Pennsylvania+Association+for+Retarded+Citizens+v.+the+Commonwealth+of+Pennsylvania


 * Case || Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens V. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ||
 * Date || 1972 ||
 * Citation || 334 F.Supp. 1257 (E.D. PA 1972)**.** ||
 * Outcome || The right to free public education for all children with mental retardation ||
 * Story || In 1971, Attorney Thomas K. Gilhool represented the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC v. Commonwealth) in a case that resulted in a landmark decision which affirmed the right to education at public expense and due process for children with disabilities. He used Brown v. Board of Education in his arguments. In 1972, there were eight million children with disabilities in the United States, and fully one-half were receiving no educational services. Students were being evaluated for suspected disabilities without notice to parents or due process; parents were able to exclude their children from compulsory attendance regulations; and many children with disabilities who were in schools were being excluded from any meaningful educational services. The Pennsylvania State Court took note of these facts in Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972). This ruling created the right to an education for disabled Pennsylvania children and expressed a clear preference for mainstreaming, with homebound instruction or residential placements used in only the rarest circumstances. Mainstreaming to the maximum extent appropriate was adopted by the US Congress when it enacted the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142), the precursor to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, P. L. 94-142 did not "define" the least restrictive environment (LRE), nor did it use the term "mainstreaming." ||
 * Link || Story ||
 * Link || Story ||