Running head: Reflection

Reflection

Derek Cobb Jr.

North Carolina State Leadership Academy

Reflection 2

Hendrick Hudson Dist. BD of ED v. Rowley 1982

In 1976 Clifford and Nancy Rowley met with the principal of Furnace Woods Elementary

School in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District in Montrose, New York. They met to

discuss accommodations for their daughter Amy Rowley. Amy Rowley would be starting

kindergarten and is hearing impaired. Amy was placed in a regular kindergarten class and they

provided her with a FM hearing aid. She completed her kindergarten year and advanced to first

grade.

An IEP was created for Amy which included use of her FM hearing aid, a speech therapist,

and tutor. The school consulted and believed Amy did not need an interpreter because she was

achieving educationally, socially, and emotionally without that service. The parents of Amy

requested they provide Amy with a sign language interpreter instead of other forms of assistance

because she is not reaching her full potential. An independent examiner agreed with the school.

The Rowleys then filed suit. The US district court and the Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit affirmed that Amy was not receiving free appropriate public education. The school

district then appealed and the Supreme Court reversed the decision in a 6-3 majority decision.

When I first read the case I wondered was Amy suffering in some way other than just purely

academics. I assumed it was bigger than an academic issue. But then they stated she was doing

well emotionally and socially also. So then when the parents say she is not able to progress at her

full potential what exactly did they mean and what did they want? Did they have insider

information that she was actually struggling in ways she was not telling the professionals at the

school? Or were they in the belief that if she had this additional support she could advance even

more and be placed in the gifted programs eventually?

Reflection 3

I do believe that they were providing the tools Amy needed to be successful. I also feel that

what they were doing is preparing her for the future. They were teaching her how to be a bit

more independent and preparing her for the real world. In my humble opinion that is ultimately

the role of the school to create successful members of society. Now how to go about doing so is

where I feel it gets tricky. Obviously, this should be a team effort between the school personnel

and the parents. In the end who should have final say about how to go about providing this free

appropriate education I feel should be up to the school system. When you place your child in the

public school system you trust the system to make the best decisions they can based on their

expert knowledge. The Supreme Court felt the same way.

Although I believe the school should have the ultimate say, why not just allow her to have

the interpreter and do a trial with that? When the team comes back together they could provide

the evidence as to if it is an added benefit or not and then make the necessary adjustments. Or

was it a financial decision? Did the school believe the money could be better used and moved to

provide services for another student who needs additional help? If that is the case I understand

why they would be hesitant, but I still believe it would be easier to do the trial and provide proof

instead of going through this long drawn out court case. I believe the proof would have been

there that is was unnecessary and it may have kept the relationship with the parents strong and

eliminate having to continuously go to court.