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. Board of Education of the
Hendrick Hudson School District
v.
Rowley (little girl)
458 U.S. 176 (1982)
Argued March 23, 1982
Decided June 28, 1982
2

3. Terms
Certiorari – A request to a higher court to
review a decision of a lower court. The request
can be accepted or refused.
Petitioners – A person(s) who initiate (s) a
judicial proceeding and requests that relief be
granted. Not necessarily the party who initiates
the lawsuit.
Basic Floor of Opportunity – Access to
specialized instruction & related services
designed to confer “educational benefit.”
3

4. Background
Amy Rowley was a child who was deaf and had
minimal residual hearing. She lived with her
parents, who were also deaf. Prior to her
attendance in school, a meeting was held to
determine what supplemental services she
would 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. Background
Amy successfully completed Kindergarten. The
interpreter worked in the classroom for the first
2 weeks and then stated that his services were
not needed by Amy.
At her annual IEP the school team proposed that
Amy receive the additional services of a tutor for
the deaf, speech therapy 3X a week, & continue
with the FM system. Her parents wanted to add
the interpreter back in to her supplemental
services package.
5

6. Background
After consulting with their district’s
Committee of the Handicapped, the
district concluded that the interpreter
was not needed. The Rowleys
requested a due process hearing &
the hearing officer agreed with the
district. This position was affirmed on
appeal by the New York Commissioner
of Education. The Rowleys then brought
an action (sued) in federal district court
6

7. Background
The district court found Amy to be a
well-adjusted child who was doing
better than average. However, she was
not doing as much as she could without
her handicap. For this reason, the
district court found for the Rowleys.
The Hendrick Hudson School
District appealed to the Second
Circuit.
7

8. Background
In a divided decision, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
the lower court’s ruling. The Board of
Education requested a petition of
certiorari, and the case went to the
U.S. Supreme Court
8

9. Issue
What is the statutory
interpretation of an
“appropriate education”?
9

10. Applicable Law
The Education of All Handicapped
Children 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. Arguments - Petitioners
The petitioners (Board of Education)
contended that the U.S. District Court
misinterpreted the term “appropriate
education” and the requirements
imposed by Congress by which the state
receive federal funds.
The state was not obligated to
maximize the child’s educational
benefit.
11

12. Arguments - Defendants
The U.S. District Court entered the
judgment that Amy was not performing
as she would without her handicap.
Therefore, it was incumbent on the
district to assist Amy to achieve her
full potential: An equal educational
opportunity. The U.S. Circuit Court
affirmed this decision.
12

13. Holding
The Act’s requirement for FAPE is satisfied when
the state provides personalized instruction with
sufficient support services to permit educational
benefit. Therefore, “the intent of the Act was
more to open the door of public education to
handicapped children on appropriate terms than
to guarantee any particular level once
inside”.
The U.S. Circuit Court had erred in affirming the
U.S. District Court.
13

14. Dicta
Judge Rehnquist, writing for the majority, noted
that:
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. Dicta
The ruling was not to be interpreted to
mean that every student with a
disability who was advancing from
grade to grade in a regular school was
automatically receiving FAPE. The FAPE
standard can only be arrived at via a
multi-factorial evaluation conducted
on a case-by-case basis.
15

16. Court’s Orders
Amy Rowley remained in first grade
with all the previous supplemental
supports & services offered by the
school district, but with no sign
language interpreter.
16

17. Implications - Special Education
Development of the “Rowley Standard”, a
two-part test to determine if a school has met
its 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 that
schools have denied FAPE, based on procedural
violations alone.
17

18. Implications - Special Education
The Rowley decision may protect school systems
from investing resources into programs or
services 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 impede
approaches that help the individual student
advance at a higher rate or potential. 18