Determine The Impact Of Current Federal Legislation ✓ Solved

Determine the impact that current federal legislation has on

This assignment assesses your ability to: Determine the impact that current federal legislation has on the compliant implementation of special education programs, and Analyze the legal concept “educational benefit.” In 1982, Amy Rowley’s parents enrolled their kindergarten-aged daughter in the Hendrick Hudson School District in Peekskill New York. Prior to beginning the school year, the school’s administration met with her parents to determine what supplemental services Amy needed, due to her significant hearing loss, in order to provide her with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). She was successful and progressing at the same pace as her non-disabled peers as she advanced to the first grade (Wrightslaw, 2015).

Her redrafted annual IEP included the continued use of an amplification system, a tutor for the deaf and speech therapy. Amy’s parents also wanted her to have a full-time Sign Language interpreter included, which the school subsequently denied. Content Expectations Define in detail each of the words in FAPE (Free, Appropriate, Public & Education) as it related to the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. Summarize why the final ruling favored Hendrick Hudson Central School District’s decision not to provide Amy Rowley with an interpreter. Analyze the term “meaningful benefit” as it relates to the Rowley v. Hendrick case. Argue for or against the applicability of the Supreme Court’s final ruling to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Explain how the final ruling affects compliant implementation of special education programs.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

The landscape of special education in the United States has been dramatically shaped by federal legislation, particularly the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1975, reauthorized several times since. This law mandates that students with disabilities have access to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). A prominent case that highlights the interpretation of FAPE and its implications for educational settings is Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson Central School District (1982). This pivotal case examines the balance between the rights of students with disabilities and the responsibilities of educational institutions.

Defining FAPE

FAPE is an essential provision of the IDEA that ensures students with disabilities receive educational services tailored to their individual needs. The acronym FAPE breaks down as follows:

  • Free: Education must be provided at no cost to the parents, ensuring that financial barriers do not inhibit access to necessary educational resources.
  • Appropriate: Education must be tailored to the individual needs of the student, which involves setting realistic goals and determining suitable methods of instruction, services, and support.
  • Public: Education must be provided by public agencies, ensuring accessibility and accountability in the delivery of services.
  • Education: This refers to the broad curriculum and educational experiences a student must receive, emphasizing not only academic instruction but also social skills, communication, and personal development.

Case Summary: Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson

In the Rowley case, the issue at hand was whether the absence of a full-time sign language interpreter for Amy Rowley constituted a violation of her right to FAPE. While her parents argued she needed the interpreter to benefit fully from her education, the school district contended that her existing program was sufficient. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, stating that the educational benefits Amy was already receiving— which allowed her to progress alongside her peers—met the FAPE requirements. This ruling emphasizes that FAPE does not equate to maximizing a student’s potential but rather providing an adequate benefit.

Understanding “Meaningful Benefit”

The term “meaningful benefit” refers to the educational gains a student experiences while enrolled in school. In the Rowley case, the Court ruled that for special education services to comply with FAPE, they must provide more than just trivial or minimal educational benefits. The Court clarified that schools are not obligated to provide the best possible services, but rather to ensure that students are making appropriate progress in their educational environment. This interpretation implies that compliance is judged on a case-by-case basis, considering each student’s unique needs and circumstances.

Applicability of the Supreme Court’s Ruling

Some argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rowley adequately addresses the needs of students with disabilities by allowing schools the flexibility to determine how to meet those needs within the constraints of public resources. However, others contend that this interpretation can lead to minimal compliance rather than a commitment to ensuring every student receives the maximum benefit they can achieve through education. Such disparities may prevent students from receiving truly equitable opportunities in their educational journeys.

Impact on Special Education Compliance

The Rowley ruling significantly impacts the compliant implementation of special education programs. By setting a standard that focuses on “meaningful benefit” rather than optimal placements or services, schools may feel emboldened to limit the resources and support they provide to students with disabilities. This can lead to an inconsistency in educational quality, raising concerns about equal access and equity within the educational system. Additionally, the ruling also influences the interpretation of how institutions develop individualized education programs (IEPs) that conform to FAPE’s standards, leading to potential conflicts between parents and school administrations.

Conclusion

The Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson case underscores the complexities surrounding special education law in the U.S. and highlights the ongoing challenges faced by students with disabilities and their families. While it affirms that educational institutions must provide a FAPE, the Court’s interpretation of what constitutes a “meaningful benefit” often poses concerns regarding equitable access to educational resources and opportunities. In advocating for a more robust understanding of FAPE, the educational community must work towards ensuring that all students with disabilities receive the level of support necessary to thrive academically and socially.

References

  • Osborne, A. G., & Russo, C. J. (2003). Special education and the law: A guide for practitioners (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • DeMitchell, T., & Kearns, G. (1997). Where to educate Rachel Holland? Does least restrictive environment mean no restrictions? Clearing House, 70(3). doi:10.1080/.1997.
  • Edwards, C. C., & Da Fonte, A. (2012). The 5-Point Plan. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(3), 6-13.
  • Lake, J. F., & Billingsley, B. S. (2009). An Analysis of Factors that contribute to parent-school conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21(4).
  • Wellner, L. (2012). Building parent trust in the special education setting. Leadership, 16-19.
  • Wrightslaw. (2015). Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson Central School District. Retrieved from [insert URL here]
  • Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2005). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  • Turnbull, H. R., Turnbull, A. P., Erwin, E. J., & Soodak, L. C. (2015). Families, Professionals, and Exceptionality: A Special Partnership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  • National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2012). IDEA 2004 Regulations. Retrieved from [insert URL here]
  • Zirkel, P. A. (2014). A legal analysis of FAPE and its implications. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27(1), 1-9.

Related Assignments