1

Jake Anderson

Portfolio 5

College of Southern Nevada

March 4, 2020
 2

Special education is one of the lesser talked about aspects of education if it’s not

something you experience personally. Each student has a right to be educated, even those who

may have a harder time learning due to physical or mental disabilities they have. A tenth grade

student named Jonathon was denied his right to public education however. Jonathon’s parents

went to a local school and asked the principal, and former special education teacher, Debbie

Young. Young based her denial of enrolling Jonathan in the school because he has multiple

disabilities, those being spastic quadriplegia and a seizure disorder along with a profound

mental disability, that would require constant attention from a specially trained nurse. Young

states enrolling Jonathan would require too much financial investment and that the school is

not the most appropriate environment for Jonathan. Let’s take a look at this situation through

the eyes of a courtroom and see how special education works in regards to the law, and what

my thoughts are on the issue.

Jonathan has a lot of legal support behind him based on laws, acts, and previous court

decisions that have all tried to make public education as good as it possibly can be for disabled

students. Looking at only the court cases, there are two should be highlighted, those being

P.A.R.C. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School

District (2017). Beginning with P.A.R.C. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972), this case

involved 14 kids who have disabilities and were denied a public education because of their

disabilities. An attorney at the Pennsylvania Association for Retarted Children (P.A.R.C.)

represented the group of children and used the somewhat recent case of Brown v. Board of

Education (1954) as his main defense. The reason the school was allowed to deny students an

education in the first place was due to a law in Pennsylvania that stated schools are allowed to
 3

exclude students who “have not reached a mental age of five” by the time they would normally

be enrolling in the first grade. Once the case reached the District Court of Pennsylvania, the

three judges decided that all mentally retarded people can benefit from a program of education

and that it was the Commonwealth’s responsibility to place every mentally retarded chid into a

free public program of education appropriate to the child’s capacity (The Right to Education.

n.d.).

This ruling would apply perfectly to Jonathan’s situation because the school cannot

refuse him a public education, which is what his parents wanted. Principal Young has no ground

to outright deny Jonathan’s parents his right to a public education. The next case expands on

this ruling, focusing on the quality of the education provided.

Having the opportunity for education is great and all, but some parents and students felt

that they weren’t getting as much out of the education as they’d like. This was the basis for the

case Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017). Endrew went through preschool to the

fourth grade as a special education student who had autism and ADHD which limited his

learning and social abilities. One of the requirements with special education students is that

each one has an individualized education plan (IEP) which discusses how the school will help

build and develop skills for that child, IEPs are updated each year or at the request of the

parents or school. When Endrew reached fifth grade, his IEP was updated and provided for the

parents to review, to which they rejected. The parents felt that the school failed to report on

Endrew’s progress, and what his current needs were. When the case reached the United States

Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, the three judge panel concurred with the parents saying

that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires schools to provide an IEP that
 4

has adequately assessed the students ability to progress based on their current circumstances.

Though the court did not define what makes for an adequate IEP, because that would depend

on the student and their circumstances (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. n.d.).

This case would apply to Jonathan’s situation because the parents and school, and

others that are required during an IEP meeting, should have at least attempted to make an IEP

for Jonathan and see if the school could reasonably help Jonathan develop any skills. Again,

Young should not have outright denied Jonathan and education without any regard to how he

would be as a student at the school and what they could provide for Jonathan’s education.

Despite the vast amount of legal support behind Jonathan, there are a couple cases that could

argue against him.

The first case in the schools defense is Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson

Central School District v. Rowley (1982). This case arose when Furnace Woods School refused to

provide Amy Rowley, a deaf student, a sign language interpreter. The school reasoned,

alongside a sign language expert, that Rowley had great lip reading recognition and minimal

residual hearing, meaning that Rowley was capable of being successful in school without an

interpreter. Rowley’s parents sued based on a violation of the Education of All Handicapped

Children Act which requires schools to provide a free and appropriate public education to all

handicapped students, even if they have to use federal funds. Lower courts favored Rowley

saying that the school was not allowing her to reach her full potential academically since she

was unable to fully understand what was being taught without an interpreter, despite her

ability to do well without one. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court which reversed

that decision in a 6-3 vote saying that the Act does not require a school to provide an
 5

interpreter to a deaf student if that student is already being provided personalized instruction

and an adequate education. Going on to say that schools have the right to determine what is

required to meet a handicapped students needs (Board of Ed. v. Rowley n.d.).

This ruling helps the school because it allows them to determine what needs are

required for disabled children, giving merit to Young’s refusal to enroll Jonathan. Being a former

special education teacher, Young likely had a fair idea of how much would be required to

educate Jonathan at her school, and knew that the school may not be the best place for

Jonathan to be educated. This case could also be used to help the school because if Young did

enroll Jonathan in the school, then he may not need the extreme amount of care that was

proposed, as long as he is not endangered and still receiving an adequate education for his

capabilities.

There is one case that tremendously helps the schools argument, which is the case

Detsel v. Auburn Enl. City School District Board of Education (1987). There aren’t many specifics

on Melissa Detsel’s conditions, but according to the United States Court of Appeals Second

Circuit, which is the court that heard the case, she would need a full time staff member that is

trained to constantly monitor her respiratory status and help her with physical needs while she

is at school. Elaborating that Detsel’s service would require at least a licensed practical nurse,

and not by a regular school nurse that also has to attend to other children. This was something

that Detsel’s side of the court recognized those facts, and I believe the court ruled against them

because of it (United States Court of Appeals n.d.).

Despite the lack of information I was able to find on this case, assuming the court did

rule against the Detsel’s the ruling would work just the same in Jonathan’s case because
 6

Jonathan would require a specially trained nurse like Young told the parents. Young is aware of

the capabilities of the special education teachers and nurses and realized that Jonathan would

need more care than what her staff is capable of. Young might have been saving both parties

the trouble of enrolling Jonathan because the staff likely would not have been able to provide a

good enough education to Jonathan, which would spare the parents from the headache of

fighting with the school to provide Jonathan the education they feel he deserves.

Now that both sides have better arguments behind them, I will provide my thoughts on

the case. Personally, I would have liked Young to at least provide an IEP meeting for Jonathan. I

mentioned IEP meetings once but I didn’t go in depth as to not take away from the arguments,

an IEP meeting is where the parents, student, a special education teacher, a representative

from the school district, and a psychologist or other specialist to analyze the students

evaluation and results. You can also invite someone who knows your child’s needs like a

pediatrician or other health care provider. IEP meetings are meant to develop the individual

education plan for the student and set the goals for the student to reach that year. This is what

I feel Young should have offered at least, a sit down with everyone and a discussion if the

school can adequately provide Jonathan an education. Young should have made an effort to

work with the parents rather than immediately refusing them. I do lean slightly towards

favoring the parents because Jonathan has a right to be publicly educated, and the school has

the means to provide it for him even if they have to use federal funds.
 7

Works Cited

Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley. (n.d.). Oyez.

Retrieved March 4, 2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1002

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2020, from

https://ballotpedia.org/Endrew_F._v._Douglas_County_School_District

The Right to Education. (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2020, from

https://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-education/

United States Court of Appeals. (n.d.). DETSEL v. AUBURN ENL. CIT: 820 F.2d 587 (1987).

Retrieved March 4, 2020, from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/19871407820f2d58711288