Although the PARC case never did rise above the district
level, it sparked other parties to act in their respective areas. As was the
case in many states, the state of Pennsylvania had specific laws that allowed schools
to exclude children who had not reached a “mental age of five years” by the time they should be enrolling in first grade. The suit, filed on behalf of 14
children with developmental disabilities argued that this exclusion violated
their rights under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment (Disability Justice, n.d.).
Expert testimony in this suit indicated that all mentally
retarded children are capable of benefitting from a program of education and
training and that it is the state’s obligation to place each mentally retarded
child in a free, public program of education appropriate to each child’s
capacity (PARC v. Commonwealth, 1972).
The judges ruled that Pennsylvania must:
1. Admit all children with an intellectual disability into public school.
2. Place students with intellectual disability in general classrooms when possible.
3. Make all school records accessible to parents.
4. Provide preschool programs for children with intellectual disability when such programs were available to nondisabled children.
5. Precede all placement decisions with a hearing to allow parental participation and consent (Henley, Ramsey & Algozzine).
This decision by the court had a major impact insomuch as the rights of parents to have the right to be an integral part of educational decisions that affect their children and their education.
The judges ruled that Pennsylvania must:
1. Admit all children with an intellectual disability into public school.
2. Place students with intellectual disability in general classrooms when possible.
3. Make all school records accessible to parents.
4. Provide preschool programs for children with intellectual disability when such programs were available to nondisabled children.
5. Precede all placement decisions with a hearing to allow parental participation and consent (Henley, Ramsey & Algozzine).
This decision by the court had a major impact insomuch as the rights of parents to have the right to be an integral part of educational decisions that affect their children and their education.
Resources
Digital Storytelling: PARC vs.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2012). [Video]. Retrieved from
Disability Justice. The Right to Education. (n.d.). Retrieved
from
https://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-education/
Henley, M., Ramsey, R. S., & Algozzine. (2009). Characteristics
of and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities. Upper Saddle
River, N.J: Pearson
Li, L. (2013). PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
Mills v. Board of Education, DC
Retrieved from https://rootedinrights.org/15321-revision-v1/
PARC v.
Commonwealth. 343 F. Supp. 279; 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13874.
The Right to Education. (n.d.). [Image]. Retrieved from
Special Education Classroom (2016). [Image]. Retrieved from
No comments:
Post a Comment