1. Peter Mills v. DC Board of
Education: The Right to Special
Education
Sherwood Best, Ph.D.
Professor
CSULA
1

2. Peter Mills et al.
v.
DC Board of Education
348 F. Supp 2866 (1972)
Argued August 1, 1972
Decided January 14, 1972
2

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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