Al Vs Rowley
Running head: HENDRICK HUDSON DISTRICT BOE, et al. V. ROWLEY
Case Study: Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education, et al, v. Rowley
Case Study: Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education, et al, v. Rowley
In the landmark case of Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley, I believe the Supreme Court’s decision to deny Amy the assistance of an interpreter was fair for several reasons. First of all, she was previously given the services of an interpreter and she did not use them. Instead of relying on the interpreter, Amy used lip reading and asked teachers to repeat instructions. Second, Amy was passing from grade to grade without the use an interpreter. Third, Amy was performing better than …show more content…
First of all, there are too many factor involved that can affect whether a student is performing at their potential (i.e., lack of sleep, skipping a meal, not feeling well, failed to study, problems at home, etc). These same factors can affect whether or not a student without a documented disability achieves to their potential. Second, IDEA was meant to provide access to a free and appropriate education. Third, if courts began approving services for students with disabilities to have the capability to achieve to their potential instead of providing access to a free and appropriate education, this would increase costs/funding required to provide special education services and other individuals with disabilities might get slighted in some way from services that may be needed to ensure access. Moreover, if students with disabilities were given services to achieve/perform at their potential, then students without disabilities in a sense would be slighted by the law because no one would be addressing the fact that they don’t always achieve at a level consistent with their
Case Study: Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education, et al, v. Rowley
Case Study: Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education, et al, v. Rowley
In the landmark case of Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley, I believe the Supreme Court’s decision to deny Amy the assistance of an interpreter was fair for several reasons. First of all, she was previously given the services of an interpreter and she did not use them. Instead of relying on the interpreter, Amy used lip reading and asked teachers to repeat instructions. Second, Amy was passing from grade to grade without the use an interpreter. Third, Amy was performing better than …show more content…
First of all, there are too many factor involved that can affect whether a student is performing at their potential (i.e., lack of sleep, skipping a meal, not feeling well, failed to study, problems at home, etc). These same factors can affect whether or not a student without a documented disability achieves to their potential. Second, IDEA was meant to provide access to a free and appropriate education. Third, if courts began approving services for students with disabilities to have the capability to achieve to their potential instead of providing access to a free and appropriate education, this would increase costs/funding required to provide special education services and other individuals with disabilities might get slighted in some way from services that may be needed to ensure access. Moreover, if students with disabilities were given services to achieve/perform at their potential, then students without disabilities in a sense would be slighted by the law because no one would be addressing the fact that they don’t always achieve at a level consistent with their