A legal issue arose in New York concerning the meaning of the term “free appropriate public education” as required for the handicapped under P.L. 94–142. The parents of a hearing impaired student, Amy Rowley, were denied the services of a deaf interpreter for their daughter. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the local and state educational authorities since sufficient personal instructional and related services were provided to allow her to benefit from education even if she was not enabled to maximize her potential. This article analyzes the due process issues raised in the opinion and discusses their educational implications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Assistance to States for Education of Handicapped Children, 34 C.F.R. §300 (1982), 47 Fed. Reg. 33 (1982).
2.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County v. Rowley exrel. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
3.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. §1401, §1415 (1977).
4.
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (DC 1972).
5.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
