Expanding the impact of P.A.R.C beyond children with
developmental disabilities. in 1972, this lawsuit alleged that Peter Mills
and seven other children with behavioral issues and other disabilities were routinely
excluded from obtaining an education alongside other children who were without
disabilities or even in special programs tailored to their needs. The plaintiffs argued that they had been denied placement in a public education program for substantial periods of time because of alleged mental, behavioral, physical or emotional disabilities. They asked the court for an injunction because they felt they were denied their constitutional right of Due Process. The
Washington D.C. government and its school system agreed that they were duly
bound by law to provide a publicly supported education to each D.C. resident
who is capable of benefitting from such instruction; however, they argued that
it was impossible to do so because they lacked the necessary funds.
The court held that “if sufficient funds are not available
to finance all of the services and programs that are needed and desirable in
the system, then the available funds must be expended equitably in such a manner that no child is entirely excluded from a publicly supported education
consistent with his needs and ability to benefit therefrom. The inadequacies of
the District of Columbia School System, whether occasioned by insufficient
funding or administrative inefficiency, certainly cannot be permitted to bear
more heavily on the ‘exceptional’ or handicapped child than on the normal child”
(Disability Justice, n.d.).
Both the PARCs and Mills “right to education” cases were the highlight of the right of students with disabilities to due process in
educational decisions. These two landmark cases helped lay the foundation that
led to the passage of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which is now known as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Resources
Better Together (n.d.). [Image]. Retrieved from www.timetoast.com
Disability Justice. The Right to Education. (n.d.). Retrieved
from
Henley, M., Ramsey, R. S., & Algozzine. (2009). Characteristics
of and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities. Upper Saddle
River, N.J: Pearson
Mills v. Board
of Education, DC. 348 F.Supp. 866 (D. DC 1972).
No comments:
Post a Comment