BOARD OF EDUCATION V ROWLEY

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

HENDRICK HUDSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

v.

ROWLEY SUMMARY

Ashley Walls

University of West Alabama

BOARD OF EDUCATION V ROWLEY

Abstract

After a successful year in kindergarten, it was time to reevaluate Amy Rowley’s IEP.

Amy receives an IEP because she is a deaf student in the Hendrick Hudson public school system.

After consideration the school system denied the parents of what the felt was necessary for their

student to be successful in her first-grade year. unable to come to terms the case was taken all the

way up to the Supreme Court for the first interpretation of what was then called the Education

for All Handicapped Children Act.

BOARD OF EDUCATION V ROWLEY

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

HENDRICK HUDSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

v.

ROWLEY SUMMARY

Amy Rowley was kindergartener in the Hendrick Hudson School District in New York City.

Amy had very little residual hearing and was considered handicap. Before she started her

kindergarten year her deaf parents and school board got together to determine what Amy needed

to be successful in school. Some of the accommodation included a hearing aid, teletype machine,

sign language classes for the administration and a sign language interpreter. With all these

accommodations Amy had a very successful kindergarten year in a general education class.

When it came time for Amy to start 1st grade the parents and school started an IEP. The parents

agreed with everything the school offered but wanted a full-time sign language interpreter. The

school decided that the interpreter was unnecessary based on the experience they had with Amy

last year. The school also consulted with the Committee of the Handicap, and they agreed with

that Amy did not need an interpreter.

Amy Parent’s said that the denial of the interpreter was denial of FAPE. Once it went to court, he

District Court ruled that FAPE entitles Amy the opportunity to reach her full potential just like

her non-disabled peers. The Court of Appeals agreed with their ruling. When the case got to the

Supreme Court the ruling was reversed. The Supreme Court said that the school was complying

with FAPE and that Amy was receiving adequate education. The Supreme Court said this

“We do not attempt today to establish any one test for determining the adequacy of educational

benefits conferred upon all children covered by the Act. Because in this case we are presented
BOARD OF EDUCATION V ROWLEY

with a handicapped child who is receiving substantial specialized instruction and related

services, and who is performing above average in the regular classrooms of a public school

system, we confine our analysis to this situation”

The case of Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson School District was the U.S. Supreme Court's first

interpretation of what was then called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, “IDEA”). This interpretation is significant to the

field of special education because they ruled in favor of the school board. This means that if the

student is successful the schools do not have to provide more accommodations.

BOARD OF EDUCATION V ROWLEY

References

Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley. Berney & Sang. (2017, October 6). Retrieved
October 30, 2022, from https://www.berneylaw.com/hendrick-hudson-school-district-v-
rowley/

Idaho State Department of Education (SDE). SDE. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2022, from
https://www.sde.idaho.gov/sped/sped-manual/

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School
District BD. of ed., Westchester County, et al., petitioners v. Amy Rowley, by her parents
and natural guardians, Clifford and Nancy Rowley etc.. Legal Information Institute.
Retrieved October 30,