Artifact 5 1

Artifact 5

Valerie Alvizo

EDU 210 Nevada School Law Summer 2016

College of Southern Nevada

Artifact 5 2

Serving as a special education teacher and assistant principal in a progressive, affluent

school district in the South, seasoned principal, Debbie Young, is approached by the parents of

Jonathan, a severely disabled tenth-grader. His parents want Jonathan to attend one of the

schools in this district. He is profoundly mentally disabled, has spastic quadriplegia and has a

seizure disorder. Jonathan has multiple disabilities requiring the constant care by a specially

trained nurse. Young feels that the school is not the most appropriate placement for Jonathan and

refuses his parents request due to extraordinary expense.

Young could be in the right by denying the parents request, as it may be very difficult to

find a suitable and comfortable place where Jonathan can be adequately educated and still within

his rights. She has the knowledge and experience from her position within the school district

allows her to make a correct judgment and evaluation on the needs of Jonathan. Even if his

parents disagree with the decision, she still has the reason on her side. His parents cannot

demand anything from the school district other than them allowing him a chance to an adequate

education. As determined in Schaffer v. Weast, the school is not held responsible for the burden

the parents face from their child not accepted into the school of their choice (Schaffer v. Weast,

2005).

Perhaps, in denying their request she can offer an alternative to his education. Because

there are limited resources and it would be difficult to find the right trained teachers and staff to

provide an adequate fair education for Jonathan, the IEP team can determine an alternate

education for him, so that he still receives an education that is right for him and meets the needs

of his disabilities. Like in the case of Reid v District of Columbia, they can offer him tutors or

private teachers that work with him in an independent educational setting. provide[e]
Artifact 5 3

personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit

educationally from that instruction (Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 2005).

For denying the parents request, Young could see some time in court. Her not wanting to

find how to provide the services needed to help Jonathan succeed in her school district, even

with the expense being government funded. Like in the case of Irving Independent School

District v. Tatro, denying the necessary tools needed to educate Jonathan adequately as defined

by IDEA, she could see big issues come up. In Irving Independent v. Tatro the court concluded

that CIC was related to the effort to educate because it was a service necessary in order to allow

the student to remain in the classroom (Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 1984).

She may also run into problems in regards to her decision in not allowing Jonathan to

attend the school may violate his rights as a disabled person. She failed to adequately determine

the placement of Jonathan within the school district. Such as the problem brought up in Walczak

v. Florida Union Free School District, where the student was denied entrance to a school that the

parents determined would adequately fit the educational needs of their child. the district court's

finding that the BOCES program was inadequate to permit B.W. to make meaningful educational

progress is not supported by the extensive record of administrative proceedings in this case

(Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 1998).

I find that Young was not in the right by denying the parents request. As an educator and

with all of the laws in place to help students with disabilities, she did not make the right decision.

She should have had a team fully evaluate Jonathan to find what he needed as far as services and

assistance in the school and she should have developed a plan that the parents could see and

decide whether or not they agreed with her decision. Jonathan has a right to an adequate

education and deserves a chance to receive that education within the public schools. Yes, Young
Artifact 5 4

is experienced and knows what she is talking about by denying the request, but she should still

offer them a chance to see if they can find the services needed to educate Jonathan.
Artifact 5 5

References
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 83-558 (Supreme Court of United States July 5,
1984).
Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 04-7051 (United States Court of Appeals, District of
Columbia Circuit March 25, 2005).
Schaffer v. Weast, 04-698 (Supreme Court of United States November 14, 2005).
Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 97-7155 (United State Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit April 16, 1998).