Pennsylvania Ass'n for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
334 F. Supp. 1257, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11312 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a state may not deny mentally retarded children access to a free public program of education and training when it has undertaken to provide a free public education to all of its children.
Facts:
- The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provided a free public education to all children between the ages of six and twenty-one.
- Various Pennsylvania statutes permitted school districts to deny admission to children who had not attained a 'mental age of five years.'
- Other state laws allowed school districts to exclude children deemed 'uneducable and untrainable' from public school attendance, relieving the schools of any obligation to provide them with education or training.
- The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) initiated a lawsuit on behalf of a class of mentally retarded children who were denied access to a free public education under these statutes.
- Expert testimony presented in the case established that all mentally retarded persons are capable of benefiting from a program of education and training, and that early education is most effective.
Procedural Posture:
- The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) and parents of mentally retarded children filed a class-action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The defendants were the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its state education and welfare officials, and a class of all school districts in the Commonwealth.
- The complaint alleged that state statutes and practices used to exclude mentally retarded children from public education violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- A three-judge district court was convened to hear the constitutional claims.
- The court entered an interim order and stipulation on June 18, 1971, requiring defendants to provide notice and a due process hearing before changing the educational assignment of any retarded child.
- Prior to a final ruling on the merits, the parties entered into a Consent Agreement to settle the action.
- The case is before the three-judge court to approve the Consent Agreement and issue a corresponding order and injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Pennsylvania's statutory scheme and practice of excluding mentally retarded children from public education and training programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Per curiam - Per Curiam
Yes. By approving the consent agreement, the court effectively finds that Pennsylvania's statutory scheme and practice of excluding mentally retarded children from public education violates the Equal Protection Clause. Having undertaken to provide a free public education to all of its children, the Commonwealth may not deny any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training. The agreement adopted by the court stipulates that all mentally retarded persons are capable of benefiting from education and training. Therefore, it is the Commonwealth’s obligation to place each mentally retarded child in a free, public program of education and training appropriate to the child’s capacity, with a presumption that placement in a regular public school class is preferable to other alternatives.
Analysis:
This landmark consent decree was one of the first successful right-to-education lawsuits in the country and established the constitutional basis for providing education to children with disabilities. It introduced the concept of a 'free appropriate public education' (FAPE) for children with mental retardation and established a preference for mainstreaming. The case's principles, particularly its due process requirements for notice and a hearing before changing a student's placement, heavily influenced the drafting and passage of the federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
