-
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
Parents of Amy Rowley, a child with minimal hearing, emphasized the need for a sign language interpreter for Amy's academic classes. The interpreter was to replace other accommodations because Amy could only understand sixty percent of classroom communication. The school provided an interpreter for a two-week trial, then determined that one was not needed as she excelled proficiently without one through lip reading and a hearing aid ("Rowley Case: What Does it Mean? – Whitted Takiff Law," n.d.). -
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
References:
The Rowley Case: What Does it Mean? – Whitted Takiff Law. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.whittedtakifflaw.com/for-parents/memorandum/rowley-case-mean/
(For More Info: http://www.whittedtakifflaw.com/for-parents/memorandum/rowley-case-mean/) -
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
The court ruled 6-3 that Amy must be provided a sign language interpreter. Not providing one is restricting her academic potential because she is not able to understand as much as she would be able to without her handicap. The ruling in favor of Rowley redefined the meaning "appropriate free public education," by changing the intent of the law to enable children to reach their full potential instead of simply being exposed to education. -
BURLINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 471 U. S. 359
It was ruled 9-0 by the U.S. Supreme Court that officials of Burlington pay tuition and reimburse the family of Michael. The ruling was based on that both parties had previously agreed that the appropriate placement for Michael was a private special education institution. This ruling supports the rights of parental involvement in the IEP development process, as well as, continuing to embody the due process of free public education for individuals who are disabled. -
BURLINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 471 U. S. 359
References: Rehberg, M. L. (2018). School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved March 31, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/School-Committee-of-the-Town-of-Burlington-v-Massachusetts-Department-of-Education For More Info: [https://www.britannica.com/topic/School-Committee-of-the-Town-of-Burlington-v-Massachusetts-Department-of-Education] -
BURLINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 471 U. S. 359
The parents of Michael Panico sought tuition reimbursement from town officials of Burlington, MA due to lack of IEP progress which occurred over a two year period. This resulted in them choosing to enroll Michael in a private special education institution. Burlington officials ignored the request by the EAHCA to reimburse the family and pay Michael's tuition. They based their decision on the parents unilaterally choosing to enroll him in a private institution (Rehberg, 2018). -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. 1999
The parents of Garret F., a child who required significant medical attention while throughout his daily activities were seeking that under the IDEA the school provides and pay for a personal attendant to assist with his medical needs while in school. The school board refused this request and a federal trial concluded the medical services were excluded under the IDEA medical exclusion clause (Cedar Rapids v Garret F, 2017). -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. 1999
References:
Cedar Rapids v Garret F [Video file]. (2017, April 8). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36fZw-zip_A
(For More Info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36fZw-zip_A) -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. 1999
After the federal court hearing, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and ruled 7-2 that under the IDEA, school boards must provide students with medical disabilities necessary nursing services and staff throughout their school day. This ruling continues to support that all children regardless of their disability have access to a free public education. It also ensures that with access comes the necessary accommodations and services for exposure to the education they are entitled to.