Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley Lawsuit
Facts of the Case
"Amy Rowley was a deaf student attending Furnace Woods School in Hendrick Hudson Central School District in NY. Before her school attendance, her parents and the school administrators decided to put her in a regular class to determine what kind of supplemental services she would need. It was decided that Amy should remain in regular class, but would be provided with hearing aid. She completed kindergarten year without any difficulty." - Tram Nguyen, Bucknell University
"When she began her first grade, an IEP was prepared, saying that she should be in a regular class, receive hearing aid, instruction from a tutor for the deaf and a speech therapist. Her parents agreed, but also wanted a sign language interpreter in her classes. But during her kindergarten year, the sign language interpreter reported that she did not need his services after a two-week trial period. The school concluded that Amy did not need an interpreter during her first grade after considering testimony from people familiar with her academic progress." -Tram Nguyen, Bucknell University
"The Rowleys demanded a hearing before an independent examiner. The examiner also agreed that an interpreter was not necessary because Amy could do well academically and socially without assistance. The Rowleys brought the case to the district court, claiming that the denial of sign language interpreter was a violation of a “free appropriate public education.” - Tram Nguyen
"The district court found that Amy could advance from grade to grade, but did not perform as well as she could if she were not deaf. Because of the difference between her performance and her potential, the court decided she did not receive a “free appropriate public education”, which they defined as an opportunity to achieve her full potential. The court of appeals also agreed with the district court." - Tram Nguyen
"When she began her first grade, an IEP was prepared, saying that she should be in a regular class, receive hearing aid, instruction from a tutor for the deaf and a speech therapist. Her parents agreed, but also wanted a sign language interpreter in her classes. But during her kindergarten year, the sign language interpreter reported that she did not need his services after a two-week trial period. The school concluded that Amy did not need an interpreter during her first grade after considering testimony from people familiar with her academic progress." -Tram Nguyen, Bucknell University
"The Rowleys demanded a hearing before an independent examiner. The examiner also agreed that an interpreter was not necessary because Amy could do well academically and socially without assistance. The Rowleys brought the case to the district court, claiming that the denial of sign language interpreter was a violation of a “free appropriate public education.” - Tram Nguyen
"The district court found that Amy could advance from grade to grade, but did not perform as well as she could if she were not deaf. Because of the difference between her performance and her potential, the court decided she did not receive a “free appropriate public education”, which they defined as an opportunity to achieve her full potential. The court of appeals also agreed with the district court." - Tram Nguyen
Decision of the Court
"Since both district court and court of appeals failed to provide evidence that the school violated the Act, or evidence that Amy’s educational program failed to comply with the requirement of the Act, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case." - Tram Nguyen
Basis of Decision
"From the history of the cases the Court decided, the intent of the Act was to give handicapped children access to public education. It did not guarantee any level of education for them." - Tram Nguyen
"[For this case] The Supreme Court focused on the definition of a “free appropriate public education”. There was no requirement that the state had to maximize the potential of handicapped children. The specialized educational service for handicapped children did not mean that the service had to maximize each child’s potential since it was impossible to measure and compare their potential." - Tram Nguyen
"This case set the standard for future students with handicaps and the level of support being offered by their schools. And ultimately, this case was a major factor in the future creation of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA)."
- Steele, Sinclair, Weinberg, and Blaylock, Indiana University
- Steele, Sinclair, Weinberg, and Blaylock, Indiana University