Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Margaret E. Lewis
Introduction
A high school principal and former special education teacher, Debbie Young, rejected a
student, Jonathan, from being enrolled in a school in Debbie’s district. The student had a
variety of mental and physical disabilities, including spastic quadriplegia and frequent seizures.
This would require the constant services of a qualified nurse. Debbie felt that despite the
affluence of her school district, having Jonathan at the school would be too expensive. She
informed the parents that the school would not be a good placement for Jonathan. The
purpose of the paper is to examine various court cases involving similar circumstances and
Debbie’s Defense
The first case to be considered in defense of Debbie’s decision is that of the Board of Education
of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v Rowley. This case involves a deaf student, Any
Rowley, who had an IEP (individualized education plan) for her kindergarten class. This IEP was
developed for her by her parents and school officials, and it granted her a personal
sign-language interpreter. However, it was quickly determined that Amy did fine without the
interpreter, and her IEP was amended to provide her with a hearing aid, an hour of private
tutoring a day, and speech therapy three hours a week. Amy’s parents argued that the
sign-language interpreter was necessary, but the school as well as an independent examiner
and the New York commissioner of education disagreed. The parents took the issue to the US
district court, claiming that Amy was not receiving the “free appropriate public education,” or
FAPE, that she was entitled to as a disabled student. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that
3
PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #5: DISABLED STUDENTS’ RIGHTS
Amy was adequately provided for, saying that “the intent of the Act was more to open the door
particular level of education once inside,” referring to the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act of 1975. This case is similar to Debbie’s in that it involves the parents of a disabled
child expecting too much of a school district, and losing. The school in this case saw no reason
to provide Amy with an expensive interpreter; likewise, Debbie’s school could argue that
The next case that Debbie could potentially use as part of her defense is Walczak v.
Florida Union Free School District. This case, like Debbie’s, involves parents and school officials
discussing the placement of a disabled student. The IEP for the disabled student, B. Walczak,
had her in a year-round day program with twelve students, one teacher, and one aide.
Walczak’s parents felt that this IEP was inappropriate, and wanted to move her to a residential
program, despite the clear progress Walczak had made in the day program. After a great deal of
fighting with school administrators about the student’s IEP, the Walczaks went ahead and
moved their daughter from the day program to a residential facility, Maplebrook. Though this
was not part of the student’s IEP, her parents sought reimbursement for the Maplebrook
expenses. However, the courts ruled that Walczak was "not . . . entitled to placement in a
residential school merely because the latter would more nearly enable the child to reach his or
her full potential." Similarly, the student in Debbie’s case is not entitled to move to Debbie’s
Jonathan’s Defense
4
PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #5: DISABLED STUDENTS’ RIGHTS
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District is the first case to be brought
forward in defense of Jonathan and his parents. This case involves a child, Timothy, with
complex developmental disabilities, spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, and cortical blindness.
It is worth noting that Jonathan, the disabled student from Debbie’s case, also has spastic
advanced enough to qualify for an IEP. Initially, the school board decided that Timothy was too
disabled to benefit from special education services. Timothy’s attorney took the case to court,
claiming that the school board was violating Timothy’s rights as a disabled person. The district
court ruled that the school board was correct in that Timothy was not “capable of benefitting”
from special education services, so Timothy’s attorney took the case to the First Circuit Court of
Appeals. This court ruled that not only was Timothy entitled to special education under the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), but that due to the severity of his
disabilities, his education took priority over other disabled students. This suggests that Debbie
has no legal defense when it comes to barring Jonathan from her school district, because the
EAHCA has a “zero-reject” policy. Jonathan’s disabilities may be serious, but that does not bar
The next case, once again, supports Jonathan and not Debbie. This case is Mills v. Board
of Education of District of Columbia, in which seven students were denied admission to public
schools in the District of Columbia. These students were rejected for various reasons relating to
their disabilities, including behavior problems and health-related absences. All these students
came from poor families and could not afford private instruction. Though they were promised
publicly supported education by school officials, none of these students were granted
5
PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #5: DISABLED STUDENTS’ RIGHTS
admission to any schools. The parents of these students took the D.C. Board of Education to
court; though the defendants claimed that they had insufficient funds to provide special
education for all the students that required it, the courts ruled that the Board of Education
must coordinate with the D.C. government to find the funds. In the end, the courts found that
all disabled students were entitled by law to publicly supported education and could not be
excluded from school on the basis of behavioral or health problems, mental or physical. This
case is a strong argument for Jonathan to be admitted into Debbie’s school; Debbie may not
exclude Jonathan on the basis of his disabilities, regardless of how expensive it may be to have
Conclusion
After examining the four previous cases, it becomes clear that Debbie has no real
defense when it comes to excluding Jonathan from her school district. As ruled in Timothy W. v.
Rochester, New Hampshire, School District, a school cannot determine that a disabled student
is too disabled to benefit from special education. On the contrary, more severely disabled
students such as Jonathan should be provided with greater assistance. In Mills v. Board of
Education of District of Columbia, it was ruled that disabled children must have access to
publicly supported education, and if the school district feels that it would be too expensive,
they must find the funds. This defeats any argument Debbie has that Jonathan’s condition
would be too costly to the school. It can be conclusively stated that Debbie’s position is not
defensible.
6
PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #5: DISABLED STUDENTS’ RIGHTS
References
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (June 28, 1982)
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (U.S. District Court for the District of
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District (U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals
Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District (District Court of New York May 8, 1998)