CLC - When a Student’s Rights are Wronged Case Analysis, Rationale

Alexia Kunkle, Curt Mccollum, Gabriel Gonzalez, Nicole Olnhausen, Tanner LaTour

Grand Canyon University

EAD-505: Education Law

Reid Amones

August 11, 2021

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 1 of 6

Part 1: Case Analysis

Nottingham High School is a single high school in a district with several feeder

elementary and middle schools. The superintendent has created an atmosphere of support in the

district to include the community, staff, and students. The high school is known for its strong

football program and, since it was built in the 1950s, some needed updates are required and

ongoing. Roughly one-quarter of the school remains without modern updates that would bring it

into compliance. The district lacks funding to complete these remaining renovations.

Miguel Hernandez is a talented football player whose family moved to the district

specifically to take part in the sports programs. Heartbreakingly, Miguel is seriously injured

while serving as the quarterback of the team and now requires wheelchair and wheelchair access

at school. Miguel returns to school with a hero's welcome and is later informed by the guidance

counselor that he has been moved from a college preparatory Biology course to a science course

that will count towards graduation, but does not meet the requirements for most college

admissions.

The next day, Miguel's mother had a meeting with the principal, asked why Miguel was

being excluded from Biology, expressed that she wanted him reinstated, and explained that the

alternate course would not meet university admissions criteria. Later in the meeting, Miguel's

father arrived with Miguel's attorney who asked the principal if he was aware of the

ramifications under Section 504 of denying Miguel access to courses due to a disability.

(Hanson, 2009, p. 146 - 148).

Miguel is a student with a physical disability (wheelchair access needed) who is being

denied access to a biology course needed for college admissions. The question that the school

will face from legal challenge would be is the school is within its rights to alter Miguel's

schedule due to lack of facilities. Although this case impacts Miguel and Miguel's parents, it also

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 2 of 6

has far-reaching implications for the school counselor, teacher, Principal, Superintendent, and

the community at large. Cases such as Miguel's set precedent not only legally (if legal action is

required), they also inform the organization's decision-making moving forward. Further, given

the relative expense of the remediation that Nottingham High School may need to provide to

meet Miguel's needs, the entire community will have a stake in what happens with this case.

Tough decisions might need to be made regarding other programming/activities. Other activities

could be in jeopardy.

Section 504 guarantees equal access to education regardless of a student's disability

status. Schools must supply necessary accommodations and/or modifications to ensure this

access and provide free and appropriate education (FAPE). The American’s with Disabilities Act

and IDEA expressly require all federally funded schools to be wheelchair accessible under the

Act’s accessible section. (Americans With Disabilities Act, 1990) Court cases helpful in guiding

decision making include Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F. This case

highlights the court’s findings that include the requirement for school districts to fund

accommodations or modifications that are related to a student’s ability to access equal

educational opportunity. (Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. (n.d.)) These

mandates can necessitate large outlays of capital for local education authorities.

Depending on state and local regulations, community funds and volunteer labor can be

used to make alterations to simple structures (wheelchair ramp). Other structural changes like

widening passageways and doorways would most likely need engineering plans, cost estimates,

and school board approval.

Possible solutions to the case are all based on the fact that the school did not have the

foresight to anticipate Miguel’s needs and work with leadership, the school governing body, the

parents, Miguel himself, and the community. Some potential solutions follow:

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 3 of 6

 a. Ignore parent concerns and proceed with the plan to switch Miguel to a new class
in an accessible classroom. Prepare for a legal challenge by Miguel's attorney.
b. If possible, locate a different classroom for the science class that is accessible to
wheelchairs and move the Biology class there.
c. The principal should immediately include the superintendent regarding the
situation. Superintendent should immediately begin plans for remediation and
school board approval preferably on the remaining 25% of the school, but most
importantly on the areas of the school that Miguel will need to utilize from a
wheelchair.

At this point in the situation, the school has no choice but to begin a remediation plan in

the most expeditious way possible. Re-locating the Biology classroom to an accessible location

would solve the immediate problem (denying Miguel FAPE), however, the school must look at

the remaining steps to bring the school up to code. This would undoubtedly include an

emergency school board meeting to determine how to allocate money for the remaining

remediation tasks in the school.

Part 2: Rationale

Based on Miguel’s case analysis, the main issue is that the school lacked a plan for

accommodating students with disabilities. Nottingham High School did not anticipate the needs

of the student to ensure he went on with his education irrespective of his conditions. The

identified solutions include ignoring the concerns of Miguel’s parents, proceeding to take the

student to a new class while preparing for a legal challenge with Hernandez's attorney. If the

school’s administration adopts this approach, it may lose the case leading to high litigation costs.

Section 504 requires all students to have access to education despite the student’s disability

status. The school’s response to this case will also reach the public. For years, Nottingham High

has maintained high performance in academics and sports and it is the main reason Miguel’s

parents chose the school. The legal case could damage the image the school has built for

decades.

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 4 of 6

 The second solution involves locating a different classroom and moving the biology class

there to ensure easy accessibility by wheelchair. This decision acknowledges that the

administration acted wrongly when they changed Miguel’s to a new science class, therefore,

denying him an opportunity to join college. It also demonstrates the school’s willingness to

accommodate Miguel’s needs. It offers the student democracy to choose school courses and

future career needs. Also, it shows the commitment of the institution to upholding diversity and

equity, which are some of its values. This is a short-term solution, which will see the student

back to Biology class, satisfy the parents, and withdraw the possible legal case. The principal

will have met PESL 1.5 standard on ensuring every decision aligns with the mission, vision, and

values of the school, including democracy, equity, and diversity (National Policy Board for

Educational Administration, 2015).

The third solution is to engage the superintendent regarding the issue. The administrator

should begin a remediation plan. He or she should seek the approval of the school board to

modify the rest of the school infrastructure to allow students with disabilities to access the school

facilities effortlessly. Implementing these modifications will help bring the institution up to the

tenets of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This will be a long-term solution and it

will demonstrate the principal's competence in upholding ELCC 5.5, which promotes social

justice (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2011). The decision will ensure

the institution upholds social justice and all schooling aspects are informed by students’ needs.

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 5 of 6

 References

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990).

https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm

Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved August 10, 2021,

from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/96-1793

Hanson, K. L. (2009). A casebook for school leaders: Linking the ISLLC standards to effective

practice. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional Standards for

Educational Leaders (PSEL). https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-

center/Documents/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders-2015.pdf

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) (2011). Educational

Leadership Program Standards: 2011 ELCC District Level. https://www.npbea.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/09/ELCC-District-Level-Standards-2011.pdf

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 6 of 6