About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

23 Tort & Ins. L.J. 711 (1987-1988)
Monetary Remedies under the Education for all Handicapped Children Act: Toward a New Civil Rights Act

handle is hein.journals/ttip23 and id is 721 raw text is: MONETARY REMEDIES UNDER THE EDUCATION FOR
Kevin R. Sido and Philip R. King
In 1975 Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(EAHCA),' in response to the growing concern over the lack of a publicly funded
education for handicapped children. At the time of the passage of that Act it was
estimated that of over 8 million handicapped children, only 3.9 million were receiv-
ing any specialized services.' Two prior congressional attempts to address this issue
had failed.' Two courts which had addressed the issue of educating handicapped
children had held that a denial of public education to these children violated equal
protection requirements.4
1. Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 775 (1975) (Now codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.).
2. BoardofEducation v. Rowy, 458 U.S. 176, 189, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 73 L. Ed. 2d. 690, 701 (1982).
3.Prior to the EAHCA, Congress had offered federal grant monies but had not outlined procedures
and substantive requirements on the use of those funds. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, Pub. L. No. 89-750, 80 Stat. 1204 and the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1970, Pub. L.
No. 91-230, 84 Stat. 175.
4. Penn. Assoc. for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Penn., 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa.
1971) involved a class action daim regarding state statutes which provided that the state board of educa-
tion was not obligated to educate a child who was deemed untrainable. The court held that each child
must have access to public educational programs appropriate to his learning capacities. 334 F. Supp. at
1258; Mills v. Board of Ed. of D.C., 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.C.D.C. 1972), held that the denial ofa publidy
supported education to handicapped children violated constitutional requirements of equal educational
opportunities. 348 F. Supp. at 875. The holdings in these cases subsequently was called into question by
SanAntoniolndTepndntSchoolDistrictv. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1,93 S. Ct. 1278, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16 (1973) in
which the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a state to expend equal
funds on the education of each child and that a public education is not a fundamental right under constitu-
tional equal protection analysis. 411 U.S. at 33-36.
Kevin R. Sido is a Partner in the law firm of Hinsbaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller,
in Chicago, Illinois.
Philip R. King is an Associate in the sarne firm.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most