Running head: ARTIFACT 5

Artifact 5

Shari Wilder

College of Southern Nevada

Artifact 5 2

A seasoned high school principal, Debbie Young, was a special education and an

assistant principal in a developing, well- off school district in the south. Parents of a severely

disabled tenth grade student, Jonathan, with many disabilities could attend one of the schools in

the district. He needs to be cared by a specially trained nurse. He is severely mentally disabled—

he has spastic quadriplegia and has a seizure. Young does not allow the request to extraordinary

expense and a view that the school was not the most suitable place for him.

In the case, Johnson Johnson v Special Education Hearing Office State of California

Rec Dlb, Johnson parents couldn’t agree on a suitable plan for Johnson for his IEP. (“Johnson

Johnson v Special Education Hearing Office State of California Rec Dlb,” 2002). It’s a pro that

young didn’t allow Jonathan to attend one of the schools. With Jonathan having his disabilities,

his family and school would have to come up with a plan on and how everything would be

accommodated. This can put a burden on teachers, as well as students when Johnathan’s needs

come before theirs.

In the case, Mitchell v. Special Education Joint Agreement School District No 208,

Mitchell has Down’s syndrome, extremely mentally delayed, is not able to speak, and his hearing

is very impaired. He needs help with all of his daily functions, including with his meals. His

mom told the school and teachers of how to prepare his food; instead, Mitchell ended up choking

on food at school (“Mitchell v. Special Education Joint Agreement School District No 208,”

2008). It’s pro that Young rejected Johnathan to attend one of the schools, even though the

teachers are aware of his disabilities. His seizures were something that could happen that would
Artifact 5 3

be out of their hands. His parents may want to sue them if something, happened to him, even

though they had no control over the situation.

Although there are some pros with the decision refusing Jonathan to attend one of the

schools, there are some cons on the other side of the argument. In the case, Tri County Special

Education Local Plan v. County Tuolumne, the duty to provide mental health services to

handicapped students is an appeal that involves somewhat novel questions of exhaustion of

administrative remedies in the context of disputes between governmental agencies (“Tri County

Special Education Local Plan v. County Tuolumne,” 2004). Even though Jonathan has some

disabilities, there are ways of working with him. Young was once a special education teacher

who knows how much students with disabilities have needs and deserves the same opportunities

any other student receives.

In the case, Muller Muller v. Committee on Special Education Of East Islip Union

Free School District, Muller parents believed she qualified for benefits under the Individuals

with Disabilities Education (“Muller Muller v. Committee on Special Education Of East Islip

Union Free School District,” 1998). Jonathan’s parents know how well the schools are in the

district and want him to get the best care and education, as any parent would like for their child.

Just because a child has disabilities, doesn’t mean they do not see when they are being

discriminated.

I disagree with Young rejecting Johnathan to attend one of the schools. I am sure there

are many schools that will accommodate to Johnathan and to many other students with
Artifact 5 4

disabilities. Special education teachers have been through the trainings to have students with

disabilities like Johnathan. Every student deserves the right to have the opportunity to get the

education they want. As in the case Muller Muller v. Committee on Special Education Of

East Islip Union Free School District (“Muller Muller v. Committee on Special Education Of

East Islip Union Free School District,” 1998).

Artifact 5 5

References

Johnson Johnson v Special Education Hearing Office State of California Rec Dlb. (n.d).

Findlaw. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1411707.html

Mitchell v. Special Education Joint Agreement School District No 208. (n.d). Findlaw. Retrieved

from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1606674.html

Muller Muller v. Committee on Special Education of East Islip Union Free School District. (n.d).

Findlaw. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1011320.html

Tri County Special Education Local Plan v. County Tuolumne. (n.d). Findlaw. Retrieved from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1259106.html