Case Studies

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 Amy’s parents to determine what supplemental services she needed, due to her significant hearing loss, to provide her with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Amy successfully progressed 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 American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter included, which the school subsequently denied.

In 1993, Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District was brought forward by the parents of Rafael Oberti, a student with Down syndrome who was excluded from a general education classroom. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that schools must make an effort to include students with disabilities in regular classrooms and that placement in a separate classroom should only be considered if the student cannot receive an appropriate education in a general education classroom with supports and services (Justia, n.d.).

Assignment Instructions

Use the following instructions for the content and written communication expectations. Before submission, review your assignment using the Grading Rubric to ensure it meets the expectations for distinguished performance. If you have questions about the assignment or the rubric, please contact your instructor before the due date.

In your assignment,

• Create a title page or slide with the following information in title case:
  • title of assignment
  • student’s name
  • course name and number
  • instructor’s name
  • date submitted
• Compose an introduction with the definition of FAPE and LRE.
• Part One: Analyze in two to three paragraphs these landmark cases related to FAPE and LRE.
  • 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.
  • Defend the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision to rule against placement in a separate classroom when FAPE can be provided with supports and services in a general education classroom.
  • Justify the impact of identifying appropriate supports and services under FAPE and LRE.
  • Hypothesize the applications of FAPE and LRE to students and adult learners that are protected under Section 504 and the ADA.
  • 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 rulings affect compliant implementation of special education programs.
• Part Two: Locate two relevant case studies.
  • Summarize two case studies, one related to FAPE and one related to LRE, that occurred after 1994.
•  
  • Compare the final ruling of the cases that you have identified to the final rulings of Rowley v. Hendrick and Oberti v. Board of Education.
  • Evaluate in one paragraph the experience of finding legal material relating to principles of the IDEA.