The Rowley Court had the opportunity to reverse state erosions of the EHA. Unfortunately, the Court ratified and encouraged such attacks. The Court's educational benefit standard demands as little as Washington's "suitable education" standard. The Rowley Court suggested a way to sidestep the IEP process which is similar to Washington's avoidance method. Finally, the Court eliminated judicial review of state administrative decisions regarding educational standards and the educational programs of handicapped children. The Rowley Court justified this elimination by claiming that parental ardor and participation in the IEP process were sufficient remaining safeguards for handicapped children. However, effective exclusion of many appeals at the local hearing level, because of administrative presumptiosn marshalled against parents, render those safeguards meaningless. This Comment asserts that state attacks on the EHA, combined with the Rowley Court's adoption of a minimal educational benefit standard and elimination of judicial review, have eviscerated the EHA which can only be resurrected by Congressional intervention.
Karl Boettner, Attack on the EHA: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act After Board of Education v. Rowley, 7 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 183 (1983).