Parc v. pennsylvania 1971

1

PARC v. Pennsylvania: The Right to Special

Education

Sherwood Best, Ph.D.ProfessorCSULA

2

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC)

v. the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania

343 F. Supp 279 (1972)

Argued August 12, 1971

3

Terms►Class Action Suit – A lawsuit brought by a

person on behalf of all persons in similar situations. To bring such a suit, the person must meet certain criteria (protected class).

►Protected Class – Persons who meet a specific criteria that identifies them for special consideration.

►Consent Decree – An agreement by the parties in a lawsuit, sanctioned by the court, that settles the matter.

4

Background►In the State of Pennsylvania, a statute

required that all children who attended public school had to perform to a certain level or be found ineligible. Children could be legally excluded from school if: They had not attained the mental age

equivalent of 5 years by the chronological age of 8 years;

They were found not to “profit” from public school.

5

Background►Children with mental retardation were routinely denied school, based on their “ineligibility”.►Parents of “ineligible” children had several options. They could…

They could send their child to private school Keep their children at home and provide care without sending them to school (tutor?)They could hire a private tutorThey could institutionalize their child

6

Background►The Pennsylvania chapter of the Association for Retarded Citizens (a group initially started by parents) brought a class action lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of all children with mental retardation in the state of Pennsylvania, ages 6-21.

►Defendants were the 13 school districts currently in the state, the State Board of Education, and the State Secretaries of Welfare and Education.

7

Issues►Did the statutes in Pennsylvania deny the

plaintiffs due process & equal protection?

►If the state had undertaken to provide education, did it have the right to deny education to the plaintiffs?

►Is a label or categorization given to a person a reason to preclude due process & equal protection?

8

Applicable Law► 14th Amendment- Equal Protection of the Laws

clause of the U.S. Constitution.

► “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

► 5th Amendment – Due process in the U.S. Constitution. Due process refers to an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of individuals.

9

Arguments► Plaintiffs argued that the state’s statutes offend

due process because they lack provision for notice & a hearing before a child with retardation is excluded from public school.

► Plaintiffs argued that the state’s statutes presumption that retarded children are uneducatable & untrainable lack a basis in fact.

► Plaintiffs argued that the states statutes arbitrarily & capriciously deny educational rights to children with retardation.

10

Arguments

►Arguments based on four points:

All children with mental retardation are capable of benefiting from education & training.

Education cannot be defined as only the provision of academic experiences for children.

11

Arguments

Having undertaken to provide education for all children in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a free education, the state could not deny students with mental retardation access to free public education & training.

The earlier that students with mental retardation are afforded an education, the greater the amount of learning could be predicted. (early intervention backed up with research)

12

Arguments►Defendants argued the appropriateness of

their state statutes, specifically sections: 13-1375: relief of obligation to educate children found

to be uneducable and untrainable in the public schools 13-1304: allows school directors to refuse to accept or

retain any child who has not attained a mental age of 5 years

13-1330: excused any child from compulsory school when so approved by a certified person who found that child unable to profit from further school attendance

13-1326: compulsory school age to be 8-16.

►Defendants argued administrative & financial burden on school systems.

13

Holding►Failure to provide access to public

school violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment

►Failure to provide notification to parents regarding evaluation (as it leads to denial of education) is a denial of due process, the 5th Amendment

►PARC was resolved by consent decree

14

Dicta ►If the state has undertaken to provide a

free public education to all its children, then it could not deny retarded children.

►Due process requires a hearing before denial of education; the schools cannot deny education without due process

►Parents must be notified in writing of any evaluation or re-evaluation of their child

15

Court’s Orders► School districts were required to identify & start

teaching all children with mental retardation.

► School districts were to develop evaluation for most appropriate placement.

►The State Department of Education was required to submit plans describing available programs, financial arrangements, and teacher recruitment & training efforts to provide education.

►Children under 6 years old were to be included for services by September 1, 1972.

16

Implications for Special Education

►Congress reacted to the PARC case by passing legislation to ensure the right to special education for children with disabilities: PL 94-142

►PARC was the genesis for the concept of FAPE: Free Appropriate Public Education