1. PARC v. Pennsylvania:
The Right to Special
Education
Sherwood Best, Ph.D.
Professor
CSULA
1
2. Pennsylvania Association for
Retarded Citizens (PARC)
v.
the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania
343 F. Supp 279 (1972)
Argued August 12, 1971 2
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,
3
that settles the matter.
4. Background
► Inthe 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.
4
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 tutor
They could institutionalize their child
5
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.
6
7. Issues
► Did the statutes in Pennsylvania deny the
plaintiffs due process & equal protection?
► Ifthe state had undertaken to provide
education, did it have the right to deny
education to the plaintiffs?
► Isa label or categorization given to a
person a reason to preclude due process
& equal protection? 7
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. 8
9. Arguments
► Plaintiffsargued 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.
9
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.
10
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) 11
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. 12
13. Holding
► Failureto 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
13
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 14
15. Court’s Orders
► Schooldistricts were required to identify & start
teaching all children with mental retardation.
► Schooldistricts 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. 15
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
16
Education
Notas do Editor
PARC- Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens\nARC- Association for Retarded Citizens\n
\n
\n
By the time they were 8 years= mental age score of 5 year old (kindergarten), if not...they were sent home and dismissed them. not to profit= not educable \n
In the State of Pennsylvania, Routinely excluded from education\n\nIt is arguable because, the schools are funded by property taxes and why are they paying for them if their children arent being educated?\n
\n
\n
The state did violate the 14th amendment because,.....see next\n
\n
narrow definition of education\n
\n
compulsory age= \n\nNow= 1st grade is compulsory, not kinder\n
\n
\n
Find the students that they turned away from and advertise in media, tv, newspapers, letters sent home, notify hospitals etc. and find them to reassess them. and provide them with education...(search and serve)\n\n\n\n
Other states got busy and began to provide services for their students\n\nGenesis for the idea of FAPE free and appropriate free education\n\nParallel with the case of MIlls case\n