Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley (1981)
- Docket
- 80-1002
- Decided
- 1981-01-01
Summary
Question: What does “free and appropriate public education” require in the context of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975? Conclusion: In a 6-3 decision, Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court, reversing the lower court decisions. The Supreme Court held that the Act does not require a school to provide a sign language interpreter to a deaf student when she is otherwise receiving personalized instruction and an adequate education. School administrations are allowed to determine what is required to meet a handicapped students individual needs. Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote a special concurrence, expressing that no interpreter was required because Amy was given the opportunity to learn and participate in the classroom in a way that was substantially equal to her non-handicapped classmates. Justice Byron R. White wrote a dissent, stating that the Act requires a school to provide a handicapped student with and education equal to non-handicapped children.