Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Amanda M. Burnside
Does a high school principal have the authority to turn away a student with a disability
based on expenses and only her view? Debbie Young previously served as a special education
teacher and an assistant principal at an affluent school district in the South before becoming
principal at her current high school. Young was approached by the parents of Jonathan, a student
with multiple disabilities. They were requesting that he attend a school in Young’s district.
Jonathan is in tenth grade, he is mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and a seizure
disorder. He would require constant care by a specially trained nurse while attending school.
Young responds to Jonathans parents by declining their request based off the extraordinary
expenses to the district and her view that the school is not the most appropriate placement for
Jonathan. Is Young’s decision defensible or do Jonathan’s parents have rights for their son to
In the court case of Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District
v. Rowley (1982) the courts ruled in favor of the school’s decision. Amy Rowley was a deaf
kindergarten student enrolled at a public school. Prior to her first year at the school her parents
met with administrators to determine what supplemental services would be necessary for her
education. At the start of the year Amy was provided with a sign-language interpreter. After the
first two weeks of the school year the interpreter reported that Amy was doing great and did not
feel that her services were needed. An IEP was created at that time, not including the interpreting
service, and Amy’s parents had objections to portions of the proposed IEP. They claimed that
without the interpreter that Amy would be denied educational opportunity. After the school took
the case to the Supreme Court the decision made by the first hearing was reversed and they
Portfolio Artifact #5 3
declared the school was not required to provide Amy with the interpreter. The court rejected the
Section 504 standard and found that the education Amy was receiving meet the FAPE
requirements. The court recognized that “appropriate” does not mean “best” in this case. Relating
it to the case Young may have is that a school in her district may be the “best” in the eyes of
Another court case which ruled in favor of the decision made by the school is
McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools Board of Education (2003). Emma McLaughlin had been
diagnosed with down syndrome and was receiving special education services since the age of
two months. During a meeting regarding Emma’s IEP everyone involved agreed that she would
fully participate in the general education kindergarten setting, which was half day. It was also
decided that she would receive special education classroom support for the second half of the
day. The disagreement came in the type of classroom that Emma should be placed in for the
second half of the day. The school felt that a categorical classroom would best suit Emma’s
needs, while her parents pushed for the resource room that was available at their neighborhood
school. The main reason Emma’s parents were pushing for the resource room for the second half
of the day is that placement in a categorical classroom would me she would have to attend a
different school that was not in her neighborhood. The court determined that the categorical
classroom was where Emma would be most likely to meet the goals of her IEP and would thus
be placed at a school that was not her neighborhood school. The regulations of the act do not
Young’s case, Jonathan’s educational needs might be better met at a school not within her
district.
Portfolio Artifact #5 4
In the case of Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972) the court ruled
in favor of the students with disabilities. This case is one that sparked a trend when it came to
states and school districts recognizing the rights of students with disabilities in a public education
environment. It was found that the school district in this case failed to fulfill their duty to provide
a publicly supported education for the “exceptional” students that were the plaintiffs in this case.
The students in this case had been excluded from a regular public-school environment and were
not given their right of due process based on the districts claim that they had insufficient funds to
support them. It was ordered that the District of Columbia will provide each child with a free and
suitable public education regardless of the degree of the child’s mental, physical, or emotional
disability or impairment. It was found that the defense of insufficient resources was not a valid
reason to exclude a student with a disability. Like in Jonathan’s case, Young’s excuse that having
Jonathan enrolled in her district would be an extraordinary expense would not be a valid reason
The case of Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (1999) in another case
in which the court ruled in favor of the student. Garret was an elementary school student whose
mental capacities where unaffected in a motorcycle accident but left him as a quadriplegic.
Garret was ventilator dependent and required continuous one-on-one nursing services. Up until
fifth grade his parents had paid for his necessary medical services. At Garret’s entrance to fifth
grade his mother requested that the district accept the financial responsibility for his health care
needs. The district did not believe they were legally obligated and denied the request. Under
IDEA Garret’s mother requested a due process hearing where it was determined by the court that
nursing services would be considered a “related service” and under IDEA the district must be
Portfolio Artifact #5 5
responsible to provide the funding. For Garret to remain at the school it was necessary for him to
receive these services. Comparing this case to Jonathan’s the district would be required to
provide an “related services” to enable him to receive an education at the enrolled school.
I believe that in the case of Jonathan, Young may have a defensible case. If her argument
does not focus on expenses and just on the most appropriate placement for Jonathan, her decision
may be valid. As we read in the case Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972)
insufficient funds is not a good enough reason to not provide free appropriate education to a
student no matter their disability. If Young can show that Jonathan attending a school in her
district would not be where he would receive the most appropriate education, her decision may
stand up in a court hearing. As in the case McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools Board of
Education (2003) it was decided that Emma could be sent to another school if it was more
appropriate in meeting the goals of her IEP. I believe that before making the decision that a
school in her district would not be the best placement for Jonathan and IEP should be written
laying out the goals and needs of the student. Only then can it be decided where Jonathan would
be able to receive the most appropriate and free public education available to him.
Portfolio Artifact #5 6