Special Needs Cases

1. Historical Timeline:
Special Needs Cases
Jaclyn Ibarra
ESE601- Students with Exceptionalities in the School Setting
Jessica Hawkins
October 19, 2018

2. Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children
(PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(1971-1972)
• In the case of PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; state law prohibited students who
were not mentally of the age of 5 to enter school. PARC sued the state to enable equal
educational opportunity regardless of a student’s mental level of function. The state argued
that students who were not mentally “of age” were burdensome and required too much
accommodation. The Plaintiff argued that students who were not yet functioning at a
certain level would eventually reach a level where they could benefit from the educational
system therefore; low functioning special needs students should not be denied education.
• In 1972 Judge Masterson ruled in favor of the plaintiff ruling that all students ages 6-21
would have access to education. No student could be denied education due to a special
need.
• https://www.rootedinrights.org/15321-revision-v1/

3. Mills v. Board of Education, DC
(1972)
• A suit was presented to the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia in
regards to student Peter Mills and a group of other individuals who were excluded
from others due to behavioral issues resulting from their special needs. The District
in defense argued that accommodations for student with aggressive behaviors would
cost too much therefore exclusion was the easiest most logical option.
• In 1972 judge Waddy ruled in favor of the Plaintiff stating that all students will have
accommodations as needed. The educational system will provide free suitable
education for all students with specials needs, no child can be suspended (excluded)
more than two days without a hearing and be provided with adequate support as
needed.
• https://www.rootedinrights.org/15321-revision-v1/

4. Honig v. Doe
(1987-1988)
• Two students whose behavioral issues were caused by special needs were suspended
while pending hearing. Because the aggressive behaviors were due to developmental
delays it was argued that students with a disability related behavioral problem be
given the opportunity to continue education with appropriate support.
• The District Court granted students request to maintain their school enrollment.
Court ruled that students with disability related misconduct will remain in their
current school without suspension unless otherwise released (by agreement) by
parents/state/educational system.
• https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-728