Public Law Reflection on P.L. 94-482 and Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v Rowley

Running head: CIVIL LAW 1
Civil Law

CIVIL LAW 2
Public Law reflection
As per my knowledge, the most notable Public Law in the US is P.L. 94-482 passed
in the year 1975. The main objective of the law is to ensure the welfare of the children with
special needs in each and every state and community of the US. The rationale behind the
passing of such law was to provide free education for children with disabilities (Topping &
Wolfendale, 2017). It is under the ambit of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
of 1975. The P.L. 94-482 is aimed at the protection of the entitlements of children with
restricted mobility along with their parents. It also addresses the issues of children with
special needs with regard to the denial of education on such grounds thereby widening the
scope and opportunity for such children to have access to mainstream education. The
educators as per the P.L. 94-482 must be sensitive to the needs of children with disabilities
such as allowing extra time in examinations for dyslexic children and assessing students in
oral or written form as per their feasibility and comfort (Brown, 2016). The educators must
also provide such children with the appropriate devices which would enable them to learn
quickly and effectively. If required, people must be engaged in order to assist such children
as implied form my understanding of the P.L. 94-482. I have also inferred that the parents can
present their views and opinions with regard to the policies of the schools for the education of
children with disabilities. I further opine that the P.L. 94-482 has played an important role in
the prevention of discrimination of disabled children in terms of obtaining education in the
interest of equality and fairness. At present the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
of 1975 is known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
The case of Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v
Rowley is focused over the interpretation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
of 1975 (Russo, 2017). In this case, Amy Rowley was a student who had difficulties in
hearing. She was denied by her school for availing an interpreter expert in sign–languages, in
order to help her with the studies. As a result, her parents sued the school on grounds of
acting in contravention of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. In this
case, the Supreme Court of the United States of America stated that public schools are not
under an obligation by law to provide interpreters expert in sign languages when they are
being given access to education in an equal manner which seems to be sufficient (Lee &
Wehmeyer, 2016). However, I personally view that the court had not delved into the merits of
the case properly with respect to the consideration of the needs of Amy Rowley being