Running Header: Portfolio 5

Disabled Rights
Madison Smith
College of Southern Nevada EDU 280-1001
November 15, 2014

Portfolio 5

After serving many years as a special education teacher, an assistant principal, and now a
principal of a high school in the south, Debbie Young, knows her job. Jonathan is a severely
disabled tenth-grader, and his parents approach Young, wanting to attend a school in the district.
Jonathan would need a nurse constantly, he is profoundly mentally disabled, has spastic
quadriplegia, and has seizure. With this being said, based on the expense alone, Young refused
the parents request. Did she make the right choice or not?
In this first case the parents of a disabled student, M.L., sued their school for failing to
provide an adequate teacher for their child, under the IDEA act. He had severe mental
disabilities, originally it was suggested that he may be able to handle his regular environment,
but if moved would not do well. In the end it was decided that the school district was in violation
(M.L., a minor; C.D., his parent; S.L., his parent, Petitioners-Appellants, v. FEDERAL WAY
SCHOOL DISTRICT - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9thcircuit/1458892.html#sthash.wTU1fjNW.dpuf, 2004). Now known as, M.L. v. Federal Way
School District, this case would support Jonathans parents. Young has no right to decide whether
this student would be able to handle public school or not, just like the principal in M.L.s case,
they do not know their full capabilities. Even if it is costly Young is still violating the IDEA Act
by not providing a teacher to accommodate Jonathan. Therefore the student should be allowed to
attend within the school district.
In Costello v. Mitchell Public School District 79, Sadonya had received special education
until the multidisciplinary team (MDT) told her she did not have a disability, despite the fact they
originally did. After being told she did not have a disability she took a regular class and the
teacher then began to abuse her, calling her retarded. Her parents then took action and the courts
had taken the parents side (COSTELLO v. MITCHELL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 79,

Portfolio 5

2001). This would be supporting against Young because did she send this student to the MDT?
There is no evidence that Jonathan has gone to see an MDT in the past, for Youngs records, nor
is there evidence that Young sent him to see an MDT. Therefore she would be in violation and
she would not have the right to make that decision for Jonathan and his parents.
In Popson V. West Clark Community Schools, the parents lost because they failed to
prove that the school did anything wrong. The parents of an autistic child claimed that they were
denied free appropriate public education under IDEA. The District Court then stated that:
(1) parents failed to demonstrate that decision by hearing officer was wrong; (2)
individualized educational plan (IEP) for autistic child's extended school year
(ESY) services was reasonably designed to confer meaningful benefits to child;
(3) parents failed to prove that goals in child's proposed IEP were trivial or
inappropriate; (4) parents failed to state claim for violation of IDEA based upon
improper consideration of costs; (5) IDEA did not require scientific or clinical
objectivity in evaluation of child (Westlaw, 2002).
Not enough information is given in Jonathans case whether the parents can prove any of these
stated in Popsons case, but this would most certainly aid the school if applicable. There is
nothing wrong with the school it was that the parents did not understand, or did not know.
Young, being the principal, knows this information like the back of her hand. If she denies a
parents request to have their child in a public school it is for good reason.
Finally, the parents of two autistic students went to court stating that the school would not
allow their own experts in the special education classroom. Ruling in favor of the district, the
court said that there was no evidence that they were denied of any services (Ray, n.d.). Known as
Glass V. Hillsboro School District and this case will help aid the school district that Young is in.

Portfolio 5

Jonathan would not be denied any help that he would need if he were to attend public school.
Young, however, feels that he is too mentally unstable to function in a normal classroom, which
would inevitably cost the school money that they probably do not have.
After reviewing the facts stated in the previous cases; M.L. V. Federal Way School
District: Costello V. Mitchell Public School District 79: Popson V. West Clark Community
Schools: a Glass V. Hillsboro School District I have decided to rule with the parents. As stated in
the M.L. V. Federal Way School, under IDEA, Young has to accommodate to Jonathan. Then
under Costello v. Mitchell Public School District 79 there is no evidence that Young sent
Jonathan to a MDT for evaluation. Everyone has their basic right to learn, even the most severely
disabled, and they should not be denied that right just because it may cost extra money.

Portfolio 5

References
COSTELLO v. MITCHELL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 79. (2001, September 24). Retrieved
from FindLaw: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1480439.html

M.L., a minor; C.D., his parent; S.L., his parent, Petitioners-Appellants, v. FEDERAL WAY
SCHOOL DISTRICT - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9thcircuit/1458892.html#sthash.wTU1fjNW.dpuf. (2004, November 5). Retrieved from
FindLaw: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1458892.html

Ray, S. B. (n.d.). Court Cases Involving People with Disabilities: Special Education . Retrieved
from http://jjray.iweb.bsu.edu/portfolio/resources/SPCED-202-8-cases-pdf.pdf

Westlaw. (2002, November 19). Retrieved from Pearson:

http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_underwood_schoollaw_1/42/10992/2814052.cw/index.html