Portfolio Assignment 5

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