Substantive Educational Rights

Click here to load reader

  • date post

  • Category


  • view

  • download


Embed Size (px)


Substantive Educational Rights. By Gerald Card P335-341. Title and Citation. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176. Facts. Its about a Free Appropriate Public Education - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Substantive Educational Rights

  • By Gerald CardP335-341

  • Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982)458 U.S. 176

  • Its about a Free Appropriate Public EducationAmy Rowley was deaf and entered into a regular kindergarten class. She was originally given an interpreter but did not need one because she was proficient at reading lips-discontinuedGiven a hearing aid which allowed her to achieve without assistance.1st grade parents requested an interpreter and denied

  • FactsDue Process was given from an independent examiner who sided with the schoolDistrict court found that the hearing loss left her understanding less than if she could hear

  • The difference between her achievement and potential gave the court the conclusion that her education was note appropriate for her.

    The Free Appropriate Public Education is instruction that is designed to meet the needs of the handicapped, supported by necessary services so that they benefit from the instruction (appropriate is subjective)

  • The child is educated with a free support system and is benefitting from the instruction in a regular classroom, achieving passing marks, and advancing from grade to grade, the act has been met.Amy is performing better than the average child in her class, so an interpreter was not added.

  • Legal DoctrineTimothy v. Rochester School District 875 f.2d 954 (1st Cir 1989) cert. denied493 U.S. 983 (1989)-Severely handicapped children must be educated even if they cannot demonstrate that it benefits them

  • Legal DoctrineP.L. 94-142 & sect 504Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel 716 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir 1983)-School systems must provide services past the 180 day mark if significant regression occurs in the absence of services and not because a child would benefit more from the extended time

    The act immediately mandated existing handicapped children not being educated in the public school system or being inadequately educated be placed in the public school system with an IEP put into effect

    Since each student learns differently and educational opportunities differ from student to student, some still argue to what degree to teach a handicapped child.

    New York mistakenly thought it meant to maximize the potential commensurate with the opportunity provided unhandicapped children.

    It was ruled that Congress just meant to identify and evaluate handicapped children and provide them a free public education. So when is the ACT satsfied.*