Mills v. dc board of education 1972

12,558 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
12,558
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
38
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
63
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Mills is more broader \n
  • Happened at the same time as the PARC case\n
  • NCLB once upon a time was ESEA\nmid 60s funds were given to educate and assist those students with disabilities\n\n$ was being diverted and not used for them...but used for the general\n
  • \nStudents can be excluded for behavior, exert an undue negative influence on other children, if they physically cannot get there (84-88 Tatro Case), dont like the way you look, did not pass the test(PARC)\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Mills v. dc board of education 1972

    1. 1. Peter Mills v. DC Board ofEducation: The Right to Special Education Sherwood Best, Ph.D. Professor CSULA 1
    2. 2. Peter Mills et al. v.DC Board of Education 348 F. Supp 2866 (1972) Argued August 1, 1972Decided January 14, 1972 2
    3. 3. Terms• ESEA – the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965). This Act provided additional federal funds to improve the education of certain categories of children, including children with disabilities. Title VI (added to the ESEA in 1966) provided funds for grants for programs for children with disabilities. 3
    4. 4. Background• Like the PARC case, Mills was a class action lawsuit. It was brought by parents and guardians on behalf of all out-of-school students with disabilities.• Seven children with a variety of disabilities (physical impairment, epilepsy, behavior problems, hyperactivity, and mental retardation) were certified as a class, and came to represent the 18,000 children denied public education Washington, DC. 4
    5. 5. Issues• Was the DC Board of Education in violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection?• If so, what requirements must be met by the district to ensure compliance?• Was the district in violation of the ESEA Title VI federal program funds, and were these funds being misused? 5
    6. 6. Applicable Law• 14th Amendment- Equal Protection of the Laws clause of the U.S. Constitution.• 5th Amendment – Due process in the U.S. Constitution.• District of Columbia (DC) Code of Education, that contains the requirement to provide education to all members of the district. 6
    7. 7. Arguments• Plaintiffs argued that the children were excluded from school without equal protection of the law and due process of law. Excluding, expelling, or transferring students out of classes in public schools denied them due process of law.• Defendants argued that the district provided programming, but there were insufficient funds to retain the plaintiffs in the district. 7
    8. 8. Holding• Failure to provide access to public school violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment• Children with disabilities could not be denied education without due process• The district was misusing federal funds by not providing specifically labeled special needs children with special education 8
    9. 9. Dicta• Publicly supported education is a constitutionally guaranteed right under the 14th Amendment.• Due process of law (5th Amendment) was not applied to children who were within the jurisdiction of a public school system.• The Board of Education of DC was aware of the fact that there were children with disabilities not being provided an education within its boundaries. 9
    10. 10. Court’s Order• The district was ordered to provide all children with disabilities a publicly supported education.• The court ordered the district to provide due process safeguards. The court outlined the due process procedures for: debido procesamiento – Labeling – Placement – Exclusion of students with disabilities from school 10
    11. 11. Implications for Special Education• The outcome of Mills had a direct influence on the development of PL 94-142• By broadening the scope of the PARC case across disability categories, Mills established the “zero reject” principle of PL 94-142• Mills was the genesis in PL 94-142 for: – Labeling, placement, & exclusionary stages of decision making – Parental right to a hearing, appeal, & records access 11

    ×