Legal Case Study Of “Board of Education of The Hendrick Hudson Central School District V. Rowley”

The court case of Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley was a landmark case for special education that established the measurements for and parameters of what constitutes adequate education opportunities and access to services and resources for students with exceptionalities. Its impact is felt today, and questions about how it might have been decided in today’s court are germane to understanding the development and implementation of special education in the United States (Murdock, Gartin and Fowler, 2014).

In response to the Supreme Court decision, I personally feel that as a pragmatic measure, the federal government can only ensure a basic level of access, and it is up to the individual state, district, teacher, and parent to supplement their child’s education. I most agree with Justice Blackmun’s opinion, that schools must offer equal opportunity, but that the school had done what was within its resources and was reasonable to do so (Yell, Katsiyannis & Hazelkorn, 2007). Although there are many ideological implications with this case, it is also primarily an issue about financial and staffing resources, and the Supreme Court understood the financial implications of ruling on education as a service to all or as an obligation to each. Education, including special education, is a service offered, not a place or ideology. The service offered must be balanced with the resources available, which is one thing the Supreme Court considered with this case in determining the obligation Congress has to help states achieve compliance (Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 1982).

Another thing they considered that has merit is that the precedent for what service a child is offered could have implications for states’ rights, and the Court did not wish to appear biased toward a particular educational program (Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 1982). Because the ruling of the Supreme Court is somewhat like the Pope’s in that it is considered infallible, it makes sense they would remain conservative and look at only the lowest common denominator. However, on the micro level and as it concerns each student, I would want to give each student as much assistance and support as he or she needed to achieve.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on educational benefit derived versus maximizing student potential based on a few factors. First, the criteria the Supreme Court used to verify satisfaction of the education of Handicapped Act was publicly funded access to an education in which the child receives passing marks, thus demonstrating proficiency in developmental skills and abilities that are used to judge all students. In this case, Amy Rowley was surpassing some of her peers in general performance (Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 1982). The Supreme Court believed the Act was meant to open doors, not necessarily provide a specific educational experience. In this sense, it can be considered a type of foundation building. One must first open the door to the classroom to integrate before one can start designing the classroom to include. The Supreme Court also did not interpret the Education of Handicapped Act to intend to provide custom access, as such could be overreach in terms of prescription of a specific educational path or model. While the lower courts had agreed with the idea that each child should have access to an opportunity for personal achievement and believed an interpreter would level the playing field for Amy and the others in her class so that she might have comparative access to achievement, the Supreme Court differed in its interpretation to say that Amy had a right to the service of education for which there are minimum standards but for which the maximum possibility of each child cannot be enforced or guaranteed.

Thus, the ruling would likely stay similar but the outcome and interpretation might be wholly opposite, insofar as Amy might have been granted access to the resources which she originally because they were the necessary resources Amy would have needed to achieve the standards for which she and school are held accountable. However, given that children with exceptionalities that include both being gifted and having a disability are typically diagnosed only for their disability, much will need to be done to continue to improve diagnosis and access to resources for such exceptional children.

Amy Rowley’s court case in 1982 was pivotal in shaping how special education is understood, funded, and implemented in United States school systems across the country. In today’s educational system, the effects and lessons of the Rowley case continue to impact legislation (such as with the IDEA/Special Education legislation) and public perception of the role of students with exceptionalities and the educators, systems, and communities that support them.

References

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

Murdock, N.L., Gartin, B.C., & Fowler, G. (2014). Special education law (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Yell, M.L., Katsiyannis, A., & Hazelkorn, M. (2007). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Board of Education v. Rowley. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(9), 1-12.