The Supreme Court's Interpretation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act

Abstract

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHCA), implemented only since 1977, has already caused a great deal of legal controversy, as evidenced by the hundreds of cases that have reached the courts. The many court decisions interpreting the EHCA form the basis of a common law that is as important to special educators as the Act itself. Thus far the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down decisions in four cases that it has heard. In these decisions the Court has defined what is meant by an appropriate education, has clarified the related services provision of the Act, has barred the awarding of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a special education suit, but has upheld a private school tuition reimbursement award to the parents of a handicapped child who successfully argued that the public schools did not provide an appropriate placement. These four decisions have had and will continue to have a profound impact on how the Act is implemented at the local level. The implications of the Supreme Court's pronouncements are examined and discussed in this paper.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson v. Thompson, 658 F. 2d 1205 (1981).

Board of Education v. Rowley, 102 S.Ct. 3034 (1982).

Burlington v. Department of Education, 105 S. Ct. 1996 (1985).

Doe v. Brookline, 722 F. 2d 910 (1983).

Doe v. Maher, 793 F. 2d 1470 (1986), cert. granted sub nom Honig v. Doe, no. 86-728.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142, United States Code, 20, sections 1401 et. seq.

Goldberg, S.S. (1986). Reimbursing parents for unilateral placements in private special education schools. Exceptional Children, 52, 390-394.

Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, P.L. 99-372, United States Code, 20, sections 1415 (e) (4) (B)-1415 (f).

Hooker, C. (1985). Court upholds reimbursement for unilaterally obtained private special education. Education Law Reporter, 25, 759-764.

10.

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 104 S. Ct. 3371 (1984).

11.

Luckasson, R.A. (1986). Attorneys' fees reimbursement in special education cases: Smith v. Robinson. Exceptional Children, 52, 384-389.

12.

McCarthy, M. & Deignan, P. (1982). What legally constitutes an adequate public education? Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

13.

Osborne, A. (1984a). Reimbursement under the EHCA for unilaterally obtained private schooling: The implications of Doe v. Brookline. Education Law Reporter, 19, 469-476.

14.

Osborne, A. (1984b). How the courts have interpreted the related services mandate. Exceptional Children, 51, 249-252.

15.

Osborne, A. (1985a). Parental violation of the EHCA's status quo provision does not constitute a waiver of tuition reimbursement. Education Law Reporter, 27, 643-647.

16.

Osborne, A. (1985b). Recent judicial developments affecting the EHCA's related services mandate. Education Law Reporter, 26, 579-584.

17.

Osborne, A. (1985c). Disciplining handicapped students. Education Law Reporter, 30, 1009-1015.

18.

Osborne, A. (1986). Reimbursement of private school costs is available under the EHCA: Burlington v. Massachusetts. Remedial and Special Education, 7(4), 54-57.

19.

Osborne, A. (1987). Discipline of handicapped students revisited. Education Law Reporter, 37, 753-761.

20.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, United States Code, 29, section 794.

21.

Smith v. Robinson, 104 S. Ct. 3457 (1984).

22.

Thomas, S. (1985). Related services under the Education of The Handicapped Act. Education Law Reporter, 21, 447-451.

23.

Tokarcik v. Forest Hills, 665 F. 2d 443 (1981); cert. denied 102 S. Ct. 3508.

24.

Turnbull, H.R. (1986). Appropriate education and Rowley. Exceptional Children, 52, 347-352.

25.

Valente, W. (1985). Smith v. Robinson---Confusion clarified. Education Law Reporter, 22, 693-697.

26.

Vitello, S.J. (1986). The Tatro case: Who gets what and why. Exceptional Children, 52, 353-356.

27.

Zirkel, P.A. (1985). Appropriate education and related services for handicapped students: Giving back with one hand what was taken away with the other. Education Law Reporter, 22, 1-10.