Running Head: ARTIFACT #5 1

Artifact Number 5

Cecilia Noorda

EDU 210

February 26, 2018

Artifact #5 2

Debbie Young, an experienced high school principle, is under the hot seat for turning

away a severely disabled student trying to attend her school. Debbie Young once served as a

special education teacher and served as an assistant principal at an affluent southern school.

Johnathan is a tenth-grade student that has multiple disabilities, including a profound mental

disorder, spastic quadriplegia, and a seizure disorder that requires him to have constant care by a

specially trained nurse. Debbie Young refused to have Johnathan at his school due to the

expenses, and the believe that her school was not the most appropriate setting for Johnathan.

To support their case, the family may use the case of Cedar Rapids Independent School

District v. Garrett F (1999). Garret F. was involved in a motorcycle accident when he was four

years old, and as a result he was left quadriplegic and required a ventilator. During the school

day, Garrett required a personal nurse that could help him with his health care needs. From

kindergarten to fourth grade, Garret’s family supplied the nurse, however, come fifth grade his

mother asked the school board to supply the needed nurse. The school board refused. After going

to court, it was ruled that the school must supply Garret with a nurse, as “the school board must

fund such related services to help guarantee that students with special needs were integrated into

the public schools.”

In addition to this, another case that may be used to support Garret is the case of

Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens V Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v

Washington D.C Board of Education (1971). PARC sued Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a

state law that allowed schools to deny education to children that did not have a mental age higher

than 5 years old. This law was used quite often as a way for schools to turn away students that

they would find too difficult to take care of/teach. In the court it was made clear that all students
Artifact #5 3

were to have an equal opportunity at an education. Additionally, the financial limits were moot

in the case and in the argument.

On the other hand, we have court cases that don’t support Johnathan and side with

Young. For example, Beth B. V Clay (2002). In this case, Beth is a student attending Lake Bluff

Middle School. Beth has Rett Sydrome, and is severely mentally and physically challenged. She

is also nonverbal and requires on a wheelchair for mobility. She has lack of control over body

movement and has a low mental age. After second grade, the school district suggested that Beth

be placed in a ELS setting, which would require her to transfer to another school. Beths’ parents

did not agree with the decision to place her in an ELS setting. However, the court responded with

“The school officials’ decision about how to best educate Beth is based on expertise that we can

not match.” Similarly, due to Jonathans case, his severe disabilities may require him to be placed

into a self-containment classroom, so he can receive the proper care and treatment he needs.

Another case that does not support Johnathan is McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools

(2001). In this case, Emma, a student with Down Syndrome, was to attend a school that was

about seven miles from her home. Meanwhile, Emmas parents enrolled Emma in a general

kindergarten classroom that was closer to her home. After she was enrolled it was decided that

she could attend either school, as long as the school of choice offered the programs and met the

child’s needs regarding their disabilities. Overall, while the law requires schools to provide the

services and programs that a student requires, it does not mean that it has to be in the closest

neighboring school to them.

Overall, I believe that Young’s decision was justifiable under certain conditions. As long

as the school followed proper requirements under IDEA and Jonathan is given an evaluation as

well as an IEP, then I believe that it may be justified. For example, in the case of McLaughlin v
Artifact #5 4

Holt Public school, Beth was required to attend a certain school that had all the proper tools to

accommodate her disabilities. Due to Johnathan’s disabilities and the accommodations he must

have, going to a school that is not in his immediate area may be necessary. It seems that Young

had Jonathans best interests in mind when turning him away.

Artifact #5 5

References

Let's ace law school. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2018, from

https://www.quimbee.com/cases/beth-b-v-van-clay

McLaughlin v. BOARD OF EDUC., HOLT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 133 F. Supp. 2d 994 (W.D.

Mich. 2001). (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2018, from

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/133/994/2292901/

Osborne, A. G. (2018, February 24). Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.

Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cedar-Rapids-

Community-School-District-v-Garret-F

PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education, DC. (n.d.). Retrieved

February 27, 2018, from http://www.rootedinrights.org/15321-revision-v1/