Principal Young: WHAT TO DO ABOUT JONATHAN 1

Debbie’s Decision

Nick Bones

College of Southern Nevada

WHAT TO DO ABOUT JONATHIN 2

Coping with a child with disabilities at home is a complicated situation to be in as a

parent. So, the hope is that when the children are at school, they are getting the best possible

care that the school can provide. When Debbie Young is approached about Jonathan coming to

the school where she serves as the principal, she was reluctant to admit him. She has experience

with special education for many years before her position as principal, and it seems like she took

Jonathan’s case seriously. Jonathan is mentally disabled, has seizures, and is a spastic

quadriplegic all this together makes for a challenging classroom situation. The question was

when Young turned down Jonathan was it because her school was not in his best interests or the

schools best interest?

When comparing this case to others like this one the first case that comes to mind is the

groundbreaking case of Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. This case is one of the cases that helped set a precedent for how we still rule on

cases involving disabled peoples. In 1971 the case was seen by a three-judge court, and it was

determined that it is unlawful for schools to dismiss students of school age based purely on their

disabilities. The court decided that even if it was a separated education from the rest of the

students at the school the children with disabilities still deserved the right to benefit from free

education. In the case of Jonathan, a ground-breaking case like PARC v. Pennsylvania (which it

has commonly become known as) could be a good precedent for what should have happened.

Debbie Young could be legally obligated to admit Jonathan into her school regardless of his

disabilities.

Another case that could benefit Jonathan’s parents in getting him enrolled into Young’s

school is Irving Independent School District v. Tatro. In this case, there was a student named

Amber that was about to be entered into a school in Texas. The student had spina bifida and had
WHAT TO DO ABOUT JONATHIN 3

to have a procedure done several times a day known as clean intermittent catheterization (CIC).

This procedure is simple and did not require the assistance of a nurse and could be taught to

anyone in about an hour. The school that Amber’s parents were attempting to enroll her in were

refusing to administer the CIC. The court decided that the CIC did fall under the provisions

“related services” that any school that received federal funding must provide. Again, in the case

of Jonathan’s quadriplegia, this may fall under “related services” that are required by law for the

school to provide. Debbie Young, the current principal, did have experience with disabled people

and may feel like she knows what is best for Jonathan, but she may still be legally obligated to

admit him into the school despite what she may think is best for him.

On the other hand, if you look at the case of LT v. Warwick School Committee, it shows

that not every parent can get the exact education that they want for their children. In this case, the

child with special needs had autism, and the parents wanted a specific type of teaching known as

Discrete Trial Training, and the school could not offer this specialized teaching because they

already had a program in place known as Treatment and Education of Autistic and

Communication-Handicapped Children. The parents of the autistic child then wanted to have the

school system to pay for their child to go to a private school that offered the program the parents

wanted. The plaintiffs sued the school board for the money, and in an educational hearing

initially, it was decided that the Warwick School Committee did have to pay for the instruction

that was best for the child. However, when they went to the appeals court, the first ruling was

reversed because the school already had a program in place to tend to the needs of autistic

children. And the court of appeals found that the parents did not have the right to force the school

to pay for another program if one that is “appropriate” for the child already. In the case of Debbie

Young, this could be used as a precedent if the parents of Jonathan already have a school that is
WHAT TO DO ABOUT JONATHIN 4

“reasonably calculate” to his needs. That would mean that Jonathan is already getting the care he

needs in the school environment and it is not Debbie Young’s responsibility to bring him into her

school just because the parents want to.

The final case that could be a good argument in favor of Young’s decision is one of the

more well-known cases in special needs education. Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson

Central School District v. Rowley, in this case, Amy Rowley, a student in kindergarten was hard

of hearing, so the school district supplied her with an FM hearing aid. They also had a tutor for

the deaf work with her for an hour every day and had her in speech therapy to make sure that she

was keeping up with the rest of class. As the years progressed she was keeping up with her class,

but according to her parents she was not performing as well as she would be without her

handicap. Amy’s parents were requesting a qualified sign-language interpreter in all her classes

because they felt like that would help her academically. The courts found in favor of the school

district because they claim that the “free appropriate public education” was being satisfied based

on what the school was already offering and her performance in school. They also stated that

Amy was entitled to the best education that can be offered to her specifically, not necessarily the

same education that everyone without the disability was receiving. In the case of Jonathan, this

case could be cited to explain that Debbie’s school not be obligated to accommodate him. He

may have a sufficient option elsewhere, and that could be the “free appropriate public education”

that the government owes him.

So, where does this all leave us? Does Debbie Young owe Jonathan and his family

placement at her school even though his disability is so severe that it could be a hindrance upon

the rest of the students? I think that with the limited information we were given about Jonathan’s

case that Young would not be obligated to admit him to the school. Young has extensive
WHAT TO DO ABOUT JONATHIN 5

experience with special education. And I believe that she would see it as a case like LT v.

Warwick School Committee, where the parents may want a specific school but the school system

is not obligated to accommodate what the parents wish to—but just provide what is necessary for

the education at the level that is appropriate for the student with their specific disabilities.
WHAT TO DO ABOUT JONATHIN 6

References

Board of Education Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley 458 U.S. 175 (1982).

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro 468 U.S. 883 (1984).

LT v. Warwick School Committee 361 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2004).

Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 343 F.Supp.

179 (E.D. Pa. 1972).