1

Portfolio #5

Artifact #5

Young v Jonathan

Cody Koslowski

College of Southern Nevada

April 15th, 2019

2
Portfolio #5

Debbie Young is seasoned high school principal in affluent school district in the South.

She served as a special education teacher and as an assistant principal at this progressive school

and was approached by the parents of a severely disabled tenth-grade student named Jonathan.

Sadly, Jonathan has multiple disabilities requiring constant care by a specially trained nurse

because he is profoundly disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. Seeing

how it would be an extraordinary expense to the school, and with the view that this school was

not the most appropriate placement for Jonathan, Young refused the parents request.

My first case in support of Jonathan is Mills v Washington DC Board of Education

(1972). This case was a great feat for Special Education and influenced the betterment of it

because there were seven students being denied their right to free public education and won this

case. In the case the children were expelled or denied admission because of behavioral problems,

mental retardation, emotional disturbances, or hyperactivity. The school district offered no

alternative education placement and the children were also denied a review. It was difficult to

estimate how many students were not receiving an education because of this and one of the

students was Peter Mills who was 12 years old and was excluded from elementary school due to

a supposed behavior problem. Mills won the case and it was the Board of Education’s

responsibility to carry out the education system according to law. This benefits Jonathan because

Principal Young is denying him from receiving an education due to condition. Jonathan should

receive a review before being deemed unfit or unable to receive his right to a free public

education. Principal Young didn’t do that, she just denied him before that and that is not the

correct way to do it.

3
Portfolio #5

My second case to support Jonathan is PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971).

In this case there was a law in Pennsylvania that allowed public schools to deny education to

certain children. The state had consistently used this law to deny education to students who were

considered too burdensome to integrate into the school and classroom environments. The PARC

challenged these laws around the country and their base argument was that all children can

benefit from a program of education and training. The absence of education leads to negative

consequences for the development of children. The PARC argued that with education their

children could eventually attain some level of self-care and the earlier they receive it the more it

would benefit them. This would benefit Johnathan because it argues that Jonathan should be

admitted into the school, so he can learn and one day be able to have some sort of self-care

instead of always having a nurse to be with him. This case is important in his defense because no

matter what the law is now that the State has to provide free education to all children between the

ages of six and twenty-one years old.

My first case in support of Principal Young is Dale M. Board of Education of Bradley

Bourbonnais High School (2001). In this case, Dale is a 14-year-old student and has a serious

disciplinary problem. he was placed in a “therapeutic day school” designed to deal with

disruptive and truant students, but in his first four months he attended school only 20 days,

though when he did attend, he behaved himself, did the assigned work, and got good grades. he

school district wanted to send Dale back to the therapeutic day school. Instead, his mother, with

whom he was living (his parents are divorced), obtained Dale's release from jail and placed him

in a residential school, the Elan School, in Maine. She demanded that the school district pay for

Dale's attending Elan, as otherwise he would not be getting the free appropriate public education

to which he was entitled. The court ruled that the school only needs to provide what is critically
4
Portfolio #5

needed for the student and not was wanted by the parents. In the case of Jonathan his nurse is not

critically needed for him to get an education, so the school should not have to pay for it because

they are not responsible for it. Jonathan should be going to a school that caters his every need

and somewhere where he would not be a burden in the classroom.

My second case in support of Principal Young is Board of Education v Rowley (1982). In

this case it was ruled that school administrators are allowed to determine what is required to meet

a handicapped student individual need. The Act does not require a school to provide a sign

language interpreter to a deaf student when she is otherwise receiving personalized instruction

and an adequate education. In the case of Principal Young, the school cannot properly supply

what Jonathan would need and it’s something that Jonathan has to have. He should be attending

a school that can provide him with an appropriate amount of care, so he can get a good

education.

I believe that what Principal Young did wasn’t the right way to do things, she was right in

doing so. Jonathans need are too high to be attending a high school that is not suited for his

needs. Jonathan is a very special case so Principal Young’s decision is defensible. The fact that

Jonathan must always have constant care by a specially trained nurse it would be something the

school could not afford. That expense alone would be something huge for the school and it is

something they do not have to provide. Jonathan should be attending a school that should be able

to attend to his every need and somewhere that can provide the care he needs.
5
Portfolio #5

Britannica, T. E. (2014, September 23). Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central

School District v. Rowley. Retrieved April 15, 2019, from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Board-of-Education-of-the-Hendrick-Hudson-Central-

School-District-v-Rowley

FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2019,

from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1363362.html

Mills v. Board of Education and its effect on the field of Special Education. (n.d.). Retrieved

April 15, 2019, from https://cmcglynnportfolio.weebly.com/mills-v-board-of-education-and-its-

effect-on-the-field-of-special-eduction.html

PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education, DC. (2013,

December 06). Retrieved April 15, 2019, from https://www.rootedinrights.org/15321-

revision-v1/