A Deaf student who attended Hendrick Hudson Central School District in Peekskill, New York.

Daughter of two deaf parents.

At Amys first IEP meeting her parents requested that she be provided a sign language interpreter.

The IEP provided for a sign language interpreter trial.

The IEP also required Amy to have a wireless FM hearing aid.

After a two-week trial period with a sign language interpreter, the interpreter reported that Amy did not require his services.

Amy went the remainder of the school year relying on her hearing aids and her lip-reading skills to learn alongside her peers.

Amy's first-grade IEP stated that she would receive a wireless FM hearing aid.

Amy's IEP also required that she receive speech therapy three times per week and have a tutoring session for one hour per day

Mr. and Mrs. Rowley requested that Amy receive a sign language interpreter rather than other forms of assistance required by the IEP, but the administration refused.

The Rowleys sought administrative review and claimed that Amy would only be receiving about 60% of the spoken language present in the classroom without an interpreter present.

An independent examiner was brought in and agreed with the school that an interpreter was not necessary.

The Rowleys filed a suit against the district in the U.S. District Court claiming that the school was in violation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.

The district court judge deemed that Amy understands far less than she would/ could if she were not deaf, causing her to perform lower.

The judge ruled in favor of the Rowleys with the result that Amy was not receiving a Free and Appropriate Public Education.

The school district then appealed to the

Supreme Court -> Oral arguments heard in March 1982.

The Supreme Court reversed the second circuit's decision in favor of the Rowleys, arguing that they had misinterpreted the definition of FAPE.

Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist concluded that a free and appropriate public education only guarantees that children with special needs have their needs met and receive an education but does not specify the level of education the students receive.

This was supported with a 6 - 3 majority vote.

With the ending result decided by the Supreme Court, FAPE requires that students with disabilities are educated appropriately for free in public schools but does not require that students with disabilities be educated to achieve their full potential. They must be educated well enough to move on to the following grade, but not necessarily well enough to match the average academics of their peers.

This case made it apparent that in the eyes of the Supreme Court, not every child with special needs has a legal right to a free and appropriate education.

Showed parents they have the right to participate in their child's IEP.

Showed parents they have the right to challenge the decisions of their child's school administration.