Students with Disabilities

Students with Disabilities

Choose one (1) of the case briefs from this week’s chapter on Education of Students with Disabilities. Summarize briefly how the final decision of the case impacted the education of students with special needs. Evaluate how the case decision impacted components of special education services such as funding, special education determination and eligibility standards.

case brief HENDRICK HUDSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ROWLEY 458 U.S. 176 (1982)

GENERAL RULE OF LAW: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act does not require special services sufficient to maximize a handicapped child’s education to a level commensurate with nonhandicapped children. PROCEDURE SUMMARY:

Plaintiff: Rowley (P), a handicapped student

Defendant: Hendrick Hudson Central School District Board of Education (Board) (D)

U.S. District Court Decision: Held for Rowley (P)

U.S. Court of Appeals Decision: Affirmed

U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Reversed

FACTS: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act provided that handicapped children attending public schools should be given special educational programs to meet their particular needs. Rowley (P), who was almost completely deaf, was admitted to kindergarten. She was given a hearing aid, with which she achieved a measure of academic success. However, the Board (D) turned down a request made on her behalf that a sign language interpreter be provided. A suit was brought in U.S. district court, contending that Rowley’s (P) educational opportunities could not be maximized without the interpreter. The district court held that the Act mandated services that would maximize a handicapped child’s educational opportunities and mandated a sign language interpreter. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review. ISSUE: Does the Education for All Handicapped Children Act require special services sufficient to maximize a handicapped child’s education to a level commensurate with nonhandicapped children? HOLDING AND DECISION: (Rehnquist, J.) No. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act does not require special services sufficient to maximize a handicapped child’s education to a level commensurate with nonhandicapped children. In deciding whether such a requirement exists, the first place a court must look is in the Act’s language. The Act states that special services are to be provided as are necessary to permit the child “to benefit” from instruction. There is no language to the effect that the benefits are to be maximized to the greatest extent possible. While Rowley (P) may be correct in her argument that the Act was passed with a desire to promote equal educational opportunity, the position asserted on her behalf would tend to indicate an effort to achieve equality of result, an impossible goal not likely contemplated by the Act. In short, it appears that all the Act requires is that special services be provided to handicapped students that would allow them to benefit from education. In view of the relative success that Rowley (P) so far experienced, it would seem that the Board (D) discharged its duty under the Act. Reversed. COMMENT: It is well recognized that education is a matter traditionally left to the states and their political subdivisions. The Act in question recognized this, leaving much of its execution to the states. The Court noted that it would be inconsistent with this approach for the federal judiciary to regulate from the bench how the Act would be enforced. Rowley (P) argued that to receive a “free, appropriate education,” she should have the opportunity to achieve her full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children. This issue of “maximizing” one’s opportunities is a critical one. If this decision had not been reversed, the potential cost would have been extensive, even prohibitive

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!