Ayala
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District VS Rowley 1982
Monica Ayala
Introduction to Special Education 203
Landmark Court Case Paper
Saturday October 3rd,2020
2
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley is one of
the many influencing Landmark court cases in Special Education. It mainly focused on the issue
of appropriate education in 1982. This landmark case was about a little girl named Amy Rowley
who has special needs alongside her parents against the board of education of Hendrick Hudson
Central School District. Amy is a deaf child with minimal residual hearing problems and her
parents requested the school to provide a sign language interpreter so that she can improve and
make progress throughout the academic school year. Since Amy was successful academically in
her kindergarten class without assistance, the school denied the request from her parents and she
was to be put in regular classes for the next year with only an updated IEP. Amy’s parents
argued that she was not having the proper education due to not providing her with a sign
language interpreter as required by Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (Rowley v.
Board of Education) This opened up to the Supreme Court to carefully review and make changes
in what represents a free appropriate public education and to cause attention to better serve
disabled students in education.
This by heart is a landmark case because it was the first Supreme Court case regarding
special education to set the standard for what correctly is a "Free Appropriate Public Education".
It provided children with disabilities access to public schools with the appropriate opportunity to
be successful in school. FAPE is defined as all children regardless of their disability must be
provided with proper education to fit their unique needs at no cost to the parent or guardian of
the child. It also requires children to receive services like occupational therapy to use in special
education. (Gargiulo and Bouck 43) Amy was not receiving a free appropriate public education
due to her not having a sign language interpreter to assist her through her progress at school in a
general classroom. The court defined this as “an opportunity to achieve her full potential
3
commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children” (Gargiulo and Bouck, 41) This
goes to show that this case brought a better perspective for providing children with the services
they need in education.
This case bought an influencing effect on the Supreme Court because it was the first U.S.
Supreme Court interpretation of PL 94-142 (Gargiulo and Bouck 41). It also expanded many
opportunities for many students, even to those students that were in that era. It helped define
FAPE and the case required for all school districts to pay attention to meeting the needs of
special education students. According to Gallegos (2020), “The Court emphasized that the act's
procedural requirements, including the mandated assessment of each child's educational needs,
were the primary means for ensuring that the child receives some educational benefit” (p.262)
This shows that they wanted to prominently display and accommodate the needs of student’s
current education to be successful and do their best.
To conclude, in June of 1982 held in opinion for a 6-3 that the Education of the
Handicapped Act of 1974 did not require that Amy needed special services due to her being
successful academically. Even though The Rowley’s did not win the case, they still made history
by reforming the educational system for disabled students to gain a more proper education and
catering to the needs of these students. The special services that were already in Amy’s IEP were
sufficient, and she did seem to perform like the other students in the class equally. The ruling
marked the first time that the court had interpreted any portion of the EHA. According to an
article by Britannica, “the intent of the Act was more to open the door of public-state education
to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education
once inside.” (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica,2020) Which initiated the requirement of
4
providing disabled students with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive
environment like general classroom but with an exceptional IEP.
5
References
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley." Britannica
Academic, Encyclopædia Britannica, 6 Aug. 2014. academic-eb-
com.ezproxy.library.csn.edu/levels/collegiate/article/Board-of-Education-of-the-
Hendrick-Hudson-Central-School-District-v-Rowley/609386. Accessed 28 Sep. 2020.
Gallegos, Elena M. “Beyond Board of Education v. Rowley: Educational Benefit for the
Handicapped?” American Journal of Education, vol. 97, no. 3, 1989, pp. 258–288. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/1085167. Accessed 28 Sept. 2020.
Gargiulo, R. M., and E. C. Bouck. Special education in contemporary society: An introduction to
Exceptionality. 7th ed., SAGE Publications, 2019.
"Rowley v. Board of Education." Gallaudet Encyclopedia of Deaf People and Deafness, edited
by John V. Van Cleve, vol. 1, McGraw-Hill Professional, 1987, pp. 383-386. Gale
eBooks,https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3475600187/GVRL?u=las55353&sid=GVRL&
xid=e6 2ea054. Accessed 28 Sept. 2020.
