Running head: PORTFOLIO 5: EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS 1

Portfolio Five: Education of Students With Special Needs

Cassandra Knatz

College of Southern Nevada - EDU 210

December 2, 2018
PORTFOLIO 5: EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS 2

Portfolio Five: Education of Students With Special Needs

High school principal, Debbie Young, has worked many years in her field. She also

served as a special education teacher and an assistant principal in a progressive school district.

After meeting with the parents of a severely disabled tenth grader, Ms. Young denies their

request for their son to attend a school within the district. The student, Jonathan, requires round

the clock care with a specially trained nurse. He also has several disabilities, including

profoundly mentally disabled, a seizure disorder, and has spastic quadriplegia. Ms. Young felt

that there was a more appropriate placement for Jonathan, other than the school. There would

also be a drastic added expense for the school. This court case is to determine if Debbie Young

was right or not in her decision to deny Jonathan entry into the school district.

In Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) the parents Peter Mills

and seven other special needs children, who were not allowed to attend school, filed suit against

the school board. The parents said the board was denying their constitutional right to an

education. The court ultimately found that the students had a right to a free public education. It

also stated that the school boards cannot use the excuse for lack of funds to deny education to
PORTFOLIO 5: EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS 3

those with disabilities. They must do their best to set aside monies to ensure no child is denied a

public education. In Jonathan’s parents case, they can argue that just because it will cost the

school money, Ms. Young cannot deny their son an education. It is a constitutional right to be

educated.

In the court case Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania (1972), PARC sued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for denying education to

children who were not mentally the age of 5. The state had been denying education to students

who would cause a burden to integrate into the classroom. The PARC stated that all children can

benefit from learning and the lack of education can lead to negative effects for development. The

District Court ruled that the old laws were unconstitutional and all children between the ages of

6-21 have a right to free public education. In the court course for Jonathan, he has a

constitutional right to an education as long as he is within the appropriate age ranges. His parents

can argue that an education will benefit his developmental growth.

In Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) deaf kindergartener, Amy Rowley, had a FM

hearing aid that amplified words spoken by others. She successfully completed kindergarten and

moved on to first grade, where she also had an hour long session with a tutor for the deaf each

day and met with a speech therapist 3 hours per week. Her parents wanted Amy to also have a

sign language interpreter and sued the school when they denied this request. The Supreme Court
PORTFOLIO 5: EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS 4

found that the school did not have to provide the greatest quality of education. They do however

have to provide one “reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits.” Debbie Young could

argue that because Jonathan is so severely handicapped their is nothing “reasonably calculated”

enough to provide him the kind of care he needs. She could argue that a specialized school for

the disabled would be more appropriate than public school.

In McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools (2003) the court found that students could be

assisted outside of their neighborhood school district if another school district offered services

the student needed. In Ms. Young’s case, she could argue that her district isn’t the best possible

district for Jonathan to attend. He could potentially have a better opportunity in a school that

already has services he requires.

I believe the court will side with Jonathan’s parents. While he will require a lot of

attention and extra care, it is still his constitutional right to receive a free public education. The

perfect example of this is in the Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972)

case. Mills and his friends won because it would be denying their rights to not allow them to

attend school. The school will have to do what it can to provide for Jonathan, just as Mill’s

school did for him.

PORTFOLIO 5: EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS 5

References

Board of Education v. Rowley. (NY. 1982). Underwood, J., Webb, D. (2006). School Law For

Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall. Pg. 143-144.

McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools. (MI. 2003). Retrieved December 2, 2018.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1253429.html

Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia. (D.C. 1972). Retrieved December 2,

2018. http://usedulaw.com/438-mills-v-board-of-education-of-the-district-of-columbia

.html

Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (PA. 1972).

Retrieved December 2, 2018. https://www.rootedinrights.org/15321-revision-v1/

Underwood, J., Webb, D. (2006). School Law For Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper

Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.