Tessie Christie

EDU 210

October 5, 2015

Portfolio 5: Disabilities

When it comes to disabilities in schools it is always a touchy subject. Denying a

student the right to go to a certain school may come across as wrongful in the eyes of
many people. Not only do we need to look at what is best for the student but what are
the best services that the school can provide the school, do the students needs go
beyond what the school is able to provide and how will this impact the other students at
the school. In this particular case where Jonathan has multiple disabilities that need
constant care, a public school may not be the best fit to provide the best services for
Jonathan.
Mrs. Young declines Jonathan from attending the school. The need of constant
care goes beyond what the public school is able to provide for him. In FOREST GROVE
SCHOOL DISTRICT, v. T.A. it is presented that based upon the amendments the
district is not required to pay for private school if the student has not attended a public
school. Per the case it has supportive detail that although at first glance the school is
required to support in one way or another but in reality at a deeper look they are not
required based on prior amendments support. For example Jonathan needs constant
care but the care required goes beyond the means of related services. All-in the same
the school district is not required to pay for the private school because the student never
attended a special education in the public school.
It is unpredictable how a student who needs special attention may react in the
environment especially with all the special care Jonathan needed. In the case HONIG,
CALIFORNIA SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION v. DOE ET AL two
students were expelled from school. These two students had disabilities that ended up
resulting in violent and disruptive behavior. Their behavior was the result of them being
expelled. In Mrs. Youngs defense there is no predicting the full extent of care Jonathan
would need and the result if he did not receive the care.
Jonathan has as much right as any student to receive an education. The IDEA,
IEP, and Disabilities act all provide substantial support that Jonathan has the right to a
free education. In the case of SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF
BURLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL. department OF EDUCATION OF
MASSACHUSETTS ET AL., Michael Pacino has been attending public school despite
his disabilities since first grade. He was considered handicapped. By third grade he
showed no improvement. The school related his problems to being emotional tied and
the parents tied it to being neurological. The parents were offended by what was said
about their son. In both these cases the students are not being provided with full
adequate education due to their disabilities. This alone is wrongfully violating their
rights.
In the case of WINKELMAN, v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Jacob
Winkelman had autism. Jacob, his parents and the school sat down to discuss a
personalized curriculum that was suited to Jacobs needs. Jacobs parents were not
pleased with the overall outcome and were not getting the necessary educational rights.
Jonathan in the same was not having his rights met to a personalized curriculum, he
was not given the opportunity at all to achieve an education. Both boys rights were
taken away and minimized without a way to resolve the issue.
Young made the right decision. Although Jonathan would want an education at
one of the schools, a public school may not be the most suitable place for him. His
extensive care needed goes beyond what the school would be able to provide. A
specialized school would be a better fit for Jonathan. This case would go beyond the
means that related services would be eligible for. Youngs decision was defensible.