Case Analysis: Board OF Education of The Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

​ In 1982, Amy Rowley’s parents enrolled their kindergarten-aged daughter in the Hendrick Hudson School District in Peekskill, New York. Before beginning the school year, the school’s administration met with her parents to determine what supplemental services Amy needed, due to her significant hearing loss, to provide her with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). She was successful and progressing at the same pace as her non-disabled peers as she advanced to the first grade (Wrightslaw, 2015). Her redrafted annual IEP included the continued use of an amplification system, a tutor for the deaf, and speech therapy. Amy’s parents also wanted her to have a full-time Sign Language interpreter, which the school subsequently denied.

FAPE, as it related to the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act, is essential for families. Here is the definition for FAPE, F stands for free; everyone has the right to get free education; they do not have to pay. However, the money came from the taxpayers. A stand for appropriate which mean important and have reliable support for the students to succeed. P stand for the public, which means accessible, unlike private, which focuses on just some people, not the whole population. E stand for education, which means the student will learn and use it for things in life.

The final ruling favored Hendrick Hudson Central School District’s decision not to provide Amy Rowley with an interpreter. Based on her IEP, her redrafted annual IEP included the continued use of an amplification system, a tutor for the deaf, and speech therapy. The program is working. Therefore, there is no need at this time to add any other special program. Amy’s parents might want her to have a full-time Sign Language interpreter; The FAPE gave her access to an appropriate program not unique or better. Based on the text, “Provide the best services possible for your child, or “maximize” your child’s potential. Rather, it must provide services that are “reasonably calculated” to help your child make progress.” (Patino, E. 2015).

In Rowley v. Hendrick’s meaningful benefit, which covers IDEA services, students get special education to cater to each student. Amy had an issue with speech and hearing under the IEP; she will receive speech therapy at no charge. In-text, it states, “Provide accommodations and modifications that help your child learn and participate in the general education curriculum. Some examples of accommodations include audiobooks, extra time on tests and preferential seating” Patino, E. (2015). In Rowley’s case, the supreme court’s final ruling to meet students’ needs with disabilities is right. Based on the text, “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. Still, the interpreter had reported that Amy did not need his services at that time. “Wrightslaw. (2015). The states provided the “Free Appropriate Public Education” required by the Act to benefit the student based on her IEP. Amy could hear a little, and she is excellent at reading lips. The school was equipped to cater to her disabilities. The educators and specialists attended a course in sign language, and a teletype machine was available in the principal’s office to help with Amy’s parents, who are also deaf. The court presented strong evidence before the final ruling. Amy did better than the regular students in her class, and her teacher liked how she with them. The supreme court’s last order is also based on FAPE in accordance with her IEP and the IDEA. Her assessment meets the eligibility requirement as a student with exceptionality in the area of reading. She demonstrated gaps in her learning, especially in the area of reading comprehension and essential reading. Her IEP helps her overcome the challenges, and we understand she got a C in her first quarter grade. The goal of the IEP and keep improving is the first quarter, and the court believes she will get better grades as the school keeps moving along. The court understands that for school to continue providing Destini with reading activities to keep supporting her. As a reminder, the IDEA 2004 went into effect in 2005, and IDEA 2004 federal regulations in effect since 2006 kept the same definitions of SLD, specific Learning Disability. Destini has an issue with reading under conditions like dyslexia, development aphasia, perceptual disabilities, brain injury, and minimal brain dysfunction. The current federal education program still protects students like Destini, although there were problems before IDEA 2004; however, the issues have been solving. Congress advised schools to implement SLD as an additional provision to determine if students improve scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures. According to the text, “A current example of such processes is known as “Responsiveness to Intervention” (“Response to Intervention,” or “RTI”). In an RTI process, students who show signs of learning difficulties are provided with a series of increasingly intensive, individualized instructional or behavioral interventions.” (Great Schools. n.d.). The staffs who work with Destini and other experts implement the interventions. They monitored students to see if the intervention is working or not working. They will continue to have Destini work with a remedial reading teacher. In the text, it states, “Students who do not show improvement, or “responsiveness,” to this series of interventions are considered to be “at-risk” for learning disabilities and possibly in need of special education services to receive educational benefit from instruction.” (Great Schools. n.d.).

Destini received free appropriate public education called FAPE, which is the most important legal right she has. According to the text, FAPE does not “Provide a specific program or class setting that you want for your child. You’re a member of the team that creates the IEP and can give input.” (Patino, E. 2015). However, she will get specially designed instruction because of her reading problem; she will get a multisensory reading program. FAPE give services that are reasonably calculated to help the student to succeed. However, it may not be the best service for the student to pass her class.

The final ruling complied with FAPE since the IEP goal meets the student’s special needs. The implementation showed progress, which is essential for children with exceptionalities. Schools must provide appropriate education, although not the “best” education. Furthermore, “Compliance is assured by provisions permitting the withholding of federal funds upon determination that a participating state or local agency has failed to satisfy the requirements of the Act, 1414(b)(A), 1416, and by the provision for judicial review. At present, all States except New Mexico receive federal funds under the portions of the Act at issue today.”(Wrightslaw. 2015). The supreme court of the United States understand how congress found out that of the eight million handicapped children one million were not part of the public school and half were getting inappropriate education.

References:

Great Schools. (n.d.). IDEA 2004 Close Up: Evaluation and eligibility for specific learning disabilities – Learning disabilities & ADHD (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org/special-education/LD-ADHD/943-evaluation-and-eligibility-for-specific-learning-disabilities.gs?page=all

IDEA. (n.d.). IDEA – Building the legacy of IDEA 2004 (Links to an external site.). (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2CI%2CB%2C612%2Ca%2C1%2C

Latham, P. (2015). At a glance: Free and appropriate public education (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/your-childs-rights/basics-about-childs-rights/at-a-glance-free-and-appropriate-public-education

Osborne, A. G., & Russo, C. J. (2003). Special education and the law: A guide for practitioners (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Patino, E. (2015). Checklist: what is and isn’t covered under FAPE (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/your-childs-rights/basics-about-childs-rights/checklist-what-is-and-isnt-covered-under-fape

Wrightslaw. (2015). Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v Amy Rowley (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm