Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley 458 U.S. 176 by Allen G. Osborne(1996)




The litigation involved the services to be provided to a student who was hearing impaired. She had minimal residual hearing but was an excellent lip-reader. She was placed in a regular kindergarten class on a trial basis when she entered the public schools. The school's staff took sign-language courses, and a teletype machine was installed to communicate with her parents who also were deaf. The student was provided with a sign-language interpreter; however, at the end of the trial period the interpreter reported that these services were not needed.



The dispute between the school system and the parents arose then an IEP for the first grade was proposed. That IEP called for regular class placement, an FM hearing aid to amplify the teacher's and other students' spoken words, one hour per day of instruction from a tutor for the deaf, and three hours per week of speech therapy. The student's parents agreed to the IEP but requested the addition of the sign-language interpreter. The school district denied their request.



The school district prevailed in administrative hearings, but the federal district and appeals courts held for the parents. These courts ruled that the proposed IEP was inappropriate because it did not provide the student with an opportunity provided to nondisabled students. The school district appealed.



The basic issue before the Supreme Court concerned the level of services that must be provided for an IEP, and consequently the student's educational placement, to be appropriate under IDEA. In a split decision the Court reversed the lower courts, holding that they had erred in determining that the level of services must be such that the potential of the student with disabilities must be maximized commensurate with the opportunity provided to nondisablied students.



The majority opinion stated that the requirements of IDEA to provide a free appropriate public education were satisfied when a school district provided "personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction. "The Court further stated that the IEP must be formulated in accordance with the requirements of IDEA. Since the student involved in this litigation was performing better than average and was receiving personalized instruction that was reasonably calculated to meet her educational needs, the Court held that a sign-language interpreter was not required.



The Court found that several other provisions of IDEA are pertinent to determining whether a proposed IEP is appropriate. Specifically, the educational program must be provided in the least restrictive environment, and related, or supportive, services that may be required to assist the child in benefiting from the special education program also must be provided. Furthermore, all services are to be provided at public expense and must meet state educational standards.



Return to Top Return to Legal Issues in Special Education