Landmark Legal Decision: Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education, et al. v. Rowley United States Supreme Court (1982) Facts: This case arose in connection with the education of Amy Rowley, a deaf student at the Furnace Woods School in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Peekskill, New York. Amy has minimal residual hearing and is an excellent lip reader. During the year before she began attending Furnace Woods, a meeting between her parents and school administrators resulted in a decision to place in a regular kindergarten class in order to determine what supplement services would be necessary to her education. Several members of the school administration prepared for Amy's arrival by attending a course in sign-language interpretation, and a teletype machine was installed in the principal's office to facilitate communication with her parents who are also deaf. At the end of the trial period it was determined that Amy should remain in the kindergarten class, but that she should be provided with an FM hearing aid, which would amplify words spoken into a wireless receiver by the teacher or fellow students during certain classroom activities. Amy successfully completed her kindergarten year. As required by the Act, an IEP was prepared for Amy during the fall of her first-grade year. The IEP provided that Amy should be educated in a regular classroom at Furnace Woods, should continue to use the FM hearing aid, and should receive instruction from a tutor for the deaf for one hour each day and from a speech therapist for three hours each week. The Rowleys agreed with the IEP but insisted that Amy also be provided a qualified sign-language interpreter in all of her academic classes. Such an interpreter had been placed in Amy's kindergarten class for a two-week experimental period, but the interpreter had reported that Amy did not need his services at that time. The school administrators likewise concluded that Amy did not need such an interpreter in her first-grade classroom. They reached this conclusion after consulting the school district's Committee on the Handicapped, which had received expert evidence from Amy's parents on the importance of a sign-language interpreter, received testimony from Amy's teacher and other persons familiar with her academic and social progress, and visited a class for the deaf. The school therefore denied the request for an interpreter, and the Rowleys appealed unsuccessfully to an independent examiner and to the New York Commissioner of Education. Pursuant to the Act's provision for judicial review, the Rowleys filed suit in United States District Court alleging the district's denial of an interpreter denied Amy a " free appropriate public education" guaranteed by the Act. The district found that Amy was performing better than the average child in her class, even without the aid of an interpreter but that she was not performing as well as she would without the handicap. Based on this unrealized potential the district court found that she was not receiving a "free appropriate public education." The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District

2 Court's decision and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the interpretation of the Act, and answer the following questions:

3 Issues: What is meant by the Act's requirement of a "free appropriate public education"? And what is the role of state and federal courts in exercising the review granted by the Act? Holding: The Supreme Court held that the Act is satisfied when the state provides personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child with a disability to benefit educationally from that instruction. The Supreme Court held that under the judicial review provisions of Act, once a court determines that the state has complied with the statutory procedures, and then determines that the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, then the courts can require no more. Rationale: In support of its holding, the Court reasoned that the definitions in the Act did not contain an express substantive standard proscribing the level of education to be afforded children with disabilities, but merely set out procedural requirements and statutory priorities. Further, the Court looked to the legislative history of the Act to determine that the law was intended to open the door to public education for children with disabilities, but not to impose on the states any greater substantive educational standard than is necessary to make such access meaningful. Finally the Court reasoned that while the Act seeks to help states carry out their constitutional responsibility to provide equal protection under the laws, it did not impose the duty on states to achieve a strict equality of opportunity or services or to maximize the potential of each child with a disability. Effects: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred because, in the words of the District Court, Amy was receiving an adequate education, and that the school district had complied with the procedural safeguards. Based on Amy's progress and her above average achievement in relation to other non-disabled students and the school's compliance with the procedural safeguards she was not entitled to a sign a language interpreter under the Act. The Court's broader holding is that schools that carefully follow the Act's procedural safeguards for review, hearings, and appeals of the IEP will be afforded some deference when the way they choose to educate children with disabilities is challenged in the Court. Discussion Questions: 1. Amy Rowley was a deaf student denied the assistance of an interpreter by her local school. She was able to perform academically better than an average child in her class, but because of the limitations imposed by her disability she was not able to achieve at a level commensurate with her full potential. Her parents sought the assistance of an interpreter to reduce these limitations. What is your opinion of the Supreme Court's decision to deny her this opportunity? 2. Why was the Court's decision based on the educational benefit derived rather than on maximizing the student's potential? Please elaborate on the factors behind this decision, especially for the state and federal courts, which had to make similar judgements.

3. In light of state Standards of Learning, No Child Left Behind, and IDEIA 2004, how might the Rowley case have been decided in more recent years?