Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Scott F. Joh7UJOn*
561
II
I. BACKGROUND
IL POSTRoWLEY
2~. Doe ~ reL v. Ala. St. Dept. of Educ., 915 F.2d 61)1, 666 (11th CU. 1990);
PareAt v. osCeola CoWlly SelL Btl.. 69 F.8upp.3d 1248 <M.D. Fla. 199&).
.22. R.B.v. Walli'll/lltwd; S6 IDBLR 32 (D. Coma. _1).
23. For,example, in ~ ~ Sdto(Jl ~ tbe court reviewed the
~tud.~11 lIOOieaOD the Wooclt:ock Jolmllou udelJileJiice IlDd8chieVemeDt teSt to _
the litudent's JI~ aDd Inmd that tile lICUree shOwed meaningful p!Op888, and
thua.tbe achOol hIId provided tllestodent cFAPE.200 F.3dat lU9-3IlO.
566 B.Y.U. EDUCATION AND LAW JOURNAL [2003
with Hall v. Boord of Education, 1988-1984 EHLR 356:437 (E;D. NC 1988), affd. 774
F.2d629 (4th. Cir. 1985), where tbecourt fbund thattbe fbIJowing teet; scores were fUll
sufticient P!Oareu to pl'OVide educational benefit:
3"'grade 5*gNle
Math 4.0 5.7
Readinc Recopitjon 2.8 2.6
Readinc Comp. 2.2 2.7
. SpeDiDg 2.15 3.2
GeDBr8l In1b 5.3 7.0
27. Paula J. Luodberg, State CourtB aIId Schoo' J1undinB.' A Fifty State AMl.1Bi8,
63 Alb. 1.. Rev. 1101, 1167 (2000).
28. William H. CIUDe, F.ducatioIJal~: A Theory CIIId iU.1lnIedia. 28 U.
Mkh. J.L. Ref 481 (1995); ~.Iiapra D. 27; Kevin RaDdaJI McmilIaD, n.
~ Ti4e: The E~ FeanA W'ClVl!of SeItoolFiaonce BiJ(orm. LiIigatio" allod lhe
eouna; L~ ~ ~ 18 Ohio 81. U. 186'1 (1998); Deniae C.
Morpn,The 1'(ew Scltoo, .liVIonce. Liti.Ia~tL.' MbowletWiA6 .'I'hat Race Discrimi3otion
in PlWUcEdrM:aoon [sMOre T1Ian JUlle a 7.brc, 96 Nw. U. 1.. Rev. 99 (2001). For current
events On ~ funding Imption" <hUp:/Iwww.a0c8sl8dDet.work.OI.g/index.btmJ>.
29. CI~, ~D. 28; wii1i&m F. Dietz,Mar&a,Jeable Adequac.y Standards in
EducoeiqA:~rm LitiSOlioi&., 7( Wash. U. L.Q. 1198, 1196-1203(1996); Michael Helae.
Stale CoJIIIeicueio,.,. 8c1too' ~ Litigatioi&.,oM' lhe 'Third Wave"l' l'Tom Equity to
AdeqIiac:y.68Temp. 1..Bev.ll1Jl, 11117-119 (l99&);WiUiam B. Thro, ne Bird Wow:
The lrri,pact of lhe ~ ~ . cmd tao. Deeiaiou em lhe Future ef Public
ScItoo,FiN:uu:e &form ~ lfM.L. Educ. 219 (1980).
80. Heise, supra n . .2911t 111571158; Thro,supr'On.29.
81. Kelly. Thompson Cochran,. Beyond Sc1aoo' FirIQACins: Defining cAe
ConsCUUCioIlO' RiB"'c to 1M Adeqqoie Edut:otioi&., 78 N.C. 1.. Rev. 399, 413-417 (.1000);
PatriQaF. First. lDuia F. MUon, The M_iJIB or-an Adequate Education. 70 Educ. L.
Rep. 7315, 737 (1992).
S2. Rose II. Counci' for &tW Educ., In.c., 790 S.W.2d 186, 212 (Ky. 1989);
MCDuIb v. Sec. of E:ir:tIt:. Off. 0/ Educ. 6111 N.E.2d 1516; 548(1993); Claremom Sch. Di8t.
v. Gov., 708 A~2d 1863. 13156 (N.H. 1997) (Claremone 11).
