When parents placed their child in a private special education program without school district approval, two legal questions arose: Does Public Law 94–142 prevent parents from taking unilateral action? May they he reimbursed for private programs? In Burlington, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the law does not bar parents from making unilateral placements, but they may be reimbursed only if the private educational program is eventually approved through the appeal procedures set forth in the law.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Board of Education, Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
2.
Burlington School Committee of the Town of Burlington, Massachusetts v. Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 105 S. Ct. 1996 (1985).
3.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34. (1983).
4.
Doe v. Anrig, 561 F. Supp. 121. (D. Mass. 1983).
5.
DuBowS., & GeerS. (1984). Special education law since Rowley. Clearinghouse Review, 48, 1001–1007.
6.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94–142), 20 U.S.C. Sections 1401, et seq. (1982).
7.
FeatherstoneH. (1981). A difference in the family.New York: Penguin Books.
8.
GoldbergS. (1982). Special education law: A guide for parents, advocates, and educators.New York: Plenum.
9.
GoldbergS., & KuriloffP. (1985). The legalization of special education: Parents' and school officials' perceptions of accuracy, fairness, and satisfaction in due process hearings. Manuscript submitted for publication.
10.
KirpD.BussW., & KuriloffP. (1974). Legal reforms of special education: Empirical studies and procedural proposals. California Law Review, 62, 40–155.
11.
KirpD., & KirpL. (1976). The legalization of the school psychologists' world. Journal of School Psychology, 14, 83–89.
12.
KuriloffP. (1985). Is justice served by due process?: Affecting the outcome of special education hearings in Pennsylvania. Law and Contemporary Problems, 48, 89–118.
13.
MashawJ. (1974). The management side of due process: Some theoretical and litigation notes on the assurance of accuracy, fairness and timeliness in the adjudication of social welfare claims. Cornell Law Review, 59, 772–824.
14.
Mills v. Board of Education, District of Columbia, 343 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).
15.
NealD., & KirpD. (1983). The allure of legalization: The case of special education. IFG Project no. 82A-22. Palo Alto: Stanford University.
16.
New York City Mayoral Commission. (1985). Special education: A call for quality.New York: Author.
17.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1971); 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
18.
PittengerJ., & KuriloffP. (1982). Educating the handicapped: Reforming a radical law. The Public Interest, 66, 72–96.
19.
United States Department of Education. (1985). Sixth annual report to Congress on the implementation of P.L. 94–142: The education for all handicapped children act.Washington, DC: Author.
