Portfolio Assignment #5

Alexus Jones
Edu 210
Due: 12/01/14

The parents of a tenth grader named Jonathan, who suffers from various
disabilities ranging from being mentally disabled, to having spastic quadriplegia, and a
seizure disorder, wish for their child to receive a public education at a local school
system. However, the principal of the school, Debbie Young, denies the parents wishes
due to costly fees that come with the care of Jonathan, including but not limited to, the
constant care by a specially trained nurse. Debbie herself, being an experienced high
school principal and former special education teacher and assistant principal at a
progressive, upper class school in the South, is by no means a stranger to students that
require special attention. She feels that school is not the most beneficial experience for
Jonathan, as he should be placed into a more personal and independent environment
where he can have the special care he requires. The issue that comes with this dilemma is
whether or not Jonathan has the right to a free and personalized education at the school,
within the parameters of educational law.
After extensive research into the legality of this issue, I have found multiple
examples of courts favoring Jonathan and his parents. In the case of Mills v. Board of
Education of the District of Columbia, students with various mental disabilities,
emotional disturbances, and hyperactivity disorders had all been denied educational
services that would have acknowledged each students specific disability(s). The school
district denied these children their education due to the high costs involved, and the
parents appealed and filed suit. In the courts ruling, the majority opinion concluded that a
school may not be excused from fulfilling their mandate due to the lack of allocated
funds. Instead, the courts opinion was that the school boards duty to provide an education
outweighed any conflict of interest in resources. Using this decision and applying it to

Jonathan is a seamless transition, that Principal Young should not and cannot use lack of
monetary incentive as a reason to deny a child their right to a free education.
A second case that sets precedent to the views of Jonathans parents is the
Department of Education in the state of Hawaii v. Katherine D. Suffering from cystic
fibrosis and tracheomalacia (a disease negatively affecting the windpipes), the
Department of Education argued that Katherine could not adequately be provided at a
public school, and instead issued her into a homebound program. The administrative
hearing officer as well as the appeals court, deemed that putting Katherine into this
program did not meet the requirements of a free appropriate public education, as it did
not place Katherine in the least restrictive environment possible. This contradicts the
views of Principal Young, and proves that her opinion of being in public school would
not be the most appropriate place for Jonathan, is unjustified and unlawful. Using this
case and the aforementioned one, there is significant legal evidence supporting Jonathan,
and proving that he should receive the education that his parents requested.
With that being said, there are also cases that can be found that defend Principal
Young and her belief that public school is not the place for Jonathan. In the case of
Timothy W v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District, the student that held the
plaintiff position with the same namesake, suffered from various developmental
disabilities, spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, and cortical blindness. While Timothy
was at a young age, medical professionals had mixed reviews about Timothys
educational future. The school board then denied services for Timothy because the
severity and complexity of his illnesses prevented him from being capable of
benefitting from special education treatment. This supports Principals Youngs claims,

almost mirroring the exact circumstance and thought process of the aforementioned
school board.
A second example defending Principal Young and the school districts opinion
would be found in the case McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools. Emma McLaughlin a
Down syndrome girl, was not appropriately being served in her neighborhood school.
The court decided that if she could better be served in an outside school that was not her
local neighborhood school, that she should attend the outside school and receive her
education there. This decision reveals that Jonathans parents should look to outside
schools, perhaps more affluent school districts, to handle their son. Since cost seems to be
the chief concern to the local school system, Jonathans parents should make a more
wholesome attempt to find the best school for their son, not just the most convenient
school.
Based off of prior knowledge, personal experiences, and recent research, I have
come to the conclusion in favor of Jonathan. I strongly believe in the right to a free and
appropriate public education. Denying the care of a student based on cost diminishes the
value of a person, and instead places a money sign for their value. I do not believe that
any person, regardless of race, religion, health, or well being, should be viewed as a cost
or liability, especially in a school system. School systems need to be the most inclusive
environment there is, with no other priority than to educate and progress their students. I
believe there is more than enough sufficient evidence and historical examples that show
that Jonathans case is no different, and that he deserves to be placed in a school where he
can both develop his skills, feel like a normal kid, and be provided his inalienable right to
the pursuit of happiness.

References
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia. (2012, October 10). Retrieved
December 1, 2014, from http://educational-law.org/440-mills-v-board-ofeducation-of-the-district-of-columbia-the-courts-ruling.html
MCLAUGHLIN V. HOLT PUBLIC SCHOOLS. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2014,
from http://www.leagle.com/decision/20011127133FSupp2d994_11025
727 F. 2d 809 - Department of Education State of Hawaii v. Katherine D & Kevin &
Roberta D. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from
http://openjurist.org/727/f2d/809/department-of-education-state-of-hawaii-vkatherine-d-and-kevin-and-roberta-d
Steketee, A. (2014, August 14). Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School
District (law case). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1990557/Timothy-W-v-RochesterNew-Hampshire-School-District