Board of Education v. Rowley Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
10.6 هزار بار بازدید -
2 سال پیش
-
Get more case briefs explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Board of Education v. Rowley | 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
Before nineteen seventy-five, students with disabilities were frequently excluded from public schools entirely or attended public schools that failed to meet their educational needs. The Education of All Handicapped Children Act required public schools to provide all students with a free appropriate public education. The Supreme Court interpreted the act for the first time in Board of Education versus Rowley.
Amy Rowley was a hearing-impaired student attending the Furnace Woods School. Rowley had minimal residual hearing and had excellent lip-reading skills. In kindergarten, the school provided Rowley with a hearing aid and installed a teletype machine in the principal’s office to allow effective communication with Rowley’s parents, who were deaf. Also, administrators completed sign language interpretation training. Rowley completed kindergarten with an above-average academic performance. The school developed an individualized education plan, or I E P, for Rowley’s first-grade year. The I E P provided that Rowley would be placed in a general education classroom and continue using the hearing aid. Rowley would also receive speech therapy and special instruction from a tutor for deaf students. Rowley’s parents objected, insisting the school provide Rowley with a sign language interpreter. After consulting with the Committee on the Handicapped and a sign language expert, the school concluded the interpreter wasn’t a necessary service for Rowley. An independent examiner and the New York Commissioner of Education affirmed the school’s decision.
Rowley’s parents filed suit, alleging that the school denied Rowley a free appropriate public education in violation of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act. The district court ruled that the act required Rowley to have the opportunity to achieve her full potential and ordered the school to provide a sign language interpreter. The Second Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/board-o...
The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/board-o...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► Facebook: quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► Twitter: quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Board of Education v. Rowley | 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
Before nineteen seventy-five, students with disabilities were frequently excluded from public schools entirely or attended public schools that failed to meet their educational needs. The Education of All Handicapped Children Act required public schools to provide all students with a free appropriate public education. The Supreme Court interpreted the act for the first time in Board of Education versus Rowley.
Amy Rowley was a hearing-impaired student attending the Furnace Woods School. Rowley had minimal residual hearing and had excellent lip-reading skills. In kindergarten, the school provided Rowley with a hearing aid and installed a teletype machine in the principal’s office to allow effective communication with Rowley’s parents, who were deaf. Also, administrators completed sign language interpretation training. Rowley completed kindergarten with an above-average academic performance. The school developed an individualized education plan, or I E P, for Rowley’s first-grade year. The I E P provided that Rowley would be placed in a general education classroom and continue using the hearing aid. Rowley would also receive speech therapy and special instruction from a tutor for deaf students. Rowley’s parents objected, insisting the school provide Rowley with a sign language interpreter. After consulting with the Committee on the Handicapped and a sign language expert, the school concluded the interpreter wasn’t a necessary service for Rowley. An independent examiner and the New York Commissioner of Education affirmed the school’s decision.
Rowley’s parents filed suit, alleging that the school denied Rowley a free appropriate public education in violation of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act. The district court ruled that the act required Rowley to have the opportunity to achieve her full potential and ordered the school to provide a sign language interpreter. The Second Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/board-o...
The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/board-o...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► Facebook: quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► Twitter: quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
2 سال پیش
در تاریخ 1400/12/11 منتشر شده
است.
10,653
بـار بازدید شده