## Facts

- Timothy W. was a school-age child with profound, multiple disabilities, including spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, and cortical blindness.
- The Rochester, New Hampshire School District refused to provide special education, asserting Timothy was not “educationally handicapped” because he was not “capable of benefitting” from education.
- Evaluators disagreed: some professionals reported Timothy could respond to stimuli and recommended an individualized program with related services and functional-skill training; others characterized him as having no educational potential.
- The New Hampshire Department of Education ordered the district to provide services and rejected use of a “capable of benefitting” criterion for eligibility, but the district continued to refuse.
- Timothy’s representatives sued in federal court alleging violations of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) and related state law.

## Issues

1. Whether the EAHCA permits a school district to deny special-education eligibility to a handicapped child because the child is not “capable of benefitting” from education.

## Decision

- The First Circuit reversed the district court and remanded.
- The court held the EAHCA establishes a “zero-reject” policy requiring provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all handicapped children.
- A school district may not impose a threshold “capable of benefitting” requirement to deny eligibility based on severity of disability or perceived lack of “educational potential.”
- Considerations about the type and degree of benefit bear on the content of the individualized education program (IEP), not on initial eligibility.

## Legal Principles

- The EAHCA/IDEA covers all handicapped children; eligibility cannot be restricted by a severity-based or benefit-based exclusion that is not found in the statute.
- “Zero-reject” means districts must offer access to special education and related services even for children with profound disabilities.
- The adequacy of a child’s program is assessed through the IEP and the appropriateness of services, not by screening the child out at the eligibility stage.
- For profoundly disabled students, “education” may properly include functional and life-skills instruction and related therapeutic services when designed to support learning and development.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that federal special-education law forbids school districts from denying eligibility on the theory that a profoundly disabled child cannot benefit from education; districts must serve all eligible children and tailor the IEP to the child’s needs.


Timothy W. v. Rochester, N.H. Sch. Dist., 875 F.2d 954 (1st Cir. 1989)