In 1982 the U. S. Supreme Court held that an appropriate education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was one that was formulated in accordance with the Act's procedures and that conferred some educational benefit on students with disabilities. Initially, the lower courts applied this terminology strictly and approved any proposed individualized education program that conferred even minimal educational benefit. However, later courts began to take a more liberal approach and held that the educational-program must confer some meaningful benefit. A careful reading of the Supreme Court's 1982 decision indicates that this recent approach is consistent with Congress's and the Court's intent. The Court never intended to establish one test of appropriateness since it recognized that some flexibility was needed to determine what would be appropriate for a diverse population of students with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Age v. Bullitt County Public Schools, 673 F.2d 141, 3 Ed. Law Rep. 303 (6th Cir. 1982).
2.
AnthonyP. (1982). A critique of Rowley by a special educator. Education Law Reporter, 6, 867–874.
3.
Barwacz v. Michigan Department of Education, 681 F. Supp. 427, 46 Ed. Law Rep. 98 (W.D. Mich. 1988).
4.
Board of Education of East Windsor Regional School District v. Diamond, 808 F.2d 987, 36 Ed. Law Rep. 1136 (3d Cir. 1986).
5.
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458, U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690, 5 Ed. Law Rep. 34 (1982).
6.
Bonadonna v. Cooperman, 619 F. Supp. 401. 28 Ed. Law Rep. 430 (D.N.J. 1985).
7.
Buchholtz v. Iowa Department of Public Instruction, 315 N.W.2d 789, 2 Ed. Law Rep. 848 (Iowa 1982).
8.
Campbell v. Talladega County Board of Education, 518 F. Supp. 47 (N.D. Ala. 1981).
9.
Code of Federal Regulations, 34, 300 et seq.
10.
David D. v. Dartmouth School Committee, 775 F.2d 411, 28 Ed. Law Rep. 70 (1st Cir. 1985). Cert, den'd sub nom. Massachusetts Department of Education v. David D., 106 S.Ct. 1790, 31 Ed. Law Rep. 725 (1986).
11.
Doe v. Lawson, 579 F. Supp. 1314, 16 Ed. Law Rep. 498 (D. Mass. 1984).
12.
FlygareT. (1982). Supreme Court holds that P.L. 94-142 does not require sign-language interpreters for deaf students. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(1), 62–63.
13.
Geis v. Board of Education of Parsippany-Troy Hills, 774 F.2d 575, 27 Ed. Law Rep. 1093 (3d Cir. 1985).
14.
Gladys J. v. Pearland Independent School District, 520 F. Supp. 869 (S.D. Tex. 1981).
15.
Hall v. Vance County Board of Education, 774 F. Supp. 629, 27 Ed. Law Rep. 1107 (4th Cir. 1985).
16.
Harrell v. Wilson County Schools, 293 S.E. 2d 687, 5 Ed. Law Rep. 658 (N.C.Ct. App. 1982).
17.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1975), United States Code, 20. § 1401 et seq.
18.
Karl v. Board of Education, 736 F.2d 873 Ed. Law Rep. 310 (2d Cir. 1984).
19.
Lang v. Braintree School Committee, 545 F. Supp. 1314, 16 Ed. Law Rep. 498 (D. Mass. 1982).
20.
Manuel R. v. Ambach, 635 F. Supp. 791, 33 Ed. Law Rep. 203 (E.D. N.Y. 1986).
21.
Matthews v. Campbell, 551 EHLR 264 (E.D. Va. 1979).
22.
McCarthyM.DeignanP. (1982). What legally constitutes an adequate public education?Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
23.
Nelson v. Southfield Public Schools, 384 N.W.2d 423, 31 Ed. Law Rep. 567 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
24.
O'HaraJ. (1985). Determinants of an appropriate education under 94-142. Education Law Reporter, 27, 1037–1045.
25.
OsborneA. (1985). Recent judicial developments affecting the EHCA's related services mandate. Education Law Reporter, 26, 579–584.
26.
OsborneA. (1988). Complete legal guide to special education services. West Nyack, NY: Parker Publishing Co.
27.
OsborneA. (1990). When has a school district met its obligation to mainstream handicapped students under the EHA?Education Law Reporter, 58, 445–455.
28.
Polk v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16.853 F. 2d 171. 48 Ed. Law Rep. 336 (3d Cir. 1988).
29.
Rettig v. Kent City School District, 539 F. Supp. 768, 4 Ed. Law Rep. 1083 (N.D. Ohio 1981). aff'd in pt. vac'd and rem'd in pt. 720 F.2d 463. 14 Ed. Law Rep. 445 (6th Cir. 1983), on rem'd (unpublished opinion), rev'd 788 F.2d 328, 31 Ed. Law Rep. 759 (6th Cir. 1986), cert, den'd 106 S.Ct. 3297. 33 Ed. Law Rep. 35 (1986).
30.
Roncker v. Walter. 700 F.2d 1058,9 Ed. Law Rep. 827 (6th Cir. 1983).
31.
St. Louis Developmental Disabilities Center v. Mallory, 591 F. Supp 1416, 20 Ed. Law Rep. 133 (W.D. Mo. 1984).
32.
School Board of Campbell County v. Beasley. 380 S.E.2d 884. 54 Ed. Law Rep. 1363 (Va. 1989).
33.
Springdale School District v. Grace. 656 F. Supp. 300 (8th Cir. 1981), vac'd and rem'd 102 S.Ct. 3504 (1982), on rem'd 693 F.2d 41. 7 Ed. Law Rep. 509 (8th Cir. 1982).
34.
ThomasS. (1984). Related services under the Education of the Handicapped Act. Education Law Reporter, 21, 447–451.
35.
ThomasS. (1986). Legal issues in special education. Topeka. KS: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education.
36.
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire School District, 875 F.2d 954. 54 Ed. Law Rep. 74 (1st Cir. 1989).
