Henry Hudson School vs. Rowley
Henry Hudson School vs. Rowley
Henry Hudson School vs. Rowley
Diana Arrowood
Grand Canyon University: SPE-350
August 31, 2012
Abstract
I am writing this paper on the court case of Hudson District School vs. Rowley. I will discuss those involved in the case, what issues brought this case to trial, how and when the case was adjudicated, and the final outcome of the trial. I will also tell how I feel about this case and what it accomplished for the education system. Every student has the right to have an individual education plan (IEP). Although all students with disabilities are entitled to an IEP that does not necessarily mean they are eligible for every form of technology available to them. IEP are designed to keep children with disabilities as current as those students without disabilities. Amy Rowley did in fact have an individualized education plan, but her parents believed she was entitled to more. Hendrick Hudson vs. Rowley was the first U.S. Supreme Court’s trial under the Education for All Handicapped Children which is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (IDEA).
Hendrick Hudson School vs. Rowley Amy Rowley was a student at Furnace Woods School in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District; Peekskill, N.Y. Amy had very little if any residual hearing but, she was an excellent lip reader. A year before Amy was to attend school a meeting was set up for Amy and her parents to meet with the school administrator. It was a reciprocal decision to place Amy in a regular kindergarten class on a trial basis. Many administrators of the school were to take a course in sign language to help in the communications with Amy. The principal’s office was equipped with a teletype machine as both of Amy’s parents were also deaf. At the end of the trial basis it was decided by the administrators as well as Amy’s parents that she should stay in a regular classroom. Amy was provided an FM transmitter, which amplified the voice of the
Henry Hudson School vs. Rowley
Diana Arrowood
Grand Canyon University: SPE-350
August 31, 2012
Abstract
I am writing this paper on the court case of Hudson District School vs. Rowley. I will discuss those involved in the case, what issues brought this case to trial, how and when the case was adjudicated, and the final outcome of the trial. I will also tell how I feel about this case and what it accomplished for the education system. Every student has the right to have an individual education plan (IEP). Although all students with disabilities are entitled to an IEP that does not necessarily mean they are eligible for every form of technology available to them. IEP are designed to keep children with disabilities as current as those students without disabilities. Amy Rowley did in fact have an individualized education plan, but her parents believed she was entitled to more. Hendrick Hudson vs. Rowley was the first U.S. Supreme Court’s trial under the Education for All Handicapped Children which is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (IDEA).
Hendrick Hudson School vs. Rowley Amy Rowley was a student at Furnace Woods School in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District; Peekskill, N.Y. Amy had very little if any residual hearing but, she was an excellent lip reader. A year before Amy was to attend school a meeting was set up for Amy and her parents to meet with the school administrator. It was a reciprocal decision to place Amy in a regular kindergarten class on a trial basis. Many administrators of the school were to take a course in sign language to help in the communications with Amy. The principal’s office was equipped with a teletype machine as both of Amy’s parents were also deaf. At the end of the trial basis it was decided by the administrators as well as Amy’s parents that she should stay in a regular classroom. Amy was provided an FM transmitter, which amplified the voice of the
References: Huxtable, Marion. 1994. "Child Protection: With Liberty and Justice for All." Social Work 39, no. 1: 60-66. Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 29, 2012). Macfarlane, M. A. (2012). The Shifting Floor of Educational Opportunity: The Impact of Educational Reform on Rowley. Journal Of Law & Education, 41(1), 45-69. Weber, M. C. (2012). Common-Law Interpretation of Appropriate Education: The Road Not Taken in Rowley. Journal Of Law & Education, 41(1), 95-128.