Case Title and Citations-- Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982), Supreme Court › Volume 458 Opposing Parties—Board of Education of the HENDRICK HUDSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT V. Rowley the parents of Amy Rowley. This case involves Amy Rowley, a deaf student, and the Furnace Woods School in the Hendricks Hudson School District in Peeksville,New York.
Critical Facts-- the question was posed by the parents of a hearing impaired student that the school districts refusal to provide a sign language interpreter violated their daughter's right to a free appropriate education. The school district refused to provide a sign language interpreter. Amy performed better than average in her grades. Issues of Law -- The issue at hand is the question of whether or not Amy was receiving a "free and appropriate public education" from the Hendrick Hudson School District 1) What is meant by the Act's requirement of a "free and appropriate public education”? 2) What is the role of state and federal courts have in determining if a child is receiving a FAPE? Court Reasoning –It was determined that "the school district did not have to provide an interpreter for Amy Rowley because states are not required to maximize the potential of each handicapped child. Decisions - the Supreme Court mentioned that grades and advancement from grade to grade were a factor in assessing benefit for mainstreamed students. Another recurrent problem is the issue of a student passing from grade to grade and still remaining eligible for services. Amy Rowley herself got good grades, and the court held that she was not entitled to a sign language interpreter as requested by her parents. Opposing Opinions --the question was posed by the parents of a hearing-impaired student Amy that the school districts refusal to provide a sign language interpreter violated their daughter's right to a free and appropriate education. The Rowley has brought the issue to the United States District Court claiming that without an interpreter, Amy was not receiving a "free and appropriate education”. (FAPE) This trial concluded that because Amy was not achieving to her full potential without an interpreter, she was not getting the FAPE she was entitled to. Analysis -- The US District Court. …show more content…
Rowley is undoubtedly the most important and influential case in special education law. They found that the District was actually in compliance with the law and that it was not necessary for Amy Rowley to have the services of an interpreter provided by the school. Applying these standards “some educational benefit" standard no longer accurately reflects the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Rather, state standards and educational adequacy requirements provide the substantive requirements of FAPE, and these standards exceed the "some educational benefit" benchmark. This conclusion requires a fundamental change in the way courts, school districts, and parents should view special education services Implications-
Implications-- although the findings in the Rowley case did not help Amy's situation in 1982, the case changed the way that courts look at all special education cases. The courts must ask the following questions:
1) Has the state complied with the procedures set forth in the act (IDEA)?
2) Is the IEP developed through the Act's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? The Rowley Case opened the
Critical Facts-- the question was posed by the parents of a hearing impaired student that the school districts refusal to provide a sign language interpreter violated their daughter's right to a free appropriate education. The school district refused to provide a sign language interpreter. Amy performed better than average in her grades. Issues of Law -- The issue at hand is the question of whether or not Amy was receiving a "free and appropriate public education" from the Hendrick Hudson School District 1) What is meant by the Act's requirement of a "free and appropriate public education”? 2) What is the role of state and federal courts have in determining if a child is receiving a FAPE? Court Reasoning –It was determined that "the school district did not have to provide an interpreter for Amy Rowley because states are not required to maximize the potential of each handicapped child. Decisions - the Supreme Court mentioned that grades and advancement from grade to grade were a factor in assessing benefit for mainstreamed students. Another recurrent problem is the issue of a student passing from grade to grade and still remaining eligible for services. Amy Rowley herself got good grades, and the court held that she was not entitled to a sign language interpreter as requested by her parents. Opposing Opinions --the question was posed by the parents of a hearing-impaired student Amy that the school districts refusal to provide a sign language interpreter violated their daughter's right to a free and appropriate education. The Rowley has brought the issue to the United States District Court claiming that without an interpreter, Amy was not receiving a "free and appropriate education”. (FAPE) This trial concluded that because Amy was not achieving to her full potential without an interpreter, she was not getting the FAPE she was entitled to. Analysis -- The US District Court. …show more content…
Rowley is undoubtedly the most important and influential case in special education law. They found that the District was actually in compliance with the law and that it was not necessary for Amy Rowley to have the services of an interpreter provided by the school. Applying these standards “some educational benefit" standard no longer accurately reflects the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Rather, state standards and educational adequacy requirements provide the substantive requirements of FAPE, and these standards exceed the "some educational benefit" benchmark. This conclusion requires a fundamental change in the way courts, school districts, and parents should view special education services Implications-
Implications-- although the findings in the Rowley case did not help Amy's situation in 1982, the case changed the way that courts look at all special education cases. The courts must ask the following questions:
1) Has the state complied with the procedures set forth in the act (IDEA)?
2) Is the IEP developed through the Act's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? The Rowley Case opened the