Week+6+Judicial+Review


 * Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

Citation ** 458 U.S. 176, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 73 l.Ed.2d 690 **

Date ** 1982 **

Facts ** A deaf student, Amy Rowley, who had minimal residual hearing and was an excellent lip reader , was enrolled in a regular education kindergarten class at Furnace Woods Elementary by her parents, who are also deaf. Several staff members received training in sign language; the school also installed a teletype machine to enhance communication with Amy's family.  Amy was provided with an FM hearing aid and she successfully completely her kindergarten year. In the IEP that was developed in the fall of her first grade year it was determined that Amy would be educated in a regular classroom , continue using the FM system, and also be provided with instruction from a deaf tutor one hour per day and speech language services for 3 hours per week. The parents also wanted the school to provide Amy with a sign language interpreter in all of her academic classes in place of the services recommended by the school . <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">When <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Amy had a sign-language interpreter for a 2-week trial period during her kindergarten year, the interpreter did not feel that Amy derived any benefits from his services. Therefore, the school denied the parents' request for an interpreter. The school felt that Amy was "achieving educationally, academically, and socially without assistance." The parents then requested a hearing <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">from an independent examiner. T he examiner and the NY Commissioner of Education both sided with the school. The case was then brought to the US District Court where the parents claimed Amy was being denied FAPE guaranteed by the Education of the Handicapped Act. That court found in favor of the parents, citing the fact that there was a disparity between Amy's performance and her potential. The case was then brought to the US Court of Appeals. <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">The US Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that a sign language interpreter should be provided and the school district appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the decisions made by both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, determining that they had misinterpreted the meaning of "education benefit" and that Amy had in fact been receiving a FAPE that was appropriately meeting her needs.

<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Issue ** <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 255); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">1. What is meant by the Education of the Handicapped Act's requirement of a free and appropriate public education? 2. Did the State comply with procedures set forth in the Act and is the IEP the school developed "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits?" <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">3. What is the definition of and how do you measure "educational benefit?"
 * <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">

<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 255); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">1. The "basic floor of opportunity" provided by the Act consists of access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit to the handicapped child. The court held that FAPE required a school to "provide personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction. Such instruction and services must be provided at public expense, must meet the State's educational standards, must approximate the grade levels used in the State's regular education, and must comport with the child's IEP." <span style="color: rgb(0, 255, 0);">Further, the IEP must be developed in response to the requirements of the Act, and the IEP "should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade." (Russo, 2009, p.1104) <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">2. Amy's IEP was appropriately meeting her needs since her performance was at least average, and in some cases above average, when compared to her classmates. 3. The school district had taken adequate <span style="color: rgb(0, 255, 0);">precedural and substantive <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"> measures to provide a FAPE to Amy.
 * <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Holding **

<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">**Rationale** <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">Amy was performing well in school and passing in all of her classes. Her academic performance was at least average as compared to her classmates, She was not struggling in school. Therefore, the Court determined that Amy was receiving an educational benefit from her IEP and supports with the FM device, etc... but without the sign language interpreter and that the school district was not responsible for providing the "optimal level of services" but only provide reasonable educational benefit.

<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">After reviewing //PARC// and //Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia//, the Court determined that "the intent of the Education of the Handicapped Act was more to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside." (Russo, 2006, p. 1005). In other words, the Act requires states to provide all students with a free public education, but does not require states to "maximize each child's potential." Since the school had provided Amy with enough specialized services to meet the academic demands of the first grade curriculum, the Court ruled the school had provided her with a free and appropriate public education. The Act also emphasized that the SEA, LEA, and parents are responsible for creating appropriate educational programs. States are responsible for developing educational methods "derived from educational research, demonstration, and adopting promising educational paractices and materials." (Russo, 2006, p. 1010). Therefore, the state had complied with the procedures set forth in the Act when developing Amy's IEP. <span style="color: rgb(0, 255, 0);">The Court determined that "Congress' intent was not that the Act displace the primacy of States in the field of education...Therefore, once a court determines that the requirements of the Act have been met, questions of methodology are for resolution by the State." (Russo, 2009, p.1106) Additionally, the Court found that the school board had complied with all of the procedures of the Act, and that Amy's program complied with the substantive requirements of the Act.

<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 255); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Jennifer <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">Julie <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Erin <span style="color: rgb(0, 255, 0);">Christie - You all were so thorough in the summary. I tried to add a few comments, but you all had really done an excellent job with summarizing this case.