2. B.O.E. Hendrick Hudson Central School District vs. Rowly  Amy Rowly was a hard of hearing daughter of Deaf parents.  She had and IEP developed in kindergarten. It said for Amy to be placed in a regular kindergarten class with an interpreter.  Amy was able to pass the class.  The interpreter noted that Amy did not look at the interpreter much, she looked more at the teacher.

3.  A new IEP was in place was developed in 1 st grade. She would use a FM auditory trainer, provided a tutor 1hr per week, and was also in speech therapy for 3hrs a week.  Her parents agreed; however they wanted an interpreter.  (Parents reserve the right to refuse an IEP and a right to a hearing for the IEP)  The Hearing Officer felt Amy did not need an interpreter…. Parents took them to court.

4.  Conclusion: The judge said that Amy was well adjusted and was doing wonderful WITH AN INTERPRETER.  He agreed with the parents that Amy should have an interpreter in order to be more successful. Amy was not receiving “free and appropriate public education”.  The school district appealed the court’s decision, but the appeals court sided (affirm) with the parents. Then the district appealed to the Supreme Court (the SC has the ability to hear or not to hear a case). The SC did hear the case.

5.  The Supreme Court stated that Amy was benefiting enough to pass the class without an interpreter.  Amy’s Weakness: 5-6 years old Had never had experience with an interpreter  Summarize: Supreme Court found in favor of the district ○ No interpreter was needed ○ The child was making appropriate advances that was adequate ○ The school is not responsible for the BEST education just for a FAPE!