Hendrick Hudson Central School District V. Rowley: Case Study

1331 Words6 Pages

Ruby Lopez
EDSE 5309-160
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
Background: Dispositive Facts of the Case
Amy Rowley, whom herself and both parents were deaf, was enrolled in a public school in the state of New York for the start of her education. Prior to her first year in public school, kindergarten, her parents met for an IEP development. The IEP provided Rowley with a sign-language interpreter who would be present with her in the classroom. After being in the classroom with the sign-language interpreter, it was reported that the interpreter’s services were not needed by Rowley. For the continuation of her kindergarten …show more content…

These modifications were to continue to use the FM wireless hearing aids, tutoring one hour per day, and speech services three hours per week. Rowley’s parents did not agree to the new modifications of the IEP and requested for Rowley to be provided with a sign language interpreter. The request for an interpreter was denied and Rowley’s parents requested for a review of the decision. Their argument for Rowley to be provided with an interpreter was for her to be able to understand one hundred percent of the spoken language versus the sixty percent that she was only understanding with the new modifications made on her …show more content…

The information gathered concluded that Rowley was not reaching her full potential without the sign-language interpreter. Without the interpreter in the classroom, Rowley was only able to understand about sixty percent of the learning instruction in the classroom. With this, Rowley is not showing her full potential, one hundred percent, that she is able to achieve with the sign-language interpreter. Although Rowley was able to advance grade levels, her performance is only reflecting the sixty percent of her full potential. Behind this information comes the decision that even though the school district provides her with the appropriate modifications to Rowley’s IEP, all those combined do not make the same impact as does the interpreter, therefore not providing Rowley with “free appropriate public

Open Document