Running head: PORTFOLIO 5 1

Portfolio 5

Jordan Lee Marzka

College of Southern Nevada

PORTFOLIO 5 2

Portfolio 5

Parents of a severely disabled 10th grade student named Jonathan have come too Debbie

young a seasoned high school principal, so that they can have their son attend a school in the

district. Mrs. Young Refuses the parents request due to extraordinary expense and of the view

that the school is not the most appropriate placement for Jonathan. Miss young served as a

special education teacher and an assistant principal at a progressive, affluent school district in the

South. Jonathan has multiple disabilities requiring constant care by a specially trained nurse. He

has spastic quadriplegia and has a seizure disorder.

The first argument that miss young is in the wrong would be the Mills v. Washington DC

Board of education. The court ruled that students with disabilities must be given a public

education even if the students are unable to pay for the cost of the education. In saying this, that

means no matter the Cost of giving the child the education they need and deserve does not have a

definitive dollar amount behind it. So, when Mrs. Young stated that it is too expensive to house

Jonathan for teaching purposes, she would be found wrong due to this case.

Another case against Mrs. Young’s statement would be the Irving Independent School

district verse Tatro. In the Supreme Court devised a three-part test to determine whether the

school district is required to provide a particular service to a student as a related service. Mrs.

young did not even start this three-part process. So, by saying no outright automatically puts her

in the wrong, because she did not start the process in any which way.

One case in Mrs. Youngs favor would be LT v. Warwick School Committee in which it is

found that that IDEA Does not require schools to provide the most services and programs

available. In stating this it can be argued that Mrs. Young knew her school did not have The
PORTFOLIO 5 3

proper services or tools to properly care for Jonathan so she told the parents no, so that Jonathan

can go to another school to seek a better education with the proper educational equipment.

A second case to argue Mrs. Young was correct to dismiss the parents would be The

Board of Education v. Rowley In which the court stated that a free appropriate public education

did not mean an appropriate opportunity to achieve full potential commensurate With the

opportunity provided to other children but rather access to specialized instruction and related

services which are designed to provide educational benefit to the handicapped child. All that to

say Mrs. Young could have known her school couldn’t provide the best facility for Jonathan so

she dismissed them so he could find a better school to house his education.

In conclusion, I believe that Mrs. Young was in the wrong for telling jonathans parents

no. She had no right to just dismiss them due to the financial burden. She should have the child’s

interest at heart rather than worrying about money. The court cases also presented reflect my

opion in the sense that no child should be abounded to a lesser education due to a disability.
PORTFOLIO 5 4

References

Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)

Irving ISD v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984)

LT v. WARWICK SCHOOL COMMITTEE No. 03-1988. (2004)

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866, 877-78 (D.D.C. 1972)

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: concepts and applications. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.