| dc.contributor.author | Turnbull, H. Rutherford, III | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-05-14T19:52:43Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2013-05-14T19:52:43Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1986 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Turnbull, H. Rutherford. (1986) Appropriate Education and Rowley. Exceptional Children, 52.4, 347-352. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1808/11137 | |
| dc.description | This is the publisher's version, also found at http://sped.org/ | |
| dc.description.abstract | Abstract: The Education of the Handicapped Act requires state and local educational
agencies to provide a free, appropriate public education to all children with disabilities.
The meaning of "appropriate" was left quite open-ended by Congress, which predicated
"appropriateness" on compliance with state standards and a child's IEP. The Supreme
Court's first special education case, Board v. Rowley (1982), clarified the meaning of
"appropriate"—as did the Court's later decision, Irving I.S.D. v. Tatro (1984J—but raised
questions about just how far the EHA requires schools to go in educating a child. This
article analyzes Rowley's meaning for "appropriate" education and justifies the Tightness
of that decision in terms of its impact on the education of the child and the integration of
children who have disabilities with children who do not. | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.publisher | The Council for Exceptional Children | |
| dc.title | Appropriate Education and Rowley | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| kusw.kuauthor | Turnbull, H. Rutherford | |
| kusw.kudepartment | Department of Special Education | |
| kusw.oastatus | fullparticipation | |
| kusw.oaversion | Scholarly/refereed, publisher version | |
| kusw.oapolicy | This item meets KU Open Access policy criteria. | |
| dc.rights.accessrights | openAccess | |