561] REEXAMINING ROWLEY 569
87. Ala. CoolitioFl (or EqrAIy,lnc. I). Hunt, No. CV-90-88S-R (Ala. Cir. Ct. 1998),
reprin"in OpWlm of u.. Jrutices No.aaa, 624 S.2d 107, 166 (Ala. 1993).
38. NIUl Be.arch CollDl;lil, .u.pro n. S8, at 151-52; Dannenber& IlUIJro n. 33, at
689-48. At the time oi the Rowley decision, litipmn over a state', constitutional
ob~ationB to provide an adequate education was. in its infancy. The Court in Bowley
made . short ehrift of thia requirement in ita decision and did DOt addleu what an
appropriate education would be in Amy Rowley'estate.
89. Providinll difllrent lucatioDal etanclarda ibr students with disabilitiee could
aleoraiile equal protection OODCll!'D8. See Brow" I). BtL of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1915()
(edqcational ~ 8 must be pnMded eq-.Dy to alI).
4O.Thia objective is right in line with the lUD8ndmenta to the IDEA in 1997
discuesed i'ff/ro. The purpose of the IDEA iI DOW to prepare Itudents with diaabilitiell
for independent JmDi. and employment. 20 U.s.C. I 1400(0)(1), (d)(l)(,A) (W..t 2(02).
Thia purpci8e itaelf is arguably incoD8iBtent with Rowle;y~ minimalist approach.
41. 790 S.W.2d 186.
561] REEXAMINING ROWLEY 571
operatjopal . .~ like * ..
~. ~~~ ut8, ete); the _of cIalI8rooma. etc. .They also lIddnea lJChool
Of ~lUId claMrooma; teacher certification, etc.
See N.JI. Ilept.:.,F.clue,MiDimDDl St8Dda., ED 300, d ..,.
53. NatL .R8aeama Co1mciI. Brq1J"a rL sa, at S, U. 27-28, 88-40, 113-18; LBt:we No
574 B.Y.U. EDUCATION AND LAW JOURNAL [2003
Child Behilld Act, !O. U .s.c. fGa02 (Weet IOO~ GoaUI 3000: Educate Americ:o .Ad,
Pub. 1.. No. 1~22'7, f3, 188 Stat. 125, 129-30(2001).
. MSee Title llI,.Section. 306 of GoalsJtJOO: Educate American Act, 108 Stat. at
160-67 (2002) (ixIdiIied at; 20 UB.C. f 5888 (repealed 1999.
M. EIem.en.tary & Secondary .~I'& Ad 88 ameDded by the ImprovilaB
America's &hoolsAct of IIH; Pub.L. No. 108-382. lOS Stat. 8518 (1997).
56. [d.
57.Id.
58. No Child Left &Aind.Adof8001, Pub. 1.. No; 107110, 116 Stat;. 1425 (2002)
(~at .U.s.C. H 83016777 (2000.
59. The NoClNld Left ~.A 1Jf:iI1IIop ~ MIa, prepued by the
~ of tbeUQiDd States Department of Educ:atjon, begins Wit;h a IDeIl88P
from PNlident; Geo!p W.B..h that; states:
The NCLB Act; is desiped. to help an 8tUd8Dt8 IlUl8thirh, academic standards
by requiring . that; sta_create 8DnUill asseasmentl t;hat measure what
children bow and can do in readiDtr and mat;h in grades 8 thl'Ougb 8. These
_ta. based on chaDsJIIiDI ..... stanclaidllj will allow parlims, educaton,
. ~ .po)ieymliken, lUIll the Pb81'It1puhlic to t:rBct the
pertJniumce of every tichoOi in the riation. Data will be disanrepted 1br
stude.Dt8.by poverty .Ievele,l'IIC8, e~disa~ 8nillimited. EDglish
pro&:ieDCies to eDSure thIlt DO chiJd~ss of IUs or her baclqpound--is
~ be~.Tbe~ra1aovemmem . w ill provide ...._ _ to help states
dlieian and adminis1isr these te8ts. Stliitea . . must J'ePOrt on achool sa&ty on
asqboolby-8chool bitaia.
No Child lAIt. Be1&irId:. A 1JfIB_p . ~ 8003 9-10 (available at;
<http~;ed..IJOVJOIiiceaK>ESFJre1llre~;)ItDl1:~). .ThlJ publication goes on to say
that, -ritle I, Part A. is inteDded to help eD8ure thatan children have the opportunity
to obtain abiih-quality education and reach prolicieucy on ehaDeqiq state academic
II
"
88. NatI. Reeearch CoUDDil, tmpra IL 83, at 36-39, 11...18; YOM, tmpra n. 64.
69. Rowley, 468 U.s. at 192.
70. The frameworb were e~hed 88 part of a New Hampehire 8tatute, N.H.
Rev. Stat. Ann. fl98-C (1999). The frameworb are available on the New Hampahire
Department of Education Website at <bttp:/Iwww.ed.lltate.nh.U8I
CurriculumFrameworkaleurricuLbtm>.
