| The Problem
| The Ruling
| The Bottom Line
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District vs. Rowley (1982)
| Amy Rowley, first grade student with hearing impairment
| Amy was an adequate lip reader. School provided speech and language services, services of a teacher of the deaf, and amplification systemParents wanted sign language interpreter; school denied
| Rowleys invoked due process; hearing officer ruled in favor of the school, district court and Circuit Court sided with parents; Supreme Court sided with school
| Ruled that schools did not have to “maximize the potential” but rather provide opportunities for “educational benefit”.
| Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1980)
| Amber Tatro was born with spina bifida and required clean intermittent catherization, CIC
| At the age of 3, Irving Independent School District agreed to provide Amber with a special education program starting with an early childhood program. In Amber's special education program, Irving Independent School District agreed to provide her with services such as physical therapy and occupational therapy but did not agree to provide her with someone trained in CIC. Issue was whether or not this was a related service?
| District court ruled with schools – they did not have to provide this. Circuit court ruled with family - The Court of Appeals stated that CIC is a related service because Amber could not attend any classes and thus receive any education without this service.
| Public schools must provide services that are necessary despite the severity of the physical needs. Schools are responsible for the medical needs of students as long as a licensed physician is not required.
| Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (1993?)
| Garrett F., four year old, paralyzed in a motorcycle accident
| Although Garret is ventilator - dependent and requires a responsible person to attend to his physical needs, his success in school academics was...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document