The document summarizes the Timothy W. v. Rochester School District case, which established that students cannot be denied special education services simply for being "too special." Specifically: - Timothy W., a child with profound disabilities, was denied special education services by his local school district who argued he was "not capable" of benefiting. - The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that Timothy was entitled to services under the EAHCA (Education of All Handicapped Children's Act) regardless of his perceived ability to benefit. - The court established the "zero reject" principle, meaning districts cannot deny services to students with disabilities, no matter their severity. The case increased responsibility of schools

1. Timothy W. v. Rochester
School District: Can Anyone
be “Too Special” for Special
Education?
Sherwood Best, Ph.D.
Professor
CSULA
1

2. Timothy W.
v.
Rochester, New Hampshire
School District
875 F.2d 924 (1989)
Argued February 7, 1989
Decided May 24, 1989
2

3. Terms
 Shepardizing a Case – When you
shepardize a case, you follow it all the
way through the series of levels and
stages of denial, appeal, affirmation,
etc. If a case is not shepardized, the
reader may falsely determine the
case’s outcome, perhaps based on a
lower court ruling that is eventually
overturned.
It is important to shepardize a case to make
sure that it still has legal authority. The term
comes from Shepard’s Citations for Cases3

4. Terms
 Remand – To send back. A higher
court may send back a ruling to a
lower court with directions from the
higher court.
 EAHCA – The Education of All
Handicapped Childrens Act, also
known as P.L. 94-142.
 Zero Reject – No “excludable”
individuals under EAHCA.
4

5. Background
 The mother of Timothy W., a child
with profound mental retardation and
multiple disabilities, attempted to
enroll him for special education
services in his local school district in
1980. District personnel met to
decide if Timothy was considered
educationally handicapped. Four
professionals recommended PT & OT
as well as “stimulation.” Two
professionals found Timothy to be
“uneducable.” 5

6. Background
Based on this meeting, the school
district denied educational services
because he was “not capable” of
benefiting from an education.
Timothy was “too special” for
special education!!
6

7. Background
 In May of 1982, the New Hampshire
Department of Education reviewed the
district’s program and found the district
out of compliance. They did not
recommend particular action.
 District personnel met again in June of
1983 to discuss this case and refused
educational services. In response to a
recommendation for educational services
from a specialist in 1984, the district asks
for more information. 7

8. Background
 Timothy’s mother filed a complaint with the
NH Department of Education. They ordered
the district to place Timmy within 5 days.
 On 10/31/84, the district filed an appeal.
 On 11/11/84, a compliant was filed in US
District Court to seek an injunction to direct
the district to provide services & pay
damages.
 On 1/3/85, the US District Court found for
the school district and denied the injunction.
They suggested that Timothy’s mother
exhaust her administrative procedures. 8

9. Background
 Meanwhile, the State Commissioner of
Education ordered a diagnostic prescriptive
program for Timmy in a special program in
the district. Timmy’s teacher prepared a
summary report in which she contended
that he would benefit from education.
 After further requests by his mother,
Timothy was placed in a developmental
center program and remained there until
June of 1987.
9

10. Background
 The hearing officer engaged in the
administrative hearings related to Timmy’s
case determined that capacity to benefit
was not a legally permissible standard for
determining his eligibility.
 The school district appealed to the US
District Court on 11/12/87 by filing a
counterclaim. Timothy’s mother responded
with a cross motion for a summary
judgment to decide whether Timothy
qualified as an educationally handicapped
individual. 10

11. Background
 The district Court rendered its
opinion on 7/15/88.
“Under the EAHCA an initial determination
as to the child’s ability to benefit from
special education must be made in order
for the handicapped child to qualify for
education under the Act. The court held
that this was an implicit part of the Act
and only applied to cases where there was
extreme disability.”
 Timothy’s mother appealed this case
with a decision by the US District
Court of Appeals for the First District.
11

12. Issues
 Was Timothy an educationally
handicapped child under the ECHCA?
 If so, was he denied FAPE?
 Did the district court err in its ruling that
Timothy W. could be excluded from
special education?
Can someone be “too special” for
special education?
12

13. Applicable Law
 The Education of All Handicapped
Children Act (EAHCA) requires:
– Provision of educational services to all
handicapped children, regardless of severity
– Inclusion of basic functional skills as well as
academic/cognitive skills
 The Education of All Handicapped
Children Act (EAHCA) does not
require:
– Proof of benefit of education
13

14. Arguments - Plaintiffs
 The presumption that retarded
children are un-educable & un-
trainable lack a basis in fact.
 The district cannot deny educational
rights to children with retardation,
no matter how low they function.
 Anappropriate education cannot be
determined to be no education.
14

15. Arguments - Defendants
 Timothyneeded to be able to
demonstrate benefit from special
education services in order to receive
them.
 Timothy was deemed not educable or
perhaps even trainable, therefore the
school district was under no
obligation to provide.
15

16. Holding
 Timothy was a handicapped child &
therefore eligible for education
under the EAHCA.
 Timothy’s right to FAPE had been
violated.
A handicapped child need not
demonstrate benefit from special
education in order to be eligible for
that education. 16

17. Dicta
 The principle of Zero Reject was
established via the Timothy W. case.
Districts cannot avoid the provisions of the
Act by returning to practices that were
widespread prior to the passage of the Act.
 Should educational agencies by the parties
responsible for expensive quasi-medical,
quasi-educational services for students
with severe disabilities?
Stay “tuned” for the Garrett Frey case!
17

18. Court’s Orders
 Timothy W. was immediately placed
in an interim special education
placement until an IEP could be
developed & agreed upon by all
parties.
 The case was remanded to the
district court to determine the issue
of damages.
18

19. Implications - Special Education
 LEAs
must re-evaluate what they
mean by “education”
 LEAswill increasingly become
responsible for providing and
funding specialized health care
needs and services to students with
disabilities.
 LEAemployees must re-assess their
jobs & legal protections. 19