They are therefore in any way not guilty of the accusations against them.
Based on the Rowley family understanding of the FAPE, their daughter was entitled freely to have a sign language interpreter attend all her classes to aid in her learning despite the education board proving that she was fine in classes and performed above avarage with the help of the FM hearing aid kit.
The accused, the education board, however, did yield to the demands of the Rowley’s because they saw it unnecessary to have the sign language interpreter assist the young girl in her education. The education Board agreed to this decision after conducting several tests to determine whether the pupil required the help of the sign language interpreter.
The first reason to my conformance with the decision of the Supreme Court, based on the FAPE requirements is that the acts provide for and I quote, “we hold that the state has satisfied the FAPE requirements by providing personal instructions with sufficient support services to allow the child to benefit her education from that instruction” (Rowley p. 203-204) this means that the Education acted in the best interest of the FAPE requirements.
My second conformance reason is that the Educational board were right to deny the Rowley’s daughter Amy the aid of a sign language interpreter because she was a great lip reader and her prior teachings allowed her to maximize her own capabilities resulting to her impressive above average performance in her kindergarten studies. These results indicated that she was capable of achieving good grades without the assistance of the sign language interpreter.
Based on my own understanding and personal judgment, the Supreme Court rulings were correct. To begin with, the fact that the FAPE requires that a child be admitted to a public institution freely and be provided with the necessary tools to aid their education, do not promise availing of the same through thoughts