Portfolio Five: Special Education 1

Portfolio Five: Special Education

Giovanni Morabito

College of Southern Nevada

Portfolio Five: Special Education 2

A tenth grader by the name of Jonathan was denied attendance at Debbie Young’s

schools in the district. Debbie Young is a high school principal that has had experience as an

assistant principal in a progressive, affluent school district in the South as well as a special

education teacher. Jonathan is a potential student who is mentally disabled, has spastic

quadriplegia, and a seizure disorder. Because of this, Jonathan requires constant supervision and

care by a nurse because of his disabilities; his care would come with many expenses and the

school may not seem like the best place for him to be. These high expenses alongside the

concerns for the school are the reasons for Young’s refuse to allow Jonathan to attend a school in

the district as the cost for taking care of him would be too much and school wouldn’t be an

appropriate placement for him.

One case the court could look at to favor the student is the Pennsylvania Ass. Of

Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Penn. Of 1971. This court cases involved students who

are mentally disabled as they were denied free education due to a law. The court ruled in the

student's favor as the law was used as an excuse, “merely because no physical disability

accompanies the retardation”. Being the first case to recognize the rights of mentally

handicapped students, it can be argued that Jonathan’s right to free education are being restricted

by Young. I can also be argued that Young is attempting to find an excuse to not allow Jonathan

because of his condition and the possible consequences that follow it. Overall, this case can be

used to favor the student as it would seem like his education right was being violated.

Another case the court could look at to favor the student is the Costello v. Mitchell Public

School District of 2001. Like Jonathan, this case involves a student who falls under IDEA’s
Portfolio Five: Special Education 3

qualification of “Other health impairments” but was denied “educational placement that involved

special educational services.” This denial to allow the student into the certain educational

services was considered a “refusal within the meaning of IDEA.” Because of this case, it can be

argued that Jonathan’s denial to the school falls under the a refusal under the meaning of IDEA

like with the other student’s case. The parents could also argue, much like the case before this

one, that Jonathan’s right to free education was being denied by Young. Taking this case into

account, the court could favor the student as it could seem Young isn’t following the guidelines

for IDEA.

A case the court could look at to favor the school, surprisingly, is the same case of

Costello v. Mitchell Public School District of 2001. While it was argued the student’s denial to

educational service “[refused to follow] within the meaning of IDEA”, the court had ultimately

ruled in the school’s favor in the end. Despite the mentioned offenses, the court favored the

schools due to particular circumstances as the parents failed to “Provide information that might

well have helped [the school] in its continuous efforts.” If Jonathan’s parents were under similar

circumstances and refused to provide information regarding Jonathan’s current condition, the

court could look into Young’s favor. If information, for whatever reason, was omitted from the

school then the school is in the safe for the most part. Because of this case, if there are any other

circumstances involved in Jonathan’s case, the court may look into Young’s favor

Another case the court could look at to favor the school is the McLaughlin v. Holt Public

School case of 2001. In this case, a student was relocated to a different school in the district at

the request of Holt Public. This change was done since the school the student was going to attend
Portfolio Five: Special Education 2

a school that was unable to provide suitable programs for the student’s condition. Looking at this

case,
Portfolio Five: Special Education 4

Young could argue that his refusal to allow Jonathan is because his schools don’t have the

programs or resources needed for Jonathan. It’s entirely possible that Young could also suggest a

different placement at a different school district for Jonathan that is able to afford the care that is

needed for him. Overall, this case provides some leeway for Young and is one the court could

look at to favor Young.

Taking a look at all the court cases listed, Young’s case is defensible to a certain extent.

There could be multiple circumstances that could work in Young’s favor and make the court

favor his side. However, using the information provided in the overview, the court would rule in

Jonathan’s favor. Given that the information provided lists out Jonathan’s severe condition,

Young doesn’t have very many legal excuses to deny Jonathan attendance. While still possible

for Young to suggest a relocation for Jonathan, a relocation to an entirely new school district is

too big of a request to make of Jonathan and his parents.

Portfolio Five: Special Education 5

References

Costello v. Mitchell Public School District 79, 266 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2001)

McLaughlin v. Board of Educ., Holt Public Schools, 133 F. Supp. 2d 994 (W.D. Mich. 2001)

Pennsylvania Ass'n, Ret'd Child. v. Commonwealth of Pa., 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972)