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