Rowley v. Board of Education and appropriate public education for deaf students

IRAC

Rowley vs. Board of Education

The Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975 clearly states that children with disabilities should be assisted with supplemental services in order to provide them with "free appropriate public education." (U.S. Supreme Court Reports) the first important case, which surfaced in this connection, was the Rowley vs. The Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson District in 1982. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court and it occupies an important place in education law history.

Amy Rowley was a first grade student of Furnace Woods School in Hendrick Hudson District in New York. She was suffering from hearing disability, as both her parents were deaf. The child was being provided with assistance in accordance with the State and federal regulations. Every handicapped child who is eligible for assistance is provided education under the Individualized educational program which is formulated after consultation with and approval of the guardians. IEP programs are reviewed annually to see if the child is progressing satisfactorily under the assistance he or she is being provided by the State. In the case of Amy, the State found that the child was a fast learner and keeping the magnitude of her handicap in view and the extent to which it was causing a hindrance in obtaining "free appropriate public education" decided to place the child in regular kindergarten class. Teachers were prepared appropriately for the arrival of this handicapped child. By the end of the trial period in her regular kindergarten class, it was found that Amy was capable of receiving education with normal children but required the assistance of an amplifying hearing aid. (U.S. Supreme Court Reports) in the fall of her first grade, IEP was reviewed to add tuitions and speech therapy. But her parents were not satisfied and requested for a sign-language interpreter for Amy in each one of her classes. This request was dismissed by the school administration and later by an independent on the grounds that "Amy was achieving educationally, academically, and socially" and therefore did not require any additional assistance. Parents of Amy Rowley were of the view that though their daughter was doing well, still she was unable to realize her full potential because of this handicap.

District court ruling

The case was then brought to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, with the petitioners claiming that "free appropriate public education" clause of the Act had been violated with the denial of their request. The District Court after reviewing child's performance and examining the disparity between her progress and her full potential passed a ruling which clearly went in favor of Rowleys. It was maintained by the court that child needed further assistance because "she understands considerably less of what goes on in class than she could if she were not deaf." The District Court defined 'free appropriate public education' as "an opportunity to achieve [her] full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children."

ANALYSIS of the CASE

The decision of the Supreme Court gave rise to an ethical debate as people argued that to deny the handicapped child additional assistance indeed violated his or her basic rights as the citizens of the United States. This is because the child was denied this assistance only because it was felt that while the government was responsible for providing appropriate education to handicapped children, it was not legally binding to achieve or maintain 'perfect equality'. This shows a hidden prejudice against such children and it is clear that decision was based on more than mere performance of the child. Everybody knows that children with hearing disability are unable to grasp and comprehend some of the instructions by the teachers and therefore fail to perform up to their full potential.

While many considered the decision controversial, the legal circles and the school administrators nationwide called it a landmark ruling in the field of special education which could help in the formulation of future laws. Since then it has been noticed that this ruling was used in writing and rewriting of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. "The justification given by the court then, and being used now in the re-writing of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is that a high-achieving deaf child or teen does not need additional services. No thought is given to the fact that deafness is a communication disability, and the fact that without an interpreter a deaf student will miss much of what goes on in a hearing classroom." (Growing Up Deaf in the Seventies: (http://deafness.about.com/library/weekly/aa042098.htm)

IDEA is now used as the most important statute in connection with special education because it provides disabled eligible children with many rights including the right to free appropriate public education. (Washington Times, 2001) but the ruling in the Rowley case had a huge impact on every version of IDEA as it is clearly stated that children with hearing disabilities do not require additional assistance.

Another important area where this case had an impact is the cost of running and maintaining special education programs. While the public believed that Rowley child should have been provided further assistance because state's refusal to comply by their request meant a denial of basic rights, still the same public has also repeatedly protested against 'growing cost of educating deaf children' (6). This protest along with the Rowley case has led to the new IDEA where a deaf child can be denied interpreting services.

It is also important to know that Rowley case ruling helped us in better understanding of the meaning of "free appropriate public education." Justice Rehnquist clearly said during his ruling on 28 June 1982, "We think more must be made of it than either respondents or the United States seems willing to admit... Thus, if personalized instruction is being provided with sufficient supportive services to permit the child to benefit from the instruction, and other items on the definitional checklist are satisfied, the child is receiving a 'free appropriate public education' as defined by the Act."

CONCLUSION

These were some of the areas in which Rowley case had a profound impact. This is why the case occupies a significant position in the area of legal and ethical issues connected with special education law. It is not legally binding on school administrators and States to achieve equality where special children are concerned, which was what the Rowleys were fighting for. If we take into account the ethical aspect of the ruling, we can conclude that special education laws have been negatively affected by the Supreme Court decision because children with hearing disability are not considered eligible for additional assistance as the supplemental services mentioned in special education laws is considered sufficient for obtaining 'free appropriate public education'.