Board of Education v Rowley(1982)

The Rowley case is probably one of the most widely cited cases in special education. This case was brought on the behalf of Amy Rowley a young child with a hearing impairment. Amy was a child with only minimal residual hearing who attending a local elementary school. The school district provided hearing aids and instructional tutoring as part of Amy's IEP. Amy was able to read lips and appeared to be able to understand the majority of what was occurring in the classroom. Her parents were not satisfied with this configuaration of services and requested that the school provide Amy with a certified sign language interpreter to allow her to benefit from her education to the maximum extent possible. Amy was attending a regular class and, with her hearing aids and supplemental tutoring, she was making educational progress. Her grades were above average (As and Bs) and she was successfully progressing from grade-to-grade with her current services. The parents claimed that Amy's IEP was not appropriate and that she was being denied an access to an appropriate education because she was not allowed to benefit to the maximum extent possible without an interpreter.

Both the District and Appellate court held for the parents and required the school to provide the interpreter so that Amy would be given the maximum support necessary for her to learn. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court stating that the EHA requires an "appropriate education," not the best education money can buy.

The Supreme court held that:

1. that the EHA does not indicate how to determine what is an "appropriate education."
2. in the absence of a legislative standard the court stated that an education is appropriate if:
   • the child is receiving special education and related services and is benefiting from these services
   • benefit is defined, in this case, as progressing from grade to grade.
3. a district is under no obligation to provide "the best" education that money can buy
   • rather, the district is responsible for providing a "basic floor of opportunity" for students with disabilities
4. the court found that an IEP (individualized eduation plan) that is "reasonably calculated" to confer education benefit is sufficient to document that a child's education is "appropriate."