Board Of Education of Hendrick Hudson School District vs. Rowley

458 US 176 (1982)

by

Tram Nguyen

Facts of the case

The Education of the Handicapped was a federal government act that provided money to assist the education of handicapped children. The state had to show that it conducted a policy that gave handicapped children the right to “free appropriate public education” through an “individualized educational program” (IEP).

Amy Rowley was a deaf student attending Furnace Woods School in Hendrick Hudson Central School District in NY. Before her school attendance, her parents and the school administrators decided to put her in a regular class to determine what kind of supplemental services she would need. It was decided that Amy should remain in regular class, but would be provided with hearing aid. She completed kindergarten year without any difficulty.

When she began her first grade, an IEP was prepared, saying that she should be in a regular class, receive hearing aid, instruction from a tutor for the deaf and a speech therapist. Her parents agreed, but also wanted a sign language interpreter in her classes. But during her kindergarten year, the sign language interpreter reported that she did not need his services after a two-week trial period. The school concluded that Amy did not need an interpreter during her first grade after considering testimony from people familiar with her academic progress.

The Rowleys demanded a hearing before an independent examiner. The examiner also agreed that an interpreter was not necessary because Amy could do well academically and socially without assistance. The Rowleys brought the case to the district court, claiming that the denial of sign language interpreter was a violation of a “free appropriate public education”.

The district court found that Amy could advance from grade to grade, but did not perform as well as she could if she were not deaf. Because of the difference between her performance and her potential, the court decided she did not receive a “free appropriate public education”, which they defined as an opportunity to achieve her full potential. The court of appeals also agreed with the district court.

Decision

Since both district court and court of appeals failed to provide evidence that the school violated the Act, or evidence that Amy’s educational program failed to comply with the requirement of the Act, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case.  

Basis of decision

The Supreme Court focused on the definition of a “free appropriate public education”. There was no requirement that the state had to maximize the potential of handicapped children. The specialized educational service for handicapped children did not mean that the service had to maximize each child’s potential since it was impossible to measure and compare their potential.

From the history of the cases the Court decided, the intent of the Act was to give handicapped children access to public education. It did not guarantee any level of education for them.