Running head: EDU 210 ARTIFACT #5 1

Ch. 8 Portfolio Artifact #5

Melquisedec Velazquez

College of Southern Nevada

EDU 210 ARTIFACT #5 2

Ch. 8 Portfolio Artifact #5

The principal at a high school in the south named Debbie Young was a former special

education and assistant principal in a progressive affluent school district. The parents of a tenth

grader named Jonathan that has very severe disability requested that he attends one of those

schools in the district. Principal Young denied the request because she claims that the expenses

are extraordinary and has a view that the school is not the most appropriate placement for

Jonathan. Jonathan has a variety of disabilities, and always needs care. He is mentally disabled,

has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. The question is raised if her decision is

defensible.

Her decision is not defensible, she violates the fundamental laws established to protect

children from being denied an appropriate free education. Jonathan is a student in need of

education life any other student, but she is not allowing him in her school. During the land mark

case of Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1971

(Pubinlaw.org) the PARC sued the Common wealth for denying the education of a student that

has not achieved the reached the mental age of 5 by the time they become 8 years of age. The

final ruling resulted in that restricting children education from ages 6 to 21 was unconstitutional.

This case helped spark the topic of getting kids with disabilities an appropriate education. Debbie

Young was in the wrong for denying Jonathan at her school. Just like in the case in 1971

principal Young should be forced to comply with the parent’s requests.

The school cannot deny Jonathan the right to attend that school. The principal Debbie

Young said that the cost would be way too much to have Jonathan at their school. The services

that Jonathan would need at that school would fall into related services. Under IDEA the school

is required to pay for these related services. In the court case of Cedar Rapids Independent
EDU 210 ARTIFACT #5 3

School Dist. v. Garrett F. 1999 a quadriplegic student required costly one on one nursing

services. The school district refused to pay, so they went to court. The outcome was that the

school had to pay because IDEA states that schools must pay for all related services. The same

goes for Jonathan, and they cannot deny him an education at that school due to it being too

expensive for them.

The Principals decision is defensible because the setting for Jonathan is not the most

appropriate location for his education. With professional evaluation Principal Debbie can back

up her statement for not allowing Jonathan at the school. In the court case of Beth B. v. Clay

2002 (Caselaw.findlaw) a student was placed in a self-contained classroom, and the parents did

not approve of it and tried to sue. They were unsuccessful because the school had enough

evidence that a regular classroom was not suitable for the disability. In Jonathan’s case his

disabilities can prove to be too severe to be placed at Principal Young’s high school. With expert

evaluations her decision to not take in Jonathan can be backed up.

Principal Debbie Young has no bad intention when she denied Jonathan of education at

her school. Principal Young just wants Jonathan to get the best education possible. She feels like

her school is not the least restrictive environment for him. She can prove that thanks to court case

Sacramento City Unified School Dist. v. Holland 1992 (Dredf.org). This case established

requirements for putting a student in the appropriate setting. If Jonathan proves to be unfit for the

high school his parent’s claims can be denied because he is not getting the best possible

placement, and can cause effect the kids at the high school.

I personally feel like the principal made the correct decision. Her decision is based on the

fact that she want him to have the best quality care, and if her school is not the place for that to

happen then she does not want him there. His disabilities are very severe and require extra
EDU 210 ARTIFACT #5 4

attention for his safety, and safety of others. Court cases like Beth B. v. Clay 2002

(Caselaw.findlaw) helped establish these rules to help better students with disabilities.
EDU 210 ARTIFACT #5 5

References

Beth B. v. Clay United States Seventh Circuit case a Find Laws United States Snd opinions.

(n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2018, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-

circuit/1250134.html

Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garrett F. United States Supreme Court case and

opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2018, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-

supreme-court/526/66.html

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania | The

Public Interest Law Center. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2018, from

https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/pennsylvania-association-for-retarded-

citizens-parc-v-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania/

Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rachel H. (2017, February 21). Retrieved

February 26, 2018, from https://dredf.org/1994/06/13/sacramento-city-unified-sch-dist-

bd-of-educ-v-rachel-h/