1

Special Education Considerations

How The Court Could Decide

Sarah Adams

College of Southern Nevada

 2

All students deserve to get the best education that they possibly can, even if it means

making some compromise along the way. The same can be said for those students who require a

special education that need extra amenities to achieve their potential like everyone else.

Seasoned high school principal, Debbie Young, served as a special education teacher and an

assistant principal in a school district in the South that was progressive and affluent. She was

approached by the parents of Jonathan, who was a severely disabled tenth grader, to possibly go

to one of the schools in her school district. However, Jonathan has a long list of disabilities that

include being mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, a seizure disorder, and has to be under

constant care from a highly specially trained nurse. Principal Young refused Jonathan’s parents’

request due to the heavy expenses of his education and thought that the school was not the best

fit for Jonathan. Was Principal Young’s decision properly defensible and did she handle the

situation in the best way?

Principle Debbie Young’s decision to refuse Jonathan’s parents’ request can be justified

with what her school district’s limitations are. Every school district has a budget and they have a

separate budget and funding for special education needs. In Jonathan’s case and considering how

extraneous his disabilities are, his education needs are highly expensive compared to those who

are also in the special education program. In the court case Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson

Central Sch. Dist. Westchester County v Rowley, the Education for All Handicapped Children

Act states that all students with handicapped disabilities should receive a free education while the

state uses their federal funding to cover the rest. Mental retardation was included in this, but so

was an IEP form. The student and school can not receive the monetary benefits without an IEP,
 3

but expenses could still be too high for funding to cover. Principal Young herself said that the

expenses of his education were simply too expensive and although the case fails to provide

information about her school district’s budget, that is most likely why she denied his acceptance

to her school.

Another contributing factor that could have lead to Principal Young making her decision

is Jonathan’s IEP form. While the case lists his disabilities, there may be more that were not

included on the IEP form or the information that was provided was not detailed enough for the

school to know what they needed to get in order to provide Jonathan with a good education. An

insufficient IEP form might have lead Principal Young to say no to his parents. Another theory

that lead her to make that decision is that after looking at his IEP form and realizing the expenses

his education would cost, that when she brought this to Jonathan’s parents, they were not willing

to compromise to make ends meet. Principal Young may have worried that Jonathan’s parents

would still have him to go to a school in her district like the parents in the Burlington Sch.

Comm. v Mass. Dept. of Edu. did, where the ultimate outcome was that the school district still

had to pay for the students’ special education even though the student decided to attend another

school that had better benefits. The bottom line is that someone is still going to have to pay for

the students’ special education whether it be the school district or the student's’ parents.

Principal Debbie Young’s decision could be considered completely out of line since she

is out right refusing giving an education to a special needs child who has the desire to learn.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is a civil rights law that clearly states that educational

institutions that receive federal financial assistance can not discriminate the deliverance of

programs, activities, employment, or access to facilities to those with special needs. By Principal
 4

Young refusing the parents’ request, she was technically discriminating Jonathan because of his

expensive needs and was not willing to work with the parents to make a plan. In PARC v.

Commonwealth, the District Court Judge came to the conclusion that “no child eligible for a

publicly supported education could be denied such education without an equal alternative

tailored to the child’s needs.” In Jonathan’s case, Debbie Young did not provide an alternative at

all for his special education needs, making his parents upset. The PARC case also argued that the

sooner a student can receive a special education, the more beneficial it will be to the student in

the future.

Another argument that could be pressed with Jonathan’s case is that Principal Young

violated Jonathan’s LRE (Least Restrictive Environment Act). This act states that a child should

not be removed from a regular classroom unless the severity of a disability interferes with the

child’s ability to successfully achieve getting an education. Yes, Jonathan’s numerous disabilities

made it more difficult for him to achieve an education, but he was still eager and wanting to

learn and Principal Young took that opportunity away from him the second she refused to let him

go to school in her school district. Because of her decision, Jonathan may have to be put in a

“special” classroom instead of a regular classroom setting, taking away his traditional learning

experience that students without disabilities would normally have. The IDEA (Individuals with

Disabilities Education Improvement Act) has five principles that Debbie Young should have

considered before rejecting Jonathan in her school district. These include a right to free

education, nondiscriminating evaluation, individualized education program, least restrictive

environment, and procedural due process, most of which she did not consider or follow. Based

on this information, Sacremento v. Rachel violated Rachel Holland’s IDEA rights by trying to
 5

put her into a lower level class that did not best suit her needs. Special education students thrive

when they have individualized support as well as exposure to regular classes that non special

education students have and Principle Young was not even willing to let Jonathan attend a school

in her school district so he could find out for himself if that was what was best for him

personally.

All in all, Principal Debbie Young out right refused an education to a special needs

student because his needs were supposedly too expensive for her school district to afford. While

every school district has a budget and can only receive so much federal funding, she should have

been able to contact surrounding school districts to see if they could afford to have Jonathan

attend there. Principal Young did not follow the acts and laws that have been put into place so

discrimination of those special education students are protected and can still receive the same

education that everyone else receives. Her decision was out of line and was not putting the

students’ needs first and was not willing to give any alternative suggestions to the parents to

make sure Jonathan could still achieve an education. Because of this, Jonathan should still be

able to attend a school in her district, but perhaps a private school that receives slightly different

funding would be the best fit for him.

 6

Reference Page

BURLINGTON SCHOOL COMM. v. MASS. DEPT. OF ED., No. 84-433 (US Supreme Court

April 29 1985) ​FindLaw, For Legal Professionals

HENDRICK HUDSON DIST. BD. OF ED. v. ROWLEY, No. 80-1002 (Supreme Court June 28

1982) ​FindLaw, For Legal Professionals

Important Court Cases In Special Education “Methods and Materials in Special Education”

Northern Arizona University

PARC v. Commonwealth. 343 F. Supp. 279; 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13874 ​Rooted in Rights

SACRAMENTO CITY SCHOOL DIST. v. RACHEL H., 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994)

KidsTogether.org