Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

Argued March 23, 1982
Decided June 29, 1982
Full case name Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, et al., Petitioners v. Amy Rowley, by her parents, Rowley et al., Respondent
Docket nos. 80–1002
Citations

458 U.S. 176 (more)

Prior history Amy Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson Central School District, 483 U.S. 528 (1979)
Argument Oral argument
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Case opinions
Majority Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor
Concurrence Blackmun
Dissent White, joined by Brennan, Marshall
Laws applied
Education for All Handicapped Children Act

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) is the most significant court case concerning the interpretation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is the only occasion the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the requirement of public schools to provide an appropriate education to students with disabilities. It is estimated that is has been cited by at least 3,279 cases.[1]

Background

In the early 1970s a series of Federal District Court cases – namely Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971) and Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972) – found a right to education for children with disabilities on the basis of due process and equal protection.[2] A 1974 investigation by Congress found that more than 1.75 million children with disabilities received no public education and that another 3 million who did attend school did not receive education services appropriate to their needs. In 1975 Congress passed and President Ford signed into law the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), subsequently reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990.

The Act mandated that all children with disabilities receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and that the means to achieve this was that the student, parents and teachers together devise an Individualized Education Program (IEP). But the Act did not require that IEPs include any particular services, standards or outcomes. It stated that every child with a disability was to receive an “appropriate” education, but left it to parents and local officials to determine through the IEP conference what constituted “appropriate”. Congress believed that these determinations were the responsibility of state and local officials, that the interests of parents and experts would produce the desired outcomes and that specifying a process for review and appeal would provide remedy in cases where parents believed their child was begin underserved. The Act focused on process rather than substance. But Congress also set funding levels based on the raw number of students with disabilities, regardless of their level of services needed, creating an incentive for school districts to identify students with disabilities, but deny them the most costly services.[3]

In 1976, a year prior to Amy beginning kindergarten, Nancy Rowley met with the principal of Furnace Woods Elementary School in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District of Montrose, New York.

Proceedings

The Rowleys filed suit against the School District in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case was heard before District Court Judge Vincent L. Broderick on 26, 27 and 28 September and 4 October 1979. On 28 December 1979 Judge Broderick overruled the New York Commissioner of Education and ordered that a sign language interpreter be provided for Amy Rowley. He followed up his order with an opinion laying out his reasoning on 15 January 1980.[4]

Oral arguments were held on 23 March 1982. Attorneys were Michael A. Chatoff, on behalf of the Rowley family, Raymond G. Kuntz on behalf of Hendrick Hudson Central School District and Elliott Schulder, amicus curiae for the United States.

The case was also notable for Respondent's Attorney Michael A. Chatoff being the first deaf person to make oral arguments before the Supreme Court.[5] He was able to respond to justices' questions using a computer-aided transcription system involving a stenographer and a computer monitor supplied by Gallaudet University and Translation Systems, Inc. and specially approved by the Supreme Court.[6]

Decision

The case was decided for the petitioner, Hendrick Hudson Central School District, in a 6-3 decision, announced on 29 June 1982. William Rehnquist wrote for the majority and was joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger as well as Lewis Powell, Jr., John Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, with Harry Blackmun submitting a concurring decision. Byron White wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by William Brennan, Jr. and Thurgood Marshall.

Majority


Subsequent developments

Since the Supreme Court made its ruling on the basis of a statute (the EAHCA), not the Constitution, the precedent is only controlling so long as the relevant language of the law remains in effect. There is significant debate today over whether the standard enunciated in Board of Education v. Rowley has been superseded by such legislative changes. Amendments to IDEA during the 1997 and 2004 reauthorizations, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 and Common Core all include standards that potentially replace the judiciary standard. In J.L. and M.L., and their minor daughter, K.L. v. Mercer Island School District (2006), U.S. District Court Judge Marsha J. Pechman wrote that the IDEA reauthorization of 1997 represents "such a significant departure from the previous legislative scheme that any citation to pre-1997 case law on special education is suspect," though Judge Pechman's decision was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010.[7]

The Rowleys had already decided to move to New Jersey and one year after losing the Supreme Court case did so. When the school district found out they were moving, they put a lien on the house rendering it unsellable.[8] In New Jersey Amy was enrolled in a day school for the deaf where deaf students were mainstreamed. She completed a Ph.D. in Second Language Education at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee in 2014 and is presently Associate Professor and Coordinator of the American Sign Language Program in the Modern Languages and Literatures Department at California State University, East Bay.[9]

In 2004 the Rowley family donated their papers pertaining to the case to Syracuse University Library.[10]

References

  1. ↑ Weber, 2012, p. 1
  2. ↑ Harvard Law Review, 1979, p. 1104
  3. ↑ Harvard Law Review, 1979, pp. 1106-1111
  4. ↑ Rowley v. Bd. of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. SD, 483 F. Supp. 528 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)
  5. ↑ Kleiman, 24 March 1982
  6. ↑ Smith, 1989, p. 20
  7. ↑ Wright & Wright, 2007
  8. ↑ Rowley, 2008, p. 327
  9. ↑ "Amy June Rowley, Associate Professor, Department of Modern Languages and Literatures". California State University, East Bay. n.d. Retrieved 30 September 2015.
  10. ↑ Finding Aid, Rowley Family Papers, circa 1974-1984, n.d., Special Collections Research Center, Syracuse University Libraries, Syracuse, N.Y.

Bibliography

Court documents

Secondary sources

External links

Select subsequent case law effecting Rowley

  • Polk v. Central Susquehana Intermediate Unit 16 (1988)
  • Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District v. Michael F. (1997)

See also

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, April 27, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.