-
1971- Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Complaint
Complaint: The Common Wealth of Pennsylvania was denying mentally disabled children ages six to twenty -one an equal right to education. -
1971- Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Commonwealth Stance.
Pubic School Code, 24 Purd. Stat. Sec. 13-1375:
Law states that the state board of education can set in place standards for both permanent and temporary exclusion from public schools. “Any person who is certified as a public school psychologist can report a child as uneducable or untrainable. The board and superintendent can than approve that the student be certified to the Department of Public Welfare, who is then in charge of care -
1971- Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; PARC Stance
PARC Stance: Students throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were excluded from school, expelled, and educational needs were not being met, in terms of IDEA. -
1971- Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Outcome
Outcome: The Commonwealth must desist from applying Section 1375 which denied access to a free public education for mentally retarded disabilities. Homebound instruction is least preferable has to be the most appropriate to child’s needs and students must receive at least 5 hours of instruction. Commonwealth must terminate any laws that prevent access to a free appropriate education. -
1971- Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Benefits
In this educational law case, the plaintiffs were fighting for a free and appropriate education. The needs were not being met, as a result this class action law suit solidified the principle that all children regardless of disabilities is entitled to a free and appropriate education. -
1971- Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Resources
Resource: Direct Copy of Case: https://www.pubintlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/1971-01-07-Complaint.pdf Interview with Thomas K. Gilhool: http://disabilities.temple.edu/voices/detailVideo.asp?mediaCode=006-03 -
1972 Mills v. Board of Education; Board of Education Stance
Board of Education: The District of Columbia Board of education and government argued that it had a duty to provide a free public education to those who were CAPABLE of reaping benefits of such instruction. They argued that it was impossible for them to educate the students who were alleged to have behavioral, mental, emotional, and/or physical disabilities due to the lack of funding. -
1972 Mills v. Board of Education; Complaint
Complaint: Seven students were denied a public education for extended periods of time. This was due to them having alleged behavioral, mental, emotional, and/or physical disabilities. -
1972 Mills v. Board of Education; Mills Stance
Mills Stance: The plaintiffs argued that the students had been denied their right to due process as well as a free and appropriate public education. -
1972 Mills v. Board of Education; Outcome
Outcome: The court decided that the district could not refuse or deny ANY student a free public education. The court also decided that if the Government and School District did not have the funds available to provide ALL of the services/programs that are needed, that funds must be expanded equitably so that no child is excluded from the system. -
1972 Mills v. Board of Education; Benefits
Benefits: Again in this case we see the premise of the educational laws being used to separate students with disabilities from their peers. This case confirms the fact that every student with disabilities has the right to a public education where they can learn and grow. -
1972 Mills v. Board of Education; Resources
Disability Justice http://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-education/ -
1989- Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District; Complaint
Complaint: Timothy W. presented with multiple disabilities. The Rochester, New Hampshire School District met to decide if he was educationally handicapped. After looking at reports from several pediatricians the school board refused to provide service because Timothy had no educational potential and would not benefit from the special education services. -
1989- Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District; Timothy W. Stance
Timothy W. Stance: Timothy was being denied an appropriate education. After several attempts to relook the situation the school board still refused. Timothy W. attorney alleged that the board had not cooperated with several federal laws. -
1989- Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District; Rochester, New Hampshire, School District Stance
Rochester, New Hampshire, School District Stance: The Rochester, New Hampshire, School District felt that because Timothy was not capable of benefitting from education services due to his severe and multiple disabilities that he would not be provided an education. -
1989- Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District; Outcome
Outcome: The First Circuit Court of Appeals decided that even though children may appear to be uneducable that, that doesn’t mean that they are not entitled to the EAHCA. Which means that Timothy was entitled to an education provided by the Rochester, New Hampshire, School District. -
1989- Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District; Benefit
Benefit: In this court case we see an example of a child being denied an education. The ruling in this case continues to support and embrace the fact that the law of being entitled to a free and appropriate public education is the law and that it will not bend. The ruling in this case positively provided services to students in need of an education. -
1972 Mills v. Board of Education; Resource
Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Timothy-W-v-Rochester-New-Hampshire-School-District