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

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]

Opinion of the Court

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 an opinion concurring in the judgement. Byron White wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by William Brennan, Jr. and Thurgood Marshall.

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

Bibliography

Court documents

• Amy Rowley, by her parents and natural guardians, Clifford and Nancy Rowley, and Clifford and Nancy Rowley, in their own right, Plaintiffs, v. The Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, and the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Defendants, 483 F. Supp. 528 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 15 January 1980).

Secondary sources

• "Enforcing the Right to an "Appropriate" Education: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975". Harvard Law Review. Harvard Law Review Association. 92 (5): 1103–1127. March 1979. JSTOR 1340453. 
• James, Paul F. (Fall 1983). "The Education For All Handicapped Children Act of 1975: What's Left After Rowley". Willamette Law Review. Willamette University, College of Law. 19 (4): 715–736. 
• Kaufmann, Andrea Kayne; Blewett, Evan (January 2012). "When Good Enough Is No Longer Good Enough: How the High Stakes Nature of the No Child Left Behind Act Supplanted the Rowley Definition of a Free Appropriate Public Education". Journal of Law and Education. University of South Carolina Law Center. 41 (1): 5–23. 
• Kleiman, Dena (24 March 1982). "First Deaf Lawyer Goes Before Supreme Court". The New York Times. New York. Retrieved 20 September 2015. 
• Lanear, John A.; Frattura, Elise M. (July 2008). "Prologue—Rowley Reconsidered: Revisiting Special Education's Landmark Case after 25 Years". Journal of Law and Education. University of South Carolina Law Center. 37 (3): 307–310. 
• MacFarlane, Maureen A. (January 2012). "The Shifting Floor of Educational Opportunity: The Impact of Educational Reform on Rowley". Journal of Law and Education. University of South Carolina Law Center. 41 (1): 45–69. 
• Mead, Julie F.; Paige, Mark A. (July 2008). "Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley: An Examination of its Precedential Impact". Journal of Law and Education. University of South Carolina Law Center. 37 (3): 329–345. 
• Ravel, Judith A. (Fall 1983). "Board of Education v. Rowley: Landmark Roadblock or Another Signpost on the Road to State Courts". Connecticut Law Review. University of Connecticut, School of Law. 16 (1): 149–177. 
• Rowley, Amy June (July 2008). "Rowley Reconsidered: A Persona Narrative". Journal of Law and Education. University of South Carolina Law Center. 37 (3): 311–328. 
• Seligmann, Terry Jean (January 2012). "Sliding Doors: The Rowley Decision, Interpretation of Special Education Law, and What Might Have Been". Journal of Law and Education. University of South Carolina Law Center. 41 (1): 71–94. 
• Smith, Dorothy (Spring 1989). "Communication in the Courtroom: Technology is Helping to Provide Equal Access to the Law" (PDF). Gallaudet Today. Gallaudet University: 19–21. Retrieved 29 September 2015. 
• Smith, R.C. (1996). A Case About Amy. Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Press. ISBN 1-56639-411-2. 
• Tucker, Bonnie Poitras (April 1983). "Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley: Utter Chaos". Journal of Law and Education. University of South Carolina Law Center. 12 (2): 235–245. 
• Weber, Mark C. (January 2012). "Forward: Board of Education v. Rowley After Thirty Years". Journal of Law and Education. University of South Carolina Law Center. 41 (1): 1–4. 
• Wright, Peter W. D.; Wright, Pamela (22 January 2007). "Rebutting Rowley? Independence and Self-Sufficiency Are New Standards for FAPE". Wrightslaw. Retrieved 30 September 2015. 
• Yell, Mitchell L.; Katsiyannis, Antonis; Hazelkorn, Michael (May 2007). "Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Board of Education v. Rowley" (PDF). Focus on Exceptional Children. Denver, Colo.: Love Publishing Company. 39 (9): 1–12. Retrieved 29 September 2015. 

External links

• The text of the Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley decision at FindLaw
• The text of the Bd. Ed. Hendrick Hudson Sch. Dist. v. Amy Rowley (458 U. S. 176) decision at Wrightslaw
• Finding Aid for the Rowley Family Papers (circa 1974-1984) at Syracuse University Library

Select subsequent case law effecting Rowley

See also