Running head: DEBBIE YOUNG V.

JONATHAN ARTIFACT #5 KLIMER 1

Debbie Young v. Jonathan Artifact #5

Mekhaela Klimer

Professor Nancy Webb

EDU 210

April 16, 2017

DEBBIE YOUNG V. JONATHAN ARTIFACT #5 2

Debbie Young v. Jonathan Artifact #5

Debbie Young has been a high school principal for many years. Prior to being a principal

she had also held the positions of an assistant principal and a special education teacher. Parents

of an intensely disabled tenth-grader Jonathan came to Young hoping that their son would be able

to attend one of the schools in the district. Jonathan has a special nurse who provides him with

constant care as he has multiple disabilities including: spastic quadriplegia, mentally disabled,

and a seizure disorder. Due to the extremely high costs and a view that the school is not an

appropriate placement for Jonathan, Young refuses his parents request.

Under the Individuals with Disabilites Education Act (IDEA), Jonathans parents argued

that a free and appropriate education must be available to him no matter what his disabilities are

or how severe they are. In 1972, Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, The

court reasoned that because the children would have been entitled under the school code in the

District of Columbia to attend free public schools, each child had a right to such education. The

court also explained that the school boards failure to meet its mandate could not be excused by

its argument that there were insufficient funds available to pay for the services that children

needed. (Usedlaw.com). Overall the court came to the conclusion that the districts job to

educate children is much more important that trying to preserve resources.

Services for Jonathans disabilities had to be dealt with regardless of financial expenses.

In the court case, C.C. EX REL. A.C. v Board of Broward County, related services were not

provided to A.C. A.C. was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). He also went

through, speech and occupational therapy, and applied behavioral analysis (ABA). The school

kept trying to put A.C. in a school for strictly autistic children. The school denied providing ABA

therapy. A.C.s rights were denied under IDEA. The school argued that is had a policy of never
DEBBIE YOUNG V. JONATHAN ARTIFACT #5 3

making ABA therapy available to children with ASD. (leagle.com). A free and appropriate

education (FAPE) must offer students in special education related services under an IEP. Like

Jonathan, A.C. required extra services that should be provided under IDEA.

Young did not think that school was a good placement for Jonathan be cause he

disabilities were so severe. Although law requires schools to provide related services in regular

and general education classrooms before moving them to a more restrictive environment, it

doesnt exactly mean that all students are entitled to be placed in a school in their

neighborhood. (Underwood, Webb, 155). For example, in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,

McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools, if a school outside of the childs neighborhood offered a

program that the student needed, then it is right to find that school or program more fitting for a

child with disabilities.

Another case comparable to McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools is Beth B. v. Clay. This

student had a intellectual ability from a one-year-old to a six-year-old. She communicated by

staring with her eyes and couldnt walk by herself. Although her parents protested, the school

district created an IEP for Beth that placed her in a self-contained program. (Underwood, Webb,

155). Similar to Jonathan, with multiple severe disabilities a self-contained environment might

be a more appropriate place for him to receive the attention and care he needs while also

obtaining an education.

Young had once been a special education teacher and I believe her decision to want to

place Jonathan elsewhere is defensible as long as he is given the right tools under IDEA.

Although Young may be knowledgeable, Jonathan should be evaluated and given an IEP to be

absolutely positive about where his placement should be. Depending on the severity of a childs

disability they shouldnt be taken out of the classroom unless help and related services have been
DEBBIE YOUNG V. JONATHAN ARTIFACT #5 4

provided and dont show growing results. I believe Principal Young had the best interest for

Jonathan.
DEBBIE YOUNG V. JONATHAN ARTIFACT #5 5

Resources

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

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020140925A97/C.C.%20EX%20REL.%

20A.C.%20v.%20SCHOOL%20BOARD%20OF%20BROWARD%20COUNTY

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teacher's Rights. In School Law for Teachers (p.155). Upper

Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.