Henry Hudson School vs. Rowley Essay - 1299 Words

Henry Hudson School vs. Rowley Henry Hudson School vs. Rowley Diana Arrowood Grand Canyon University: SPE-350 August 31, 2012 Abstract I am writing this paper on the court case of Hudson District School vs. Rowley. I will discuss those involved in the case, what issues brought this case to trial, how and when the case was adjudicated, and the final outcome of the trial. I will also tell how I feel about this case and what it accomplished for the education system. Every student has the right to have an individual education plan (IEP). Although all students with disabilities are entitled to an IEP that does not necessarily mean they are eligible for every form of technology available to them. IEP are designed to keep children with†¦show more content†¦As the law states an IEP was prepared for Amy after her completion of her first year. The Individualized Education Plan that was customized to meet Amy’s needs stated that she was to utilize the FM transmitter; she was also to have a tutor for the deaf meet with her daily for an hour to get directions and was also to meet with a speech therapist three tim es a week. Amy’s parents agreed with parts of her IEP but also felt that Amy needed a sign language instructor in every one of her classes. Amy did receive a therapist for a two week trial while attending kindergarten but it was decided she did not need this service in order to do her studies. The Hendrick Hudson school districts â€Å"Committee on the Handicapped,† had heard Amy’s parents’ expert evidence that stated Amy needed the interpreter, the â€Å"Committee on the Handicapped also spoke with Amy’s teachers, and visited a class for the deaf. The committee denied their request for a sign interpreter. When Amy’s parents received news that their request for an interpreter had been denied they demanded and received an administrative hearing. (Weber, M. C., 2012). The hearing officer agreed with the administrators upon completion of the evidence presented by both sides. The hearing officer stated that once reviewing the evidence it was clear that Amy did not need an interpreter. The reasoning of the hearing officer was that Amy was achieving educationally, academically, and socially without any