Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
v. Debbie Young 1
Emily Kesler
EDU 210
Assignment 5
Jonathan v. Debbie Young 2
severely disabled tenth-grade student, Jonathan. Debbie Young served as both a special
education teacher and assistant principle in a prosperous school district in the South.
Jonathan’s parents want him to attend one of the schools in the local district, however
Jonathan needs exceptional care and requires constant care by a full-time nurse. He is intensely
mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. Principal, Debbie Young,
refuses the parents request to enroll Jonathan because the cost for him to be enrolled would
be far too high. She also feels that school is not a suitable placement for Jonathan.
Debbie Young’s decision to not allow Jonathan to enroll in school is not defensible
because of the IDEA act. This act applies to all children with disabilities between the ages of
three and twenty-one, regardless of the nature or severity of their disabilities, must be
available to them a free and appropriate education and related services to meet their unique
needs (2006). In the Education v. Rowley case, Amy Rowley, a deaf student, received a FM
hearing device her kindergarten year which intensified sounds and words spoken by her
teachers. Her next year, she received her FM hearing device as well as a tutor and speech
therapist. Amy’s parents asked the school to provide her with a sign language interpreter,
however the school did not have to provide one. This is because the school does not have to
provide the best education, but rather one that is sensibly planned to award educational
benefits (2006). In relation to Jonathan, the school is not giving him anything, however they are
Jonathan v. Debbie Young 3
required to provide him with a sensibly planned education, therefore Young’s decision is not
defensible.
In the case, Cedar Rapids Independent School District v. Garrett F, a quadriplegic student
required constant one on one care with a nurse. Until the student entered fifth grade, the
parents had provided the nursing care for the student. The parents then requested that the
school district provide nursing services and when the school district rejected, the parents
requested a consideration under IDEA. The judge ruled that the school must provide the nurse
as it is a “related service” (2006). This relates to Jonathan’s case because not only does he have
a right to attend school under IDEA, but he also has the right to “related services” being the
care that he needs in school. Therefore, Young’s decision, once again is not defensible.
In the case, McLaughlin v. Hold Public Schools, the court found that a student could be
assisted outside of their region if another school in the district presented a program that the
student needed (2006). In Jonathan’s case, it is possible that principle Young was correct in her
advising because the programs offered at her school were not suitable for Jonathan. Jonathan’s
parents can consider another program at in another neighborhood for Jonathan because of the
McLaughlin case.
Similarly, in the case Beth B. V. Clay, a student had a cognitive of somewhere between a
one and six-year-old. She was unable to walk on her own and could only communicate through
eye movements. After spending three years in a regular classroom, the school district
developed an IEP that placed Beth into a self-contained program against her parents’ wishes.
The judge ruled in favor of the school district saying that the school officials have expertise that
Jonathan v. Debbie Young 4
cannot be matched (2006). Knowing the outcome of this ruling, the court might side with Young
because of her seasoned experience in working with special needs and as a principal. Young
would not want to place Jonathan into a program that he cannot succeed in, rather she would
want him in a program that is the most appropriate placement so he can get the attention that
he needs.
I feel that in the end, the court would rule with Jonathans parents because under the
IDEA Act, no child between the ages of 3 and 21 can be turned away from a public education,
no matter their disability. In conclusion, all children have the right to free and appropriate
education, therefore Jonathan has the right to education and the related services that he
needs.
Jonathan v. Debbie Young 5
Works Cited
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: concepts and applications.