561] REEXAMINING ROWLEY 577
Students will use reading, writing, speaking,
listening, and viewing to:
gather and organize information;
communicateeffectively; and
succeed in educational, occupational,
civiC; social, and everyday settings.
While these requirements may .appear ratherbaBic at first, this
peteepmnchanges when applied to a student with a disability.
These.. goals become sigeiDcant and require scl1oo1 districts to
provide services .10 enable the&tudent to meet these goals; this
will likely be a significant change for some school districts and
'8tud~nts. For example, requiring a student with dyslexia to
read age appropriate materials fluently is a goal that some
scltoo1districts might ordinarily . not set because of the
dJ.ffieultiea a student with dyslexia often has reading.71
lliBtead, a achool district might set a goal targeting simple
itDpmvements to the student's readiPg ability, even if that
i~plOVernent left the student several years .behind in hislher
reacting level
Incorporating state educational content and proficiency
standards into the statutory definition ofFAPE means high
e~tions must now be included. in disabled students' IEPs.
Edueational standards define performancecrlteria forstuderits
that .scllool dietriet8 and parents lIJ.ust use when developing
goals:. altd objeetiVes in &. student's IEP. School districts,
paren,ts, and. courts may.. ~ use these standards when
asseeaingwhet:lter.a sc1)oo1 district bas successfully provided a
student a F APE.72
7 L stanley S. Herr, Special Edwotioll Law a,.d CIJildren. wirh Reading cmd
Other DisObiliries, 28J.L. & Educ. 3S7, 343 (1999).
72. Tbeleis 4- p<*ntial risk of using hiP 8taDdards to the detriment of lOme
high .tabs.
studen.with disalriJiAee. For e_pJe, reqairiag a atl1deut with a diMbilliy to palllJ a
in order to receive a hiP JICIIool ctipJoilaa can be a JIIlQor ob8t8cle to the
88. The ComJDi:tt;ee O1lGoaJs 2000 and the Inclusion 01 Students with Disabilities
made a number of recommeDdations regarding BtudentB with disabilities and
standarda iDcludiDr the iillowing:
1. States and JocaIii.,. that decide to implement Btandardll-based retbrma
should deaip their common content ~8, per.lb.mumce standards, and
&88888ments to maximize participation oIstudentB with disabilities.
2. . The pftlSumption. should be thatesch student with a disability will
participate. in the state or Jocail lltaDdard&; however, participation fur any
given 8tQdent may require alterations to the common standards and
8SlMlssments. Decisions to make such alterations must have compelling
educational jUlJtiftcation and must be made on an individual buie.
S, When content and pertbrmance standards or alll88SlD8nts are altered tor
a student with a disability:
the altemate standards should be chalJeDIiDI yetpotentiaJ)y
achievable;
they should re11ect the full rllDP 01 kDowJedge and akillB that
the student needs to Iiveaful1, productive lite; and
the echool system should; intbrm parents and the student of
any coDsequences oftllese alterations.
4. A88ee8lD8nt accommodations should be provided, but they 8hould be used
only to oft'set the imPact of disabilities unrelated to the kDowJedp and skiils
beq measared. T.b8yal8o. sbould be justified 9D a qee..by-cue basis, but
individual decisions abould be guidea bya unitorm set of ~
Natl. Research CoUDCil,.rtpro n. 88, at 197-209.
89. Aoce88 skill,1Ul8 _ply akilJathat are aliped with the content and
proficiency standar:da ~ .. that enable the student to meet these standarda. See
Patricia Burwell .t: Sar~ Ksooedy, ~GtJts TetlI8d, Gels '1'cJlJ6/at; m.o. Gets 1'esl8d,
Gets Tou.gla: Curriculum I'romework1JfnielOplMl&lProcess (Mid-8. Reg]. Resource Ctr.
1998) (available at b#p:i1wWw JhdLuky.edUlMSRRClPublicationslWhatjpttB.htm.
90. 34 C.F.R. at I 300.847.
561) REEXAMINING ROWLEY 583
V. CONCLUSION