Instructions for Conducting a Case Briefing
Instructions: Analyze a court case using the 8-part structure outlined below. Each group will present its findings to the class, focusing on the significance and broader implications of the case. SPED 302 students must have 10 cases completed, and SPED 602 students must have 20 cases completed. Each case must include the following information:
1. Facts of the Case Begin with a concise summary of the facts. Identify the parties involved, the central issue or conflict, and the key events that led to the case being brought to court. Focus on the details most relevant to the legal question.
2. Decisions in Administrative Hearings and Lower Courts Outline the decisions made at each prior stage of the legal process. Include the rulings from administrative hearings and lower courts, and briefly explain their reasoning.
3. Rationale Summarize the court's reasoning behind its decision. Highlight the key legal principles, statutes, or precedents the court used to reach its conclusion.
4. Holding Clearly states the court's final decision. Explain what the court ultimately decided regarding the issue(s) at hand and the outcome for the parties involved.
5. Scope of the Holding Describe the jurisdiction and broader implications of the court’s decision. Explain how this ruling affects similar cases, individuals, or entities within the relevant legal or geographical scope.
6. Dissenting Opinions If applicable, include a summary of any dissenting opinions. Explain the reasoning behind the disagreement and how it contrasts with the majority opinion.
7. Case Significance Explain why the case is important. Discuss its impact on legal precedent, public policy, or the rights of individuals or groups involved.
8. Further Questions End your case briefing by posing two thoughtful questions. These could relate to the implications of the case, unresolved issues, or areas where further legal or policy clarification may be needed.
Let’s talk about Amy Rowley‘s case. - Board of Education v. Rowley | 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
Facts of the case:
In New York, there was a girl who entered First Woods Kindergarten, and the principal was very happy and excited to see her. Unlike other principals, he offered many advantages to Amy.
The school provided Amy Rowley (who is profoundly deaf) with a hearing aid, a teletype machine for communication with her parents, and even ensured that administrators received sign language training. Despite these accommodations, Rowley's parents (who are also deaf) believed that the school was not providing enough support for her to succeed fully, specifically arguing that she needed a sign language interpreter in class.
The parents felt that these additional measures (like lip reading and the hearing aid) were not sufficient for her to access the curriculum in the same way as her hearing peers. The case ultimately centered on whether the school was fulfilling its obligation under the Education of All Handicapped Children Act to provide Rowley with a "Free Appropriate Public Education."
The Supreme Court, in its decision, held that the law didn't require the school to provide every possible service, but rather, a meaningful opportunity for educational benefit. The Court agreed with the school's decision not to provide a sign language interpreter, concluding that the services already provided (hearing aids, lip reading support, etc.) were sufficient for Rowley to achieve a satisfactory educational outcome. So, it wasn’t about whether she could access everything exactly as other students did, but whether she was receiving a meaningful education overall.
So, let me ask: What is my understanding of the term Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)? How does this case shape my view of what constitutes an "appropriate" education for students with disabilities?
Did she receive sufficient support with hearing aids and lip-reading assistance alone? If not, she might have experienced depression. So, what does a meaningful opportunity for educational benefit really mean? It seems that its interpretation varies depending on individual perspectives.
Decision:
- First Trial (District Court) – Rowley Won
- The trial court ruled in favor of Rowley (the student who is profoundly deaf).
- The court decided that FAPE means giving students with disabilities the same opportunity to reach their full potential as non-disabled students.
- Since Rowley was not performing at her full potential due to her hearing impairment, the court said she was not receiving FAPE.
- Appeal (Court of Appeals) – Rowley Won Again
- The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s decision and upheld the ruling in Rowley’s favor.
- Supreme Court – Rowley Lost
- The school district appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court overturned the lower court rulings.
- The justices ruled that FAPE does not require schools to maximize a student’s potential, only to provide enough support for the student to benefit from education.
- Since Rowley was making academic progress (passing grades and moving to the next grade), the court ruled that she was receiving FAPE.
3. Rationale
In this case, a student with severe hearing loss was provided with a special hearing aid and tutoring but was denied a sign-language interpreter in all of her classes. Her parents sued, arguing that she was not receiving an appropriate education because, although she was passing her classes, she wasn’t performing at her full potential. The court agreed, ruling that FAPE means giving students with disabilities the same chance to reach their potential as other students.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that:
- FAPE means providing enough support for the child to benefit from their education, not necessarily maximizing their potential. The education must be free, meet state standards, follow the child's IEP, and allow them to make academic progress (like passing grades and moving to the next grade).
- The law does not require schools to provide the best possible education—just one that allows the student to benefit. Congress intended to give students with disabilities access to public education, not to guarantee the same opportunities as non-disabled students.
- Courts reviewing FAPE cases must check if schools followed proper procedures and if the IEP is designed to help the child make educational progress. If these conditions are met, the school has fulfilled its legal responsibility.
----------------------------------
It is rather vague what FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) truly means. To fully understand it, we need to first examine the EHA law (Education for All Handicapped Children Act) of 1975. According to the testimony of Yell, M. L,[1] President Gerald Ford did not publicly announce or sign the bill in a formal ceremony. Instead, he signed it aboard Air Force One, suggesting a more private and perhaps cautious approach to the legislation. Some might imagine a grand Rose Garden ceremony, but in reality, he simply signed it alone on his flight to China (see the YouTube clip at the 10:35 mark of his testimony).
Moreover, Ford expressed doubts about the law’s longevity. At some point, he may have thought it would require modifications. He also believed that Congress might resist allocating substantial funding to the states. In other words, while he signed the bill into law, he had the foresight[2] to anticipate its financial implications and whether it would remain unchanged over time. His skepticism was not about the law’s intent—to provide equal educational opportunities for children with disabilities—but rather about its practical implementation, funding, and long-term sustainability.
It is obvious and understandable that FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) has been under scrutiny since 1975. Over time, it has evolved through court cases, notably Rowley and, later, Endrew F. While Rowley established the standard for educational benefit as something more than de minimis, the Court in Endrew F. ruled that schools must provide an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances."
--
Rationale-
---
Can you imagine what would be like when you realize you can learn Special educaiton?