Hendrick hudson sd v. rowley 1982


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Appropriate- individually based, such as modification, accomodations, LRE, OT, PT etc\n
  • \n
  • Do not have to maximize educational benefit but do need access to Basic floor of opportunity and some do better than others. \n
  • wears hearing aids, IEP process was in place, \n
  • Parents wanted to keep the interpreter because they themselves are deaf and they want to be able to communicate with their child and help Rowley maintain her sign language for she can learn Sign language.\nDistrict was happy,, not the parents\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • District pushed for this case because a lot was at stake\n
  • what is enough?\n
  • \n
  • Maximizing the child’s educ benefit is the idea of Early Intervention and acquire the tools needed to succeed through the rest of his education\n\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Afraid of flood of requests from parents until they push and sue for services until they get them\n\nBy giving in to those screaming and pushing parents, districts may be denying those students from services from parents who cannot push and ask for their child’s services\n
  • Hendrick hudson sd v. rowley 1982

    1. 1. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson SD v. Rowley: First Official Interpretation of “Appropriate” in FAPE Sherwood Best, Ph.D. Professor CSULA 1
    2. 2. Board of Education of theHendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley (little girl) 458 U.S. 176 (1982) Argued March 23, 1982 Decided June 28, 1982 2
    3. 3. TermsCertiorari – A request to a higher court toreview a decision of a lower court. The requestcan be accepted or refused.Petitioners – A person(s) who initiate (s) ajudicial proceeding and requests that relief begranted. Not necessarily the party who initiatesthe lawsuit.Basic Floor of Opportunity – Access tospecialized instruction & related servicesdesigned to confer “educational benefit.” 3
    4. 4. Background Amy Rowley was a child who was deaf and hadminimal residual hearing. She lived with herparents, who were also deaf. Prior to herattendance in school, a meeting was held todetermine what supplemental services shewould need. She was offered the following: Placement in general education Kindergarten Use of FM hearing aid Teletype machine in the school office for parental communication Sign language instruction for several teachers/administrators Sign language interpreter 4
    5. 5. BackgroundAmy successfully completed Kindergarten. Theinterpreter worked in the classroom for the first2 weeks and then stated that his services werenot needed by Amy.At her annual IEP the school team proposed thatAmy receive the additional services of a tutor forthe deaf, speech therapy 3X a week, & continuewith the FM system. Her parents wanted to addthe interpreter back in to her supplementalservices package. 5
    6. 6. BackgroundAfter consulting with their district’sCommittee of the Handicapped, thedistrict concluded that the interpreterwas not needed. The Rowleysrequested a due process hearing &the hearing officer agreed with thedistrict. This position was affirmed onappeal by the New York Commissionerof Education. The Rowleys then broughtan action (sued) in federal district court 6
    7. 7. BackgroundThe district court found Amy to be awell-adjusted child who was doingbetter than average. However, she wasnot doing as much as she could withouther handicap. For this reason, thedistrict court found for the Rowleys.The Hendrick Hudson SchoolDistrict appealed to the SecondCircuit. 7
    8. 8. BackgroundIn a divided decision, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit affirmedthe lower court’s ruling. The Board ofEducation requested a petition ofcertiorari, and the case went to theU.S. Supreme Court 8
    9. 9. Issue What is the statutory interpretation of an“appropriate education”? 9
    10. 10. Applicable Law The Education of All HandicappedChildren Act (EAHCA): Free appropriate public education (FAPE) is satisfied when the state provides individualized instruction with sufficient support to permit the child to benefit from that education FAPE does not require states to maximize the potential of each handicapped child commensurate with non-handicapped children. 10
    11. 11. Arguments - PetitionersThe petitioners (Board of Education)contended that the U.S. District Courtmisinterpreted the term “appropriateeducation” and the requirementsimposed by Congress by which the statereceive federal funds.The state was not obligated tomaximize the child’s educationalbenefit. 11
    12. 12. Arguments - DefendantsThe U.S. District Court entered thejudgment that Amy was not performingas she would without her handicap.Therefore, it was incumbent on thedistrict to assist Amy to achieve herfull potential: An equal educationalopportunity. The U.S. Circuit Courtaffirmed this decision. 12
    13. 13. HoldingThe Act’s requirement for FAPE is satisfied whenthe state provides personalized instruction withsufficient support services to permit educationalbenefit. Therefore, “the intent of the Act wasmore to open the door of public education tohandicapped children on appropriate terms thanto guarantee any particular level onceinside”.The U.S. Circuit Court had erred in affirming theU.S. District Court. 13
    14. 14. DictaJudge Rehnquist, writing for the majority, notedthat: FAPE consisted of educational instruction designed to meet the unique needs of a student with disabilities, supported by such services that permitted the student to benefit from instruction. Therefore, if individualized instruction allowed the child to benefit from educational services and was provided in conformity with other requirements of the law, the student was receiving a FAPE. Any substantive standard prescribing the level of education to be accorded students with disabilities was conspicuously absent from the language of the EAHCA. 14
    15. 15. DictaThe ruling was not to be interpreted tomean that every student with adisability who was advancing fromgrade to grade in a regular school wasautomatically receiving FAPE. The FAPEstandard can only be arrived at via amulti-factorial evaluation conductedon a case-by-case basis. 15
    16. 16. Court’s OrdersAmy Rowley remained in first gradewith all the previous supplementalsupports & services offered by theschool district, but with no signlanguage interpreter. 16
    17. 17. Implications - Special EducationDevelopment of the “Rowley Standard”, atwo-part test to determine if a school has metits obligations to provide FAPE under EAHCA/IDEA: Has the school complied with the procedures of the Act? Is the IEP developed through the Act’s procedures reasonably calculated to bring about educational benefit? (determine what is reasonable and what is needed)Some post-Rowley decisions have ruled thatschools have denied FAPE, based on proceduralviolations alone. 17
    18. 18. Implications - Special EducationThe Rowley decision may protect school systemsfrom investing resources into programs orservices that could be met through existing,more traditional means. In several cases where actions were brought against school districts alleging denial of FAPE due to denial of a particular educational approach favored b parents, school districts have prevailed. However, the issue may come down to comparison of relative progress using particular methods.The Rowley case may prevent or impedeapproaches that help the individual studentadvance at a higher rate or potential. 18