Supreme Court’s decision on the Rowley case

Taking Sides in Rowley
Student’s Name
Institution
Taking Sides in Rowley
I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision on the Rowley case because of various reasons. First, the court used the definition of FAPE as provided in the act as “special education and related services.” The term related services, which is the basis of my first point in support of the Supreme Court’s decision, refers to “transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services…as may be required to assist a handicapped child to benefit from special education (Rowley Case).” Amy Rowley already had access to appropriate related services. Amy had been provided with an FM hearing aid to allow her participation in some classroom activities, received instruction from a speech therapist for three hours every week, and from a tutor for the deaf for one hour every day. An interpreter was not crucial since she already had excellent lip-reading skills which, with the assistance of the mentioned related services, allowed her to access free appropriate public education as emphasized in the provisions of IDEA.         
           Second, the purpose of IDEA is to ensure that children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate public education so that they can achieve equal education with their counterparts (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), not to provide these children with all the services that are recommended for people with their condition. According to the District Court, Amy “performs better than the average child in her class and is advancing easily from grade to grade… (Rowley Case)” Thus, it suffices to say that she had access to an appropriate education. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion was that “the intent of the Act was more to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside (Rowley Case).” Amy did no...