Portfolio Artifact #5

A Case on Students with Disabilities: Debbie Young v. Jonathan

Taylor Lesko

Edu 210
Portfolio artifact #5

A high school principal named Debbie Young, has refused to give services to Jonathan, a

mentally disabled student. She is an educator that has worked as a special education teacher and

an assistant principal in a progressive and well known school district in the south. Jonathan is a

disabled tenth grade student whose parents have approached Young, in order to enable him attend

one of the schools in the district. Jonathan has spastic quadriplegia and has a seizure disorder

which requires constant care by a specially trained nurse. However, Young refused their request

due to the extraordinary expense. Also, Young thought that the school was not the best place for

Jonathan to be a student. There are many different view points to this argument and I have found

pros and cons to Youngs decision.

The first side that I will address is against Debbie Young and pro Jonathans family. The

first case is Irving Independent School District v. Tarto. There was a student that had spina bifida

that required Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC) services in order to be able to attend her

special education classes. The IEP for the student didnt state that school personal had to direct

the CIC services. The parents of the student decided to file against the school district because the

CIC was a related service needed by the EHA. The court decided in favor of Tarto because

without the CIC then she wouldnt be able to attend class. This is related to Jonathan in Debbie

Youngs school because if there is not a financial cost or an extraordinary expense, it is still

important that the student receives the care he needs to succeed in the class. If he is required to

have supervised care in his IEP then he should receive that care at the new school his parents

want him to attend.

The second court case in favor of Jonathans parents is Cedar Rapids Independent School

District v. Garrett F. Garrett is a quadriplegic student who requires continuous one on one care

so that he can attend school. Till he was in the 5th grade his parents provided the nurse care but
Portfolio artifact #5

they have now requested that school district should provide the care. The school district denied

the request and in result the parents wanted a hearing. The parents won the case because under

the IDEA the school district is required to provide the services for the student. These nursing

services are related services to what the child needs and not just medical. This is related to

Debbie Youngs comment of not wanting to provide the services to Jonathan because of the

expense. No matter what school Jonathan attends the services are still related to him and what he

needs to be a successful student. The expense is going to be there no matter what school his

parents or Young decide is best for him.

The next viewpoint for this court case is in favor of Debbie Young. The first case is Board

of Educ. Of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley. Amy Rowley is a deaf student

that has received an FM hearing aid that helps her hear the instructions from her teachers and

helps interacts with other students. That following year she also received help from a tutor for the

deaf and a speech therapist. The parents requested that she should also receive sign language

help and the school district denied it. The court ruled that the school did not have to provide the

best education but one reasonable for the student. This is in favor of Young because she thought

that the school the parents wished that Jonathan could attend was not the best for his needs. She

ways looking out for what is appropriate for him and what is the most reasonable option.

The last court case in favor of Young is San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez. The

financing of public elementary and secondary schools in Texas is the result of state and local

participation. In every school there is a minimum offering that helps with funds. The San

Antonio Independent School District brought up that families that reside in poor districts are not

given the same funding as other schools. They claimed that the lack of funding works against

children in a negative way. The court ruled that this was not true because the system did not
Portfolio artifact #5

discriminate against all poor families in Texas. They used the Equal Protection Clause to defend

the argument because it states that it doesnt require absolute equality or precisely equal

advantages. This works in favor of Young because she is deciding if there are the correct amount

of funds to help Jonathan. She didnt make this decision to hurt Jonathan in a negative way but

because the funds are not there. Although it is not what the parents want, she isnt making the

decision to discriminate against them.

After reviewing both the pros and cons for the Debbie Young v. Jonathan case, I have

come to the conclusion that Debbie Young made the right decision in not approving the request.

If the school does not have the correct funds to send Jonathan, then there is nothing they can do.

The school that he is attending right now is meeting all the requirements to help Jonathan

succeed. If he is getting the appropriate care at the moment while meeting the funds, then why

try and take money that the district doesnt have from other schools. Young isnt discriminating

against Jonathan but she is looking out for the entire school districts best interest. She is a

seasoned principal and has been a special education teacher. She has seen many different

students in her career and knows what will work best for Jonathan and the school district even

though his parents assume something else might be more fitting.

Portfolio artifact #5

References

The, B. L. (n.d.). Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tarto. Retrieved October 08, 2016,

from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/468/883.html

By limiting the `medical services' exclusion to the services of a physician or hospital.

(n.d.). Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garrett F. Retrieved October 08, 2016, from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/526/66.html

By passing the Act, Congress sought primarily to make public education available to
handicapped children. But in seeking to provide such access to public education, Congress did
not impose upon the States any greater substantive educational standard than would be necessary
to make such access meaningful. Indeed, Congress expressly. (n.d.). BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF the HENDRICK HUDSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ROWLEY. Retrieved
October 08, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/458/176

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. (n.d.). Retrieved October 08,
2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1332