Now Accepting Apple Pay

Apple Pay is the easiest and most secure way to pay on StudyMoose in Safari.

Henry Hudson School vs. Rowley

Categories: EducationLawSchool

Every student has the right to have an individual education plan (IEP). Although all students with disabilities are entitled to an IEP that does not necessarily mean they are eligible for every form of technology available to them. IEP are designed to keep children with disabilities as current as those students without disabilities. Amy Rowley did in fact have an individualized education plan, but her parents believed she was entitled to more. Hendrick Hudson vs. Rowley was the first U. S.

Supreme Court’s trial under the Education for All Handicapped Children which is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (IDEA). Hendrick Hudson School vs. Rowley Amy Rowley was a student at Furnace Woods School in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District; Peekskill, N. Y. Amy had very little if any residual hearing but, she was an excellent lip reader. A year before Amy was to attend school a meeting was set up for Amy and her parents to meet with the school administrator.

Get quality help now
Sweet V
Verified writer

Proficient in: Education

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

It was a reciprocal decision to place Amy in a regular kindergarten class on a trial basis. Many administrators of the school were to take a course in sign language to help in the communications with Amy. The principal’s office was equipped with a teletype machine as both of Amy’s parents were also deaf. At the end of the trial basis it was decided by the administrators as well as Amy’s parents that she should stay in a regular classroom. Amy was provided an FM transmitter, which amplified the voice of he teacher and the students in her class.

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper
Number of pages
Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Check writers' offers

You won’t be charged yet!

Amy’s first year of kindergarten was a success and she was to continue on to the first grade. As the law states an IEP was prepared for Amy after her completion of her first year. The Individualized Education Plan that was customized to meet Amy’s needs stated that she was to utilize the FM transmitter; she was also to have a tutor for the deaf meet with her daily for an hour to get directions and was also to meet with a speech therapist three times a week.

Amy’s parents agreed with parts of her IEP but also felt that Amy needed a sign language instructor in every one of her classes. Amy did receive a therapist for a two week trial while attending kindergarten but it was decided she did not need this service in order to do her studies. The Hendrick Hudson school district’s “Committee on the Handicapped,” had heard Amy’s parents’ expert evidence that stated Amy needed the interpreter, the “Committee on the Handicapped also spoke with Amy’s teachers, and visited a class for the deaf.

The committee denied their request for a sign interpreter. When Amy’s parents received news that their request for an interpreter had been denied they demanded and received an administrative hearing. (Weber, M. C. , 2012). The hearing officer agreed with the administrators upon completion of the evidence presented by both sides. The hearing officer stated that once reviewing the evidence it was clear that Amy did not need an interpreter. The reasoning of the hearing officer was that Amy was achieving educationally, academically, and socially without any need of such assistance.

The examiner’s decision was acknowledged on appeal by the New York Commissioner of Education. Amy Rowley’s’ parents then petitioned the United State District Court for the Southern District of New York, they stated that the denial of the sign language interpreter was denying Amy of the free appropriate public education that is guaranteed by the Act. (Excerpt from the court’s own description at The examiner’s decision was affirmed on appeal by the New York Commissioner of Education.

Then the parents of Amy Rowley petitioned the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with the claim that Amy was being denied a free appropriate public education guaranteed by the act. On June twenty-eighth nineteen hundred and eighty-two the court finds that Amy is an excellent student that gets along well with her peers and the staff. They also state that she performs better than the average students in her class and has had no problems advancing from one grade to the next.

With all this being said they still note that she still misses out on a lot of things that she would not normally miss on if she were not deaf. So stating she is not doing as well as she could be doing if she were without her handicap. The differences between her achievements and what she would be capable of without a disability was the deciding factor in that Amy was not getting a free appropriate public education that is defined as: Having the opportunity to achieve her full potential equal with the opportunities that are given to other students.

I believe that the court ruling for the Hendrick Hudson vs. Rowley emphasized individualization on school programs and parental involvement in the decisions that are made where their children’s educational matters are concerned. By having no cost limit on required services the areas of learning for disabled children have become bountiful. Since, the U. S. court upheld the decision, the decision to support parental rights, and the decision concerning the children’s rights. I believe the Hendrick Hudson vs. Rowley court case definitely made an impression on the judicial system according to education.

The court case of Hendrick Hudson vs. Rowley established the enforcement of entitlement to individualized educational programs to our students with disabilities and gives the parents a say in what is best for their child. (Macfarlane, M. A. , 2012) When a parent is given the right to help with the decision process of their child, the child will feel more adequate and so much more secure. The best way for a child to learn is to give them a safe and secure learning environment. The best way for a child to feel safe and secure is for them to have the security they feel at home.

There could be no better way than to invite their parents to participate in their schooling. By paving the way for parental rights and involvement it is allowing a greater sense of stability to the child which in turn will broaden their sense of confidence and allow them to learn at a greater pace. I feel assured if the decision had not been made by the courts in the Hendrick Hudson School District vs. Rowley our educational system would have many hurdles to cross, but since then our educational system is advancing with a rapid pace for the achievements of the disabled children in our society.

Cite this page

Henry Hudson School vs. Rowley. (2018, Aug 26). Retrieved from

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

get help with your assignment