By Gerald CardP335-341

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982)

458 U.S. 176

Its about a Free Appropriate Public Education

Amy Rowley was deaf and entered into a regular kindergarten class.

She was originally given an interpreter but did not need one because she was proficient at reading lips-discontinued

Given a hearing aid which allowed her to achieve without assistance.

1st grade parents requested an interpreter and denied

Facts

Due Process was given from an independent examiner who sided with the school

District court found that the hearing loss left her understanding less than if she could hear

The difference between her achievement and potential gave the court the conclusion that her education was note appropriate for her.

The Free Appropriate Public Education is instruction that is designed to meet the needs of the handicapped, supported by necessary services so that they benefit from the instruction (appropriate is subjective)

The child is educated with a free support system and is benefitting from the instruction in a regular classroom, achieving passing marks, and advancing from grade to grade, the act has been met.

Amy is performing better than the average child in her class, so an interpreter was not added.

Legal Doctrine

Timothy v. Rochester School District

875 f.2d 954 (1st Cir 1989) cert. denied

493 U.S. 983 (1989)

-Severely handicapped children must be educated even if they cannot demonstrate that it benefits them

Legal Doctrine

P.L. 94-142 & sect 504

Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel 716 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir 1983)

-School systems must provide services past the 180 day mark if significant regression occurs in the absence of services and not because a child would benefit more from the extended time