AAPL - EAHC, IDEA

Question 1

Does the federal Education of the Handicapped Act (EAHCA) require schools to provide handicapped children “an opportunity to achieve full potential commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children?”

Answer 1

No.

Hendrick Hudson Board of Education v. Rowley (1982). USSC.

A deaf student in New York was not provided with an interpreter. She lip-reads very well and has an IEP.

The USSC reversed the two lower courts, citing that “the free and appropriate public education” standard mandates that schools provide services that “permit the child to benefit from the instruction.” The services provided by the school district “offered her [Amy] an educational opportunity substantially equal to that provided to her non-handicapped classmates.”

Question 2

Is a child with spina bifida entitled to urinary catheterization during school hours under the Education of the Handicapped Act (EAHCA)?

Answer 2

Yes.

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984). USSC

Tatro had spinal bifida and subsequently a neurogenic bladder requiring intermittent catheterization, which the school declined to perform.

The USSC ruled that CIC (int. cath) is a “supportive service” without which Amber would not have been able to attend school, much less access special education. It ruled that CIC was not a “medical service,” defined as “services provided by a licensed physician,” because CIC can be performed by a school nurse or any other qualified adult who has received appropriate training.