The Pennhurst and Rowley Decisions: Issues and Implications

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The Supreme Court recently delivered two significant decisions interpreting the federal rights of the handicapped. In Pennhurst v. Halderman (1981), the Court ruled that the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act contains a statement of national goals for the developmentally disabled, but does not create substantive rights to adequate treatment. In Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), the Court interpreted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act as assuring handicapped children procedural safeguards and an individualized educational program, but not placing an obligation on states to provide a particular level of education or equal educational opportunities for such children. Both decisions suggest a reduced federal role in determining what constitutes appropriate programs and services for the handicapped.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: