Running Head: DEBBIE YOUNG SCENARIO 1

Debbie Young Scenario

Jonathan B. Wood

College of Southern Nevada

DEBBIE YOUNG SCENARIO 2

Abstract

The Debbie Young Scenario illustrates four distinct court cases as well as any

Constitutional Amendments that involve students with disabilities in the private or public school

system. In every paragraph a discussion about what was involved in each of the court cases is

presented. How these cases are relevant to the scenario and what a potential outcome might

happen when the cases are reviewed.

DEBBIE YOUNG SCENARIO 3

Debbie Young Scenario

In a progressive high school in the South, Principal Debbie Young is approached by a

couple who is asking that their 10th grade child, Jonathan, be admitted into the school. Jonathan

has severe disabilities which include spastic quadriplegia and severe seizures. He requires

constant care by a specially trained nurse. Principal Young denied Jonathan’s entrance into the

school due to his severe mental impairments, stating that Jonathan’s disabilities were

“extraordinary” and that her school may not be the most appropriate place for Jonathan. The

family has filed suit claiming that Jonathan is being discriminated against due to his disability.

The Constitutional Amendments being identified in this scenario are the 14th

Amendment Equal Opportunity Clause and the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. These

Amendments prevent discrimination from those with mental handicaps being able to attend

public schooling. The Federal laws being addressed in this scenario are the Rehabilitation Act

504 and specifically ADA Title II and IDEA (Individuals with Disability Education Act)

(Cambron et. all, 146). To qualify under these Acts, a student “will have to be either incapable

of performing the designated activity or significantly restricted” (Cambron et. all, 145). If

students qualify under this Act, public schools are required to perform testing to determine the

severity of the disability and develop an appropriate IEP (Individualized Education Plan).
DEBBIE YOUNG SCENARIO 4

“Con”

In 1992, a case was filed in the Wilson School District in Philadelphia, PA regarding

minor child M.N. This case was brought forward after parents Susan Nelson and David Nelson

felt that M.N was not being appropriately tested for her disability and therefore being denied an

IEP or other special education programs (Susan v. Wilson School District, 1995). This case

relates to the original scenario regarding Debbie Young and minor child Jonathan based on the

fact of it being unclear whether or not Jonathan was tested for any disabilities prior to his denial

into the school. In the case of Nelson v. Wilson School District, the Plaintiff felt that the school

had not done appropriate testing to determine the severity of M.N’s disability and therefore were

not following the IDEA Act which requires initial testing to be completed. The District Court

ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, granting M.N access to the special education programs.

In Newark School District, between the years 1999 and 2000, six complaints were filed

after the Plaintiffs alleged that appropriate testing had not been completed on the minor children

involved (E.S et all v. Newark Public Schools, 99-00). Each individual case was relatively the

same complaint. Each student had a severe disability which the respective parents felt should be

addressed by the school district to determine whether or not an IEP would be needed. In all six

cases, the school district either failed to do any testing or conducted testing and did not follow

through with appropriate services for the students. The District Court ruled in favor of the

Plaintiff in this case and immediate action by the school was taken. Plaintiffs were reimbursed

funds they had paid for private testing after the school failed to complete it. The original scenario

does not indicate whether or not initial testing was completed to determine Jonathan’s level of
DEBBIE YOUNG SCENARIO 5

functioning. If testing was not completed, the school would be responsible for conducting testing

before making any decisions regarding Jonathan’s placement in the school.

“Pro”

The scenario involving Principal Young does not state whether or not initial testing was

done to determine Jonathan’s specific needs or whether or not his disability requires an IEP. In

the event that testing was completed the court case involving H.B v. LV Unified School District

could apply. This court case was filed after the LV Unified School District refused minor child

H.B into the school after determining his level of functioning was not appropriate for the specific

school the Plaintiff’s were requesting the student attend (H.B v. L.V Unified, 2007). The

Plaintiff in this case felt that the school made a predetermination in not allowing the student to

attend. The District Court did not rule in favor of either side in this case but did ask that if the

school not allow H.B to attend they would need to discuss an alternative placement for the

student and assist the parents in getting the student enrolled in the alternative school.

In Miami Dade County, FL a case was brought to suit after minor student M.M was

allegedly denied access into the private school/synagogue she had been attending after extensive

testing done by the school determined that there was not an appropriate program available to

meet her needs (M/M v. School Board of Miami Dade, 2006). Minor child M.M was born with a

hearing disability. She received cochlear implants and her parents were advised that she receive

special assistance through the school to assist her in auditory learning. After appropriate testing

and ensuring the correct methods had been taken, the school determined that they did not have

appropriate programs or instructors to assist the student effectively. The school suggested

alternative placements and even contacted other public schools that would be beneficial for
DEBBIE YOUNG SCENARIO 6

M.M’s further learning, however, the Plaintiff argued that assistance should be provided by the

school of their choosing. The District Court dismissed the case following an appeal made by the

Plaintiff. In the scenario regarding Principal Young and student Jonathan, had alternative

placement been suggested by the school and assistance provided to the student to obtain

enrollment, it is likely that the school would not be at fault and any court case would be vacated.

“Judgement”

The original scenario discussed has many possible outcomes and determinations. Not

enough information is given regarding specific elements which would be necessary in making a

final determination. Had Jonathan’s parents been attempting to enroll him in a private school as

opposed to a public school, Principal Young may have more ability to deny Jonathan’s

enrollment due to the private funding of a private school as opposed to public funding. Another

factor which would need to be addressed is whether or not Principal Young conducted

appropriate testing prior to denying his enrollment. Had testing been completed and it had been

determined that the school could not possibly meet his specific needs, the school would then be

required to assist the family in obtaining enrollment in a school that could meet his needs. If

testing had not been completed prior to Principal Young’s decision, the school would be

obligated to complete testing before making a determination on his placement.

DEBBIE YOUNG SCENARIO 7

References

Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers and Students. Pp. 144-

147

Casetext. (2013). https://casetext.com/case/hb-v-lv-unified

FindLaw's United States Eleventh Circuit case and opinions. (2015).

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1325728.html

FindLaw's United States Third Circuit case and opinions. (1995). http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-

3rd-circuit/1463748.html

United States District Court District of New Jersey. (2009).

http://www.edlawcenter.org/assets/files/pdfs/Newsblasts/Decision-class-certifcation.pdf
DEBBIE YOUNG SCENARIO 8