Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE ): Bd. of Education v. Rowley (1982)
Amy Rowley was a deaf child who attended school in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District in New York. When Amy entered first grade, her parents requested that the school provide a qualified sign-language interpreter in her academic classes. After consulting with various experts, the school refused to provide an interpreter because Amy was achieving educationally, academically, and socially without this assistance (Wrightslaw, 2021).
After losing at the due process and review levels, Amy’s parents appealed to the U. S. District Court. The court found that Amy is a remarkably well-adjusted child who performs better than the average child in her class and is advancing easily from grade to grade.
However, the Court also found that Amy understands considerably less of what is going on in class than she would if she were not deaf and is not learning as much, or performing as well academically, as she would without her handicap (2021).
However, the Court also found that Amy understands considerably less of what is going on in class than she would if she were not deaf and is not learning as much, or performing as well academically, as she would without her handicap (2021).
The Court concluded that this disparity between Amy’s achievement and her potential
indicated that she was not receiving a “free appropriate public education” which was defined by that district court as “an opportunity to achieve her full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children.” The school district appealed. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The school district appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court.
What is meant by the Act’s requirement of a free appropriate public education?
What is the role of state and federal courts in exercising the review granted by Section 1415?
indicated that she was not receiving a “free appropriate public education” which was defined by that district court as “an opportunity to achieve her full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children.” The school district appealed. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The school district appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court.
What is meant by the Act’s requirement of a free appropriate public education?
What is the role of state and federal courts in exercising the review granted by Section 1415?
In Rowley, the Supreme Court described the requirements of a free appropriate public education as providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction. The instruction and services must be provided at public expense, must meet the State’s educational grade-level standards, and comply with the student's IEP. If the student is being educated in a regular education classroom, sufficient support services are required to enable the student to make adequate progress and achieve educational grade-level standards.
After reviewing the legislative history of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (now IDEA), the Court kept that the intent of the Act was more to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside. The Court concluded that the basic floor of opportunity provided by the Act consists of access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit to the child.
This decision impacted the future of IDEA by clarifying that children with disabilities were entitled to access to an education that provided educational benefits. They were not entitled to the best education, nor were they entitled to an education that would maximize their potential. Parents and school districts continue to disagree about what constitutes an appropriate special education program for a particular child.
