Appropriate Education and Rowley

Abstract

The Education of the Handicapped Act requires state and local educational agencies to provide a free, appropriate public education to all children with disabilities. The meaning of “appropriate” was left quite open-ended by Congress, which predicated “appropriateness” on compliance with state standards and a child's IEP. The Supreme Court's first special education case, Board v. Rowley (1982), clarified the meaning of “appropriate”—as did the Court's later decision, Irving I.S.D. v. Tatro (1984)—but raised questions about just how far the EHA requires schools to go in educating a child. This article analyzes Rowley's meaning for “appropriate” education and justifies the rightness of that decision in terms of its impact on the education of the child and the integration of children who have disabilities with children who do not.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Armstrong v. Klein, 513 F. Supp. 425, 629 F.2d 269 (3d Cir. 1980).

Board v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed. 2d 690 (U.S.S.CT. 1982).

Darlene L. v. Illinois State Board of Education, EHLR 554:532 (N.D. Ill. 1983).

Education of the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. Sees. 1401–1461.

Gary B. v. Cronin, 542 F. Supp. 120 (N.D. Ill. 1982).

Gladys J. v. Pearland Independent School District, 520 F. Supp. 869 (S.D. Tex. 1981).

In The Matter of the “A” Family, 602 P. 2d 1257, EHLR 551:345 (S. Ct. Mont., 1979).

Irving I.S.D. v. Tatro, 104 S. Ct. 3371, 82 L.Ed. 2d 664 (1984).

Kruelle v. New Castle County School District, 489 F. Supp. 169, 642, F. 2d 687 (3d. Cir. 1981).

10.

McKenzie v. Jefferson, EHLR 554:438 (D.D.C. 1983).

11.

Mills v. D.C. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 366 (D.D.C. 1972).

12.

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1971, 1972).

13.

Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979).