timothyvrochester

Timothy W. v. Rochester School District
United States Court of Appeals, 1989 875 F.2d 954 (1st Cir.)

D: Rochester School District – claimed that Timothy W. was not eligible for special education because he would not benefit from the services the school provided. The district did, however, provide non-educational services to him.
 * Facts:**

P: Timothy W. – profoundly mentally retarded child appeals an order of district court, which held that under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, a handicapped child is not eligible for special education. Timothy’s parents believed their son was entitled to a free appropriate public education.

Timothy is multiply handicapped and profoundly mentally retarded. He did not receive an educational program from the Rochester School District when he became of school age.

• Does a school district have the right to withhold special education services to a child under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act? No • Does a school district have the right to require an eligibility test pertaining to this Act? No
 * Issues/Answers:**


 * Basis/Rationale:**

Legal Basis: Education for All Handicapped Children Act, corresponding New Hampshire State Law (RSA 186-C) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions.

Rationale: The court found that Rochester School District was misinterpreting the law. The law stated that the school must provide an education that the child will benefit from. In using the words “benefit from”, the law intended to have schools create appropriate educational services for students, not simply place them in the back of a classroom and forget they were there. The law was intended to include all students and to adjust instruction to meet each individual student's needs. The words “benefit from” were never intended as a method of denying students an education. For this reason, the court ruled on the side of Timothy W. For schools, this ruling means that all children, no matter how severe their disability, are entitled to a free appropriate education.

• A hearing in 1980 to determine if Timothy was considered educationally handicapped under state and federal law which would entitle him to special education and related services. The school district decided that Timothy was not educationally handicapped and was not capable of “benefiting from an education.” • In January 1984, the school district’s placement team recommended placement at the Child Development Center, but the School Board refused to authorize this placement. • In November 1984, a complaint was filed alleging Timothy's rights had been violated. He sought injunctions and 175,000 in damages. • Hearings were heard in June 1988 on the matter of whether or not he was considered educationally handicapped. In July 1988, the court found that Timothy is not capable of benefiting from special education and the school district is not obligated to provide him with special education. • The language of the Act states that all handicapped children are entitled to free education, unconditionally and without exception. The law mandates that all handicapped children, regardless of their handicap are entitled to public education. • The district court made a mistake in requiring an eligibility test as a prerequisite to implementing the Act. • The court found that Rochester School District was misinterpreting the law. • The judgment of the district court is reversed. An IEP must be created by the school district and Timothy is entitled to interim special education placement until the IEP is developed and agreed upon. All costs are assessed against the school district.
 * Notes:**