Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

SPECIAL

EDUCATION 1

Running head: SPECIAL EDUCATION PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT 5

SPECIAL EDUCATION PORTFLOLIO ARTIFACT 5

Caitlyn Gormley

College of Southern Nevada


SPECIAL EDUCATION 2

Special Education Portfolio Artifact 5

Parents of Jonathan, a severely disabled tenth grade student, are hoping to get him

enrolled in school. Jonathan requires constant care due to him having spastic quadriplegia and a

seizure disorder. They approach Debbie Young, a high school principal. Young formerly worked

in progressive school district as a special education teacher and an assistant principal. She denied

the parent’s request because enrolling Jonathan would cause a huge expense to the school district

and also felt that school is not the best place for him.

In the case of Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Common Wealth of

Pennsylvania (1972), multiple school-aged children were denied an education because of an

intellectual disability. The court decided that any law preventing children between the ages of six

and twenty-one from attending school was unconstitutional. Seeing as Jonathan is school-aged,

he should not be denied the opportunity to go to school. States are required to provide free public

education to students, no matter of their disability. They are required to provide the best

education they can for students, keeping in mind any disabilities.

Similarly, in the case of Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District

v. Rowley (1982), deaf student, Amy Rowley, was provided a hearing aid and tutor from school.

Her parents also wanted the school to provide an interpreter, but the school refused. In this case,

the court decided that schools do not have to provide the best education to students. They just

have to provide what is reasonable and necessary. For Jonathan, seeing as the school cannot

discriminate because of a disability, they have to provide what is reasonable for him to obtain an

education. They do not have to provide every little thing he needs, but they do have to provide a

reasonable amount.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 3

On the contrary, in the case of School Committee of the Town of Burlington v.

Department of Education of Massachusetts (1985), disabled student, Michael Panico was not

performing well at school. After meeting with school and outside officials, his parents decided to

place him into a private school that was believed to better serve his needs. The parents felt the

school district should cover the costs of the education at the private school, but the town felt

different because the parents decided to enroll him in private education rather than try the

adjusted IEP. The court decided that the Education of Handicapped Act allows for

reimbursement costs for a private education, but only if the private education is the best option

for the student. Since the school had a plan in place to take care of the student, the parent’s

choice to enroll in private school instead was not necessarily covered. Connecting to Young, her

decision to deny Jonathan’s enrollment could be justified if there really is a different school to

better take care of his needs. The parents could enroll in private education, with the costs

reimbursed, if the public school system could not meet the reasonable need for Jonathan. In this

case, since there is a better match for Jonathan, Young would not be discriminating him because

of his disabilities.

Lastly, in the case of Southeastern Community College v. Davis (1979), Francis Davis,

hearing disabled, was trying to be admitted to Southeastern Community College. The school

denied her application because of her disability. The court found that this did not violate her

rights within Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because her disability prevented her from

being otherwise qualified. If Jonathan’s disabilities were so severe that he could not benefit from

being enrolled in public education, Young would be right to turn his family away. As she

mentions, some other place would be better to serve his needs if the school could not provide the
SPECIAL EDUCATION 4

minimum of what was necessary. If his disabilities prevented him from obtaining any kind of

benefit, then the money the school would spend to take care of his needs would not be necessary.

All in all, there are a large amount of court cases that declare that schools cannot

discriminate because of a disability. No matter the disability, schools cannot turn school-aged

children away from receiving any type of an education. As displayed in Board of Education of

Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982) and Pennsylvania Association for

Retarded Children v. Common Wealth of Pennsylvania (1972), there are multiple laws in place

that require schools to provide what is reasonable and necessary for students to attend school.

They do not have to make sure the student receives the best possible education; they just have to

make sure they are obtaining the best education that fits with the student’s disability and learning

capabilities. Schools must provide IEPs and other accommodations to make sure the students are

taken care of. With all of these court cases in mind, it is evident the court will make their

decision on the side of Jonathan’s family.


SPECIAL EDUCATION 5

References

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

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F.

Supp. 179 (E.D. Pa. 1972)

School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471

U.S. 359 (1985)

Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979)

S-ar putea să vă placă și