Timothy W. V. Rochester School District Essay

1599 WordsAug 17, 20137 Pages
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.…show more content…
This ruling primarily concerned the schools responsibility to “maximize” student achievement and was more focused on the level of services provided rather than the exclusion of benefits due to lack of benefit. (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) The Rowley case ultimately provided a basic “floor of opportunity” and with regard to handicapped children specifically states that … "[t]he Act requires special educational services for children 'regardless of the severity of their handicap,"' … and "[t]he Act requires participating States to educate a wide spectrum of handicapped children, from the marginally hearing-impaired to the profoundly retarded and palsied…” (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) Although Robert Walczak and Karen Walczak V. Florida Union Free School District and Maureen Flaherty produced a ruling that a child should be placed in a program that provides for educational advancement it does not prescribe that a child must show ability to advance before services are rendered. The Impact This case set the precedent for “zero reject” as an accepted policy, currently without substantial debate, for all children covered under disability statute and legislation. As such, children with severe disabilities who are perceived to be uneducable due to the severity of their condition are not withheld the educational services granted their peers of lesser disability. The ability to receive and benefit from the education provided is not a factor
Open Document