Timothy W. V. Rochester School District
Timothy W. V. Rochester School District
Abstract
The provision of resources to handicapped children is subject to a wide variety of federal and state laws and statutes. However, due the varied and spectacular range of disabilities and combination of disabilities it is often difficult to easily decide who should receive benefits and who should not. Often debated both within the court system, and without, is the subject of whether the child with a severe disability can actually benefit from the services and resources being allocated to that student. Timothy W. V. Rochester School District addresses just that issue referred to as “Zero Reject.”
Timothy W. V. Rochester School District
The Case
Timothy W., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District, Defendant, Appellee. United States Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit. 875 F.2d 954. Heard Feb. 7, 1989. Decided May 24, 1989.As Amended May 31, 1989. Ronald K. Lospennato, Disabilities Rights Center, Inc., Concord, N.H., for plaintiff, appellant. (Rothstein & Johnson, 2010) (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989)
Background
Rochester School District denied the need for special education services stating that “…a handicapped child is not eligible for special education if he cannot benefit from that education…” The decision that Timothy W. was a severely retarded and multiply handicapped child was not eligible under that standard” (The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) 1988) was reversed by the court. The EAHCA did not provide that a handicapped child must demonstrate that he or she will "benefit" from an educational program.(Wright & Wright, 2011) (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989)
Timothy W. was diagnosed with brain damage, joint contractures, cerebral palsy, severe spasticity, cortical blindness, severe respiratory distress, quadriplegia, and hearing disability. His severe developmental disabilities resulted in a determination that he was not eligible for special
Abstract
The provision of resources to handicapped children is subject to a wide variety of federal and state laws and statutes. However, due the varied and spectacular range of disabilities and combination of disabilities it is often difficult to easily decide who should receive benefits and who should not. Often debated both within the court system, and without, is the subject of whether the child with a severe disability can actually benefit from the services and resources being allocated to that student. Timothy W. V. Rochester School District addresses just that issue referred to as “Zero Reject.”
Timothy W. V. Rochester School District
The Case
Timothy W., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District, Defendant, Appellee. United States Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit. 875 F.2d 954. Heard Feb. 7, 1989. Decided May 24, 1989.As Amended May 31, 1989. Ronald K. Lospennato, Disabilities Rights Center, Inc., Concord, N.H., for plaintiff, appellant. (Rothstein & Johnson, 2010) (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989)
Background
Rochester School District denied the need for special education services stating that “…a handicapped child is not eligible for special education if he cannot benefit from that education…” The decision that Timothy W. was a severely retarded and multiply handicapped child was not eligible under that standard” (The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) 1988) was reversed by the court. The EAHCA did not provide that a handicapped child must demonstrate that he or she will "benefit" from an educational program.(Wright & Wright, 2011) (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989)
Timothy W. was diagnosed with brain damage, joint contractures, cerebral palsy, severe spasticity, cortical blindness, severe respiratory distress, quadriplegia, and hearing disability. His severe developmental disabilities resulted in a determination that he was not eligible for special
References: Rothstein L Johnson S F 2010 Special Education LawRothstein, L., & Johnson, S. F. (2010). Special Education Law (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. United States Court Of Appeals 19890531 Justia US LawUnited States Court Of Appeals (1989, May 31). Justia US Law. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/875/954/179023/ United States Court Of Appeals 19890531 Mdecgateway.orgUnited States Court Of Appeals (1989, May 31). Mdecgateway.org. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from http://www.mdecgateway.org WCT LLC 20111021 Educational Mandates for Children with DisabilitiesWCT LLC (2011, October 21). Educational Mandates for Children with Disabilities. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from http://www.wct-law.com/CM/Custom/TOCForParents.asp Wright P Wd Wright P D 2011 Special Education LawWright, P. W.d., & Wright, P. D. (2011). Special Education Law (2nd ed.). Hartfield, VA: Harbor House Law Press, Inc. Wrightslaw 20111022 WrightslawWrightslaw (2011, October 22). Wrightslaw. Retrieved October 21, 2011, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/