Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson V. Rowley: An Examination of Its Precedential Impact
Journal of Law and Education › Vol. 37 Nbr. 3, July 2008
Linked as:
Journal of Law and Education › Vol. 37 Nbr. 3, July 2008
Linked as:Summary
In 1982, the United States Supreme Court rendered its first decision construing the Education for All Handicapped Children's Act (EAHCA)1 in Board of Education v. Rowley.2 Twenty-six years later, although the law's name has changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),3 Rowley stands firm as the primary precedent whenever the educational rights of children with disabilities are considered. To resolve the issue, Rehnquist first reviewed the Congressional history and legislative intent of the EAHCA.10 This history, noted Rehnquist, revealed that both houses of Congress enacted the law with the clear recognition that too many children with disabilities had been entirely excluded from the benefit of a public education.11 As such, Rehnquist concluded that the Congressional authors of EAHCA intended to remedy the pervasive problem of excluding children with special needs from public schools.
See the full content of this document
Extract
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson V. Rowley: An Examination of Its Precedential Impact
In 1982, the United States Supreme Court rendered its first decision construing the Education for All Handicapped Children's Act (EAHCA)1 in Board of Education v. Rowley.2 Twenty-six years later, although the law's name has changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),3 Rowley stands firm as the primary precedent whenever the educational rights of children with disabilities are considered. That Rowley guides the construction of the IDEA is not terribly surprising; however, this landmark decision also provides precedent for other basic legal principles in the practice of education law. Accordingly, this paper examines the precedential impact of Rowley both as related to special education and to school law in general. Part I briefly reviews the decision itself and the opinions written by Justices Rehnquist, Blackmun and White. Part II reviews Rowley's impact on judicial construction of the IDEA. Part III examines Rowley's influence on other areas of school law and finally, Part IV discusses questions left open by Rowley, some of which remain unresolved today.
I. PART I: ROWLEY REVISITEDThe facts presented to the Court in Rowley were rather straightforward.4 Amy Rowley, profoundly deaf since birth, attended a public school. When she was only in first grade, a dispute arose between parents and school officials.5 Although no one challenged her eligibility for special education and related services under the EAHCA, the school and parents disagreed about what services were necessary for Amy. Amy's parents, also deaf, argued that the school district should...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other documents:
21 cfr 640.60 - source plasma. | 14 cfr 23.303 factor of safety. | howard vs. dretke, (5th cir. 2005) | 18 USC 2383 Sec 2383 Rebellion or insurrection | Sentencia nº 32656, de Corte de Apelaciones de Talca - Sala Segunda, November 25, 2011 | Sentencia nº 110 de Consiglio di Stato, January 17, 2011 | Sentencia nº 1967 de Consiglio di Stato, April 22, 2009 | decreto 290 excluye a don ricardo sergio pellegrini garcía-moreno de la tercera nómina nacional de síndicos