|
|
|
March 2008 TAESE Newsletter 4 |
|
|
Deaf UWM Professor Helped Shape Education Laws for Students with Disabilities
By: Kathy Quirk (Courtesy of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)
Amy June Rowley vividly remembers her parents’ fight to assure her education. “There were often observers in my classrooms, and I kept having all these tests,” says Rowley, who carefully shapes her words and thoughts into graceful expression with flying hands and quickly changing facial expressions.
Rowley, who is deaf, is a clinical assistant professor and coordinator of the American Sign Language (ASL) Program at the UWM School of Education. In 1982, when she was 10 years old, she was at the center of a landmark Supreme Court case on the rights of children with special needs, Hendrick Hudson Board of Education vs. Rowley.
The case tested existing laws about how far public schools had to go to educate students with disabilities. Clifford and Nancy Rowley were relying on those laws when they requested a sign language interpreter for their daughter when she started kindergarten at their local public school in upstate New York.
Issues first raised in the Rowley case continue to play out in schools and courtrooms today, particularly in light of the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, says Dave Edyburn, UWM professor of education.
A Landmark Case
Legal experts see the case as one of the most important in education law because it helped define what was meant by a “free and appropriate public education” for children with disabilities. And it is still often cited in special-education legal cases.
Although the Supreme Court ruled against the Rowley family in the case, some special-education advocates viewed the case as a victory because the Court upheld both the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and parents’ rights to appeal school decisions to the courts.
The Rowleys, who are both deaf, believed their daughter would learn best with a total language approach that included sign language as well as the then-common lip-reading approach. They also believed their bright daughter would have better academic opportunities at a public school close to their home rather than a remote school for the deaf.
Over the next few years, the local school district provided Amy June with assistance in lip-reading, hearing aids and help outside the classroom but argued that a sign language interpreter in the classroom wasn’t needed, might be disruptive, and was too expensive for the district’s budget.
Without a sign language interpreter, Amy June was able to understand only part of what was going on in her classroom—even under ideal circumstances. And busy schoolrooms rarely provide ideal situations for lip-reading.
Nancy Rowley, a teacher, worked with her daughter at home to help her keep up with her studies despite such communication gaps. “I remember coming home from school and working on lessons and homework and not being able to go outside to play,” Amy June says. “My mother would not allow me to fail.”
Some media at the time criticized the Rowleys, saying their expectations of the school system were expensive and unrealistic. Both court officials and media made much of the fact that Amy June Rowley was doing OK in school without an in-class sign language interpreter, overlooking the extraordinary support her family put into her education, according to R.C. Smith, author of “A Case About Amy.”
After losing the case in the highest court, the Rowley family moved from New York to a New Jersey school system with a number of deaf children, where ASL interpreters were available in classrooms. That allowed results of the two strategies to be compared. It was eye-opening.
“Without an interpreter, I was a ‘C’ student. With an interpreter, I was an ‘A’ student,” says Rowley. She went on to complete her bachelor’s and master’s degrees and is now a doctoral student as well as a faculty member at UWM.
A Very Human Story
While much has changed since 1982, with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and changed attitudes toward those with disabilities, parents and school districts still struggle with issues when children have special needs. Amy June Rowley, now the mother of three, faces her own challenges in assuring an appropriate education for her daughters, Janeva and Reza, who are deaf.
After enrolling them in a school in a suburban system near their home, Rowley and her husband, Jeff Mosher, decided the girls’ educational needs weren’t being met, and moved them to the Milwaukee Sign Language School, which includes both deaf and hearing children.
At the heart of the Rowley case, says Edyburn, is a very human story about a family struggling to make sure their child had an opportunity to learn. “Rowley is a case about children and parents and teachers and equity,” says Edyburn, noting that the case also made history because it marked the first time a deaf lawyer had argued a case before the Supreme Court.
Although the Rowley case may not be the most representative test of the law—because deafness is not the most common disability, and the Rowleys provided solid, middle-class support to their daughter—the issues are similar to many others that continue to appear in the courts.
For example, says Edyburn, a recent story in an education journal focused on a family’s legal fight to be allowed to represent their child, who has special needs, in a school hearing on the child’s placement. The story provides a historical timeline of key special-education legal cases; Hendrick Hudson Board of Education vs. Rowley is among the first listed.
The cost of educating children with special needs is still very much part of the discussion, as it was 25 years ago, says Elise Frattura, associate dean for education outreach at UWM, a former public school administrator and an expert on special education. Frattura, who will speak at the conference, says that even though many costs are minimal, such discussions often have an unspoken subtext.
“Sometimes what people are not saying is, how much should be spent on children they do not believe will ever accomplish anything.” Frattura’s view is that helping a child with special needs receive the best possible education is critical, not only to the children’s quality of life, but also to their future ability to contribute to society. “We can pay now with special education, or we can pay later as a community.”
Looking back after 25 years, Rowley says she is proud of her parents for the fight they began that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Even as the case was making it through the courts, more students were getting sign language interpreters and other assistance with special needs, she says. “It didn’t benefit me, but it is benefiting others.”
Editor’s note: Amy June Rowley left UW Milwaukee over the summer to join the faculty of California State University—East Bay.
|
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 30 March 2008 )
|
|
|
