Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to provide background information and to discuss the Timothy W. case which dealt with the legal parameters of the “zero reject” principle. Emphasis was given to the arguments presented by the plaintiff attorneys in requesting writ of certiorari from the United State Supreme Court, and the implications of the Court's denial to hear the case.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chicago Public Schools, District # 299 (OCR, 1989), EHLR, 353:316.
Garfunkel, F. (1986). Special education and school failure.Equity Choice, 3:50–53.
Policy letter to Frank New (OSEP, 1989), EHLR 213 258.
Rochester v. Timothy W., Petitioner's Brief (No. 89-515, 1989) 15 EHLR SA-226.
Rochester v. Timothy W., Respondent's brief in Opposition (No. 89-515, 1989) 15 EHLR SA-244.
Timothy W. V., Rochester, 875 F. 2d 954, 968 (1st Cir. 1989).
Thousand J., and Villa, R. A. (1989).Accommodating for greater student variance in local schools, Paper presented at the Preconvention Training Program,Exploring the theory/practice link in special education, at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 304 865).
Turnbull, H., Rutherford, III, and Fielder, C. R. (1984)Judicial interpretation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Special education in America: Its legal and governmental foundations series. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 244 406).
Warboys, L. M., and Shauffer, C. B. (1986). Legal issues in providing special educational services to handicapped inmates.RASE 7:34–40.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Katsiyannis, A. Timothy W.: The zero reject principle revisited. J Dev Phys Disabil 4, 91–95 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01046344
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01046344