Court Case

Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education, Westchester County, Et Al v. Rowley

United States Supreme Court

Argued March 23, 1982, Decided June 28, 1982.

458 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034

The increased number of school-aged children requiring special education services created a surge of litigation, as parents, school administrators, and teachers turned to the courts for answers to complex questions regarding appropriate educational placement of handicapped children. Rowley, parents of daughter Amy, who had minimal residual hearing had been furnished by her school with a special hearing aid for use in the classroom and who was to receive additional instruction from tutors, filed a suit against the school district in Federal District Court to review New York administrative proceedings that had upheld the school administrators’ denial of the parents’ request that the child also be provided a qualified sign-language interpreter in all of her academic classes. Entering judgment for the Rowley family, the District Court found that although the child performed better than the average child in her class and was advancing easily from grade to grade, she was not performing as well academically as she would without her handicap. Because of this disparity between the child’s achievement and her potential, the court held that that she was not receiving a “free appropriate public education,” which the court defined as “an opportunity to achieve her full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children. “ The Court of Appeals affirmed [458 U.S. 176, 177].

 However, On June 28, 1982, the United States Supreme Court reversed a lower federal court decision and ruled that, “pursuant to P.L. 94-142’s provision of free and appropriate education for handicapped children, a school district was not required to provide interpreter services for a deaf student.” The opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Rehnquist. The central issue was the definition of ‘free and appropriate education,’ the underlying tenet of the Education for All Handicapped Children of 1975 (Alexander and Alexander, p. 369).” The influence this court case had on special education services is that the "Free Appropriate Public Education" Clause of the Education of the Handicapped Act does not require a state to maximize the potential of each handicapped child...The Supreme Court refuted the district’s court’s definition of free appropriate education maintaining that Congress intended only to provide handicapped students with a ‘basic floor of opportunity,’ not a specific quality of education.(Alexander and Alexander, p. 370).”  I think that the words ‘basic floor of opportunity’  imposes no clear obligation upon recipient States beyond the requirement that handicapped children receive some form of specialized education (p. 380).”  To further define the meaning of "appropriate," the majority in Rowley asserted that access should result in educational benefit for the handicapped child.

Bibliography:

Alexander, Kern and M. David Alexander. (1985). American Public School Law, second edition. New York: West Publishing Company. Pages 369-370 and 377-383.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/458/176.html  accessed January 26, 27 and 29, 2011.

Introduction

Hello, my name is Tensil Kay Clayton, am married and we have three children. Today, as an older student, I have been thinking about my past work with early childhood programs and my children’s schooling.  In Alton, Illinois, I taught in a cooperative nursery school with my daughter, Nancy, when she was four-years old and at night attended graduate school at Southern Illinois University. We were transferred to Lakeland, Florida and our daughter, Josephine, attended the lab school at Florida Southern College and I worked as a substitute teacher at our church preschool.  After two years, we were transferred to Brockport, New York where I volunteered as the story hour reader for three-year old and four-year old children at our local library, attended graduate school and worked as a substitute teacher.  Our children attended a K-6 lab school, the Innovative Center for Education at State University of New York, College at Brockport. We moved to Wilson, and my educational career has consisted of both teaching and administration.   I currently work for Davis Learning Center and still love teaching.

I enjoy reading professional journals, books and newsletters through my membership in the National Association for the Education of Young Children. I believe we should nurture our passions so you can bring them into the classroom.  My love of children’s literature, nature, art, music, travel, painting, exercise and cooking can enrich the lives of my students as I weave my enthusiasm for learning into their classroom. I look forward to working with each of you and sharing ideas as we learn about early intervention and adapting the curriculum for children with diverse needs.