1

Portfolio Artifact # 5

Jamie Lohmeyer

EDU 210

Portfolio Artifact # 5

Dr. Dale Warby

College of Southern Nevada

10/2/2019
 2
Portfolio Artifact # 5

Debbie Young is asked to speak with the parents of tenth grader whom has

extreme disabilities. After hearing the parent’s proposal of why their son should go to one

of her schools, Ms. Young decides that her schools are not the right fit for their son. Is

this a case of discrimination or did Ms. Young act with the knowledge of the six major

principles under IDEA?

The first case that supports Jonathan’s parents is Mills v. Board of Education of

District of Columbia (1972). In the Mill’s case it showed that all students are entitled to a

free education that promotes their learning needs. This case is relevant to Jonathan’s case

as directly states that all children must receive an education based on their individual

needs and not the needs of the school. Thus, allowing for Jonathan’s parents to fight for

their son’s needs no matter the cost to the school.

The next case that supports Jonathan’s case is Timothy W. v. Rochester, New

Hampshire, School District (1989). In Timothy’s case the court stated that all student’s

with disabilities are entitled to special education services regardless of the severity of

their disability. The similarities of Jonathan’s case and Timothy’s are virtually one in the

same. Giving Jonathan’s parents the absolute right to sue Ms. Young’s school for

Jonathan’s right to a free and appropriate education. In Timothy’s case the courts

established there is to be zero rejection by schools thus, siding with Jonathan’s family.

The first case that sides with Ms. Young is Daniel RR vs State Board of

Education, (1989). In Daniel’s case it was found that due to Daniel’s disability he was

unable to achieve satisfactory progress therefore, an inclusion program was not

 3
Portfolio Artifact # 5

appropriate for him. Due to some disabilities an inclusion classroom is not always the

most effective room for a student. Jonathan’s disabilities require him to be in an

environment that allows him to have maximum potential in school and Ms. Young’s

school was unable to offer it to him.

The next case that sides with Ms. Young is Clyde K. v. Puyallup School District,

(1994). In the Clyde K. case, the courts found that a child’s disabilities can make it

impossible for said child to be in an inclusion classroom. Therefore, showing that the

least restrictive environment needs to address the safety of not only the disabled child

but, their peers. In Jonathan’s case the least restrictive environment was not at Young’s

school. Young’s school does not have the resources that Jonathan needed to be successful

and safe.

Under the IDEA laws I cannot except that Young did the right thing in rejecting

Jonathan. Young did not make any accommodations to try and service Jonathan in an

inclusion classroom. As stated in Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia

(1972) all children are entitled to “free public education and training appropriate to their

learning capacities.” Young primarily looked at the financial aspects of bringing Jonathan

into her school and did not consider any other factors that would give Jonathan a free and

appropriate education in the least restrictive environment doing a great disservice to him.

I am a firm believer in inclusion programs for all with the use of supplementary aides and

services.
 4
Portfolio Artifact # 5

References

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972)

Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District (1989)

Daniel RR vs State Board of Education, (1989)

Clyde K. v. Puyallup School District, (1994)