Portfolio Artifact #5 1

Artifact #5

Young v Jonathan

Stanley Koslowski

College of Southern Nevada

April 30th, 2018

Debbie Young is seasoned high school principal in affluent school district in the South.

She served as a special education teacher and as an assistant principal at this progressive school

and was approached by the parents of a severely disabled tenth-grade student named Jonathan.

Sadly, Jonathan has multiple disabilities requiring constant care by a specially trained nurse

because he is profoundly disabled, has spastic quadriplegia, and has a seizure disorder. Seeing

how it would be an extraordinary expense to the school, and with the view that this school was

not the most appropriate placement for Jonathan, Young refused the parents request.

My first case to support Jonathan (1971). In this case there was a law in Pennsylvania

that allowed public schools to deny education to certain children. The state had consistently used

this law to deny education to students who were considered too burdensome to integrate into the

school and classroom environments. The PARC challenged these laws around the country and

their base argument was that all children can benefit from a program of education and training.

The absence of education leads to negative consequences for the development of children. The

PARC argued that with education their children could eventually attain some level of self-care

and the earlier they receive it the more it would benefit them. This would benefit Johnathan

because it argues that Jonathan should be admitted into the school, so he can learn and one day

be able to have some sort of self-care instead of always having a nurse to be with him. This case

is important in his defense because no matter what the law is now that the State has to provide

free education to all children between the ages of six and twenty-one years old.

My second case in support of Jonathan is Mills v Washington DC Board of Education

(1972). This case was a great feat for Special Education and influenced the betterment of it

because there were seven students being denied their right to free public education and won this

case. In the case the children were expelled or denied admission because of behavioral problems,
Portfolio Artifact #5 3

mental retardation, emotional disturbances, or hyperactivity. The school district offered no

alternative education placement and the children were also denied a review. It was difficult to

estimate how many students were not receiving an education because of this and one of the

students was Peter Mills who was 12 years old and was excluded from elementary school due to

a supposed behavior problem. Mills won the case and it was the Board of Education’s

responsibility to carry out the education system according to law. This benefits Jonathan because

Principal Young is denying him from receiving an education due to condition. Jonathan should

receive a review before being deemed unfit or unable to receive his right to a free public

education. Principal Young didn’t do that, she just denied him before that and that is not the

correct way to do it.

My first case in support of Principal Young is Board of Education v Rowley (1982). In

this case it was ruled that school administrators are allowed to determine what is required to meet

a handicapped students individual needs. The Act does not require a school to provide a sign

language interpreter to a deaf student when she is otherwise receiving personalized instruction

and an adequate education. In the case of Principal Young, the school cannot properly supply

what Jonathan would need and it’s something that Jonathan has to have. He should be attending

a school that can provide him with an appropriate amount of care, so he can get a good

education.

My second case in support of Principal Young is Dale M. Board of Education of Bradley

Bourbonnais High School (2001). In this case, Dale is a 14-year-old student and has a serious

disciplinary problem. he was placed in a “therapeutic day school” designed to deal with

disruptive and truant students, but in his first four months he attended school only 20 days,

though when he did attend he behaved himself, did the assigned work, and got good grades. he
Portfolio Artifact #5 4

school district wanted to send Dale back to the therapeutic day school. Instead, his mother,

with whom he was living (his parents are divorced), obtained Dale's release from jail and placed

him in a residential school, the Elan School, in Maine. She demanded that the school district

pay for Dale's attending Elan, as otherwise he would not be getting the free appropriate public

education to which he was entitled. The court ruled that the school only needs to provide what is

critically needed for the student and not was wanted by the parents. In the case of Jonathan his

nurse is not critically needed for him to get an education, so the school should not have to pay for

it because they are not responsible for it. Jonathan should be going to a school that caters his

every need and somewhere where he would not be a burden in the classroom.

I think that even though what Principal Young did wasn’t the right way to do she was

right in doing so. Jonathans need are too high to be attending a high school that is not suited for

his needs. Jonathan is a very special case so Principal Young’s decision is defensible. The fact

that Jonathan must always have constant care by a specially trained nurse it would be something

the school could not afford. That expense alone would be something huge for the school and it is

something they do not have to provide. Jonathan should be attending a school that should be able

to attend to his every need and somewhere that can provide the care he needs.
Portfolio Artifact #5 5

Britannica, T. E. (2014, September 23). Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central

School District v. Rowley. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Board-of-Education-of-the-Hendrick-Hudson-Central-

School-District-v-Rowley

FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2018, from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1363362.html

Mills v. Board of Education and its effect on the field of Special Eduction. (n.d.). Retrieved May

6, 2018, from https://cmcglynnportfolio.weebly.com/mills-v-board-of-education-and-its-

effect-on-the-field-of-special-eduction.html

PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education, DC. (2013,

December 06). Retrieved May 6, 2018, from https://www.rootedinrights.org/15321-

revision-v1/