Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley (1982). Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 3 page case analysis of Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley. Supreme Court of the United States, 1982 (458 U.S. 176). This case concerned a deaf child and the degree of services that States are legally required to offer under the Education of the Handicapped Act. Facts of the case, issues presented, rational for the Court's ruling and significance are discussed. Bibliographical citation is incomplete.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khhhvr.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
citation indicate, this case was heard by the highest court in the US in 1982. The following case analysis summarizes the Supreme Courts decision and rationale. Facts of the
Case : Amy Rowley, a deaf student who attended Furnace Woods School within the Hendrick Hudson Central School District of New York State, had a limited degree of residual hearing.
Her parents and school administrators agree that Amy should be enrolled in a regular kindergarten class as a means for determining what supplemental services that she might require. While Amys
parents, who are also deaf, and the school were in agreement in several areas pertaining to supplemental services, such as Amy wearing an amplifying hearing aid, they disagreed on the
necessity for having a sign-language interpreter available to Amy. While Amy progressed and learned, there was evidence that she understood "considerably less of what" occurred in her classroom than
she would if she were not deaf (Rehnquist 329). Therefore, the District Court ruled that Amy was not receiving everything she needed in terms of a "free appropriate public education"
that would help her fulfill her full academic potential (Rehnquist 329). Issue Presented by the Case : The issue presented by this case pertains to the legal requirements that
the States must fulfill in order to receive federal funds under the Education of the Handicapped Act (subsequently referred as "the Act"). As such, this case presents a "question of
statutory interpretation," which the Supreme Court Justices were obliged to consider according to the legal requirements, rather than if the child in question could benefit from the supplementary social services
being contested. Holding : The Court agreed with the Petitioners (i.e., the school district) that the lower courts had misconstrued the requirements imposed by legislation and reversed the ruling
...