You are on page 1of 7

1

PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #5: DISABLED STUDENTS’ RIGHTS

Portfolio Assignment #5: Disabled Students’ Rights

Margaret E. Lewis

College of Southern Nevada


2
PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #5: DISABLED STUDENTS’ RIGHTS

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

determine if Debbie is justified in her decision to reject Jonathan.

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

of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any

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

Jonathan’s nurse is an unnecessary expense.

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

school district if his current IEP is satisfactory.

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

quadriplegia. Several professionals evaluated Timothy to determine whether or not he was

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

him from an education.

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

him at the school.

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)

(Encyclopedia Britannica, Dist. file).

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia August 1, 1972) (Justia, Dist. file).

Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District (U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals

May 24, 1989) (Encyclopedia Britannica, Dist. file).

Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District (District Court of New York May 8, 1998)

(Wright's Law, Dist. file).


7
PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT #5: DISABLED STUDENTS’ RIGHTS

You might also like