would be consistent with
the Act's mainstreaming goals”. This is also the case for Jonathan's parents, they feel he would
benefit more from a mainstream setting rather than a specialized setting. Under Section 1412(1)
of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act provides federal funds to any state that can
demonstrate that it "has in effect a policy that assures all handicapped children the right to a free
appropriate public education.

Also in favor of Johnathan's parents is the case McLAUGHLIN v. HOLT PUBLIC

SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION No. 01-1521. (2003). In this case parents appealed to
the courts; the primary reason being was that the district wanted their daughter to go to a
categorical classroom placement in a neighborhood 7.3 miles away from her home and her
parents wanted her to go to the local school that their daughter would have attended if she was
not handicapped. Here the courts ruled” That the school system must afford the child the
appropriate educational program outlined in the IEP at the school in her neighborhood rather
than the facility some distance from her home that was identified by the defendants as the most
appropriate educational setting for a student with Emma's particular needs.   This placement, the
district court ruled, constituted the “least restrictive environment” under the requirements of the
Act”. As in Jonathan's parents case they would like their son to attend the school he would have
if he was not handicapped.

In conclusion I feel that Young will win this appeal. It is not in Johnathan's best
interest to attend the local school. Here he will be mainly an observer and will not benefit from
the mainstream school system. Also in Young's favor is the fact that Johnathan needs constant
care and a specialized nurse at all times. The costs to the school district outweigh the benefits
that Johnathan would receive. Also despite this preference for "mainstreaming" handicapped
Education Of Students With Disabilities
4

children-educating them with non-handicapped children-Congress organized that regular

classrooms simply would not be a suitable setting for the education of many handicapped

children. The Act expressly acknowledge that "the nature or severity of the handicap [may be]
such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be
achieved satisfactorily." 1412(5). The Act thus provides for the education of some handicapped
children in separate classes or institutional settings. See ibid.; 1413(a)(4).(Continuum of
Alternative Placements).
Education Of Students With Disabilities
5

EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

REFERENCES

Continuum of Alternative Placements

https://www.education.com/reference/article/mainstreaming-inclusion/

Retrieved February 22, 2018

MARK A. v. GRANT WOOD AREA EDUC. AGENCY 795 F.2d 52 (1986)

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1986847795f2d521826.xml

Retrieved February 22, 2018

McLAUGHLIN v. HOLT PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION No. 01-1521. (2003)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1253429.html

Retrieved February 22, 2018

SPRINGDALE SCH. DIST. # 50 OF WASH. COUNTY v. GRACE 693 F.2d 41 (1982)

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1982734693f2d411720.xml#comments

Retrieved February 22, 2018

W. BY & Through N.W v Northwest R-1 Sch. Dist. 813 F.2.d 158 (1987)

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1987971813f2d1581943.xml

Retrieved February 22, 2018