Hendrick hudson v rowley case brief

Case Analysis: Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
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.”
This assignment also supports your achievement of Course Learning Outcome 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the MASE Program Learning Outcome 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8.

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 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.

Instructions
Using support from your assigned reading, the Instructor Guidance, and the discussions, you will analyze this case to include the following specifications:

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.