Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia
Citation | 348 F. Supp. 866 |
Decision Date | 01 August 1972 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1939-71. |
Parties | Peter MILLS et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Julian Tepper and Stanley Herr, NLADA, National Law Office, Patricia M. Wald, Washington, D. C., and Paul R. Dimond, Cambridge, Mass., for plaintiffs.
C. Francis Murphy, Corp. Counsel, D. C., John A. Earnest, and Stephan Shane Stark, Asst. Corp. Counsels, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
Ralph Wolff and G. Dan Bowling, Washington, D. C., for defendant Charles I. Cassell.
John M. Newsome, Washington, D. C., Sp. Counsel for defendant John L. Johnson.
This is a civil action brought on behalf of seven children of school age by their next friends in which they seek a declaration of rights and to enjoin the defendants from excluding them from the District of Columbia Public Schools and/or denying them publicly supported education and to compel the defendants to provide them with immediate and adequate education and educational facilities in the public schools or alternative placement at public expense. They also seek additional and ancillary relief to effectuate the primary relief. They allege that although they can profit from an education either in regular classrooms with supportive services or in special classes adopted to their needs, they have been labelled as behavioral problems, mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed or hyperactive, and denied admission to the public schools or excluded therefrom after admission, with no provision for alternative educational placement or periodic review. The action was certified as a class action under Rule 23(b)(1) and (2) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by order of the Court dated December 17, 1971.
The defendants are the Board of Education of the District of Columbia and its members, the Superintendent of Schools for the District of Columbia and subordinate school officials, the Commissioner of the District of Columbia and certain subordinate officials and the District of Columbia.
The genesis of this case is found (1) in the failure of the District of Columbia to provide publicly supported education and training to plaintiffs and other "exceptional" children, members of their class, and (2) the excluding, suspending, expelling, reassigning and transferring of "exceptional" children from regular public school classes without affording them due process of law.
The problem of providing special education for "exceptional" children (mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, physically handicapped, hyperactive and other children with behavioral problems) is one of major proportions in the District of Columbia. The precise number of such children cannot be stated because the District has continuously failed to comply with Section 31-208 of the District of Columbia Code which requires a census of all children aged 3 to 18 in the District to be taken. Plaintiffs estimate that there are ". . . 22,000 retarded, emotionally disturbed, blind, deaf, and speech or learning disabled children, and perhaps as many as 18,000 of these children are not being furnished with programs of specialized education." According to data prepared by the Board of Education, Division of Planning, Research and Evaluation, the District of Columbia provides publicly supported special education programs of various descriptions to at least 3880 school age children.1 However, in a 1971 report to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the District of Columbia Public Schools admitted that an estimated 12,340 handicapped children were not to be served in the 1971-72 school year.2
Each of the minor plaintiffs in this case qualifies as an "exceptional" child.
Plaintiffs allege in their complaint and defendants admit as follows:
Although all of the named minor plaintiffs are identified as Negroes the class they represent is not limited by their race. They sue on behalf of and represent all other District of Columbia residents of school age who are eligible for a free public education and who have been, or may be, excluded from such education or otherwise deprived by defendants of access to publicly supported education.
Minor plaintiffs are poor and without financial means to obtain private instruction. There has been no determination that they may not benefit from specialized instruction adapted to their needs. Prior to the beginning of the 1971-72 school year minor plaintiffs, through their representatives, sought to obtain publicly supported education and certain of them were assured by the school...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ANDREW H. BY IRENE H. v. Ambach
...more heavily on the `exceptional' or handicapped child than on the normal child." Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F.Supp. 866, 876 (D.D.C.1972)). Courts routinely have interpreted this language to prohibit the denial of needed special services, required to p......
-
St. Louis Dev. Dis. Treatment Center v. Mallory
...A year later the right to a publicly funded education was extended to all handicapped children in Mills v. Bd. of Ed. of the District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866, 873-75 (D.D.C.1972). What followed was an outpouring of cases, both federal and state, which challenged the educational service......
-
Aguirre v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist.
...proceedings. (Black Coalition v. Portland School District No. 1 (9th Cir.) 484 F.2d 1040, 1045; Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (D.D.C.) 348 F.Supp. 866, 882-883; DeJesus v. Penberthy (D.Conn.) 344 F.Supp. 70, 75-76; Buttny v. Smiley (D.Colo.) 281 F.Supp. 280, 288; Esteb......
-
Com. of Va., Dept. of Educ. v. Riley
...(no determination had been made, however, as to whether misbehavior was related to disability).6 Mills v. Board of Educ. of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C.1972), and Pennsylvania Ass'n for Retarded Children, et al. (PARC) v. Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D.Pa.1972).7 A publ......
-
The use of (section) 1983 as a remedy for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: why it is necessary and what it really means.
...89 Stat. 773 (1975) (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. [section][section] 1400-87 (2006)). (94) See Mills v. Bd. of Educ. of D.C., 348 F. Supp. 866, 878 (D.D.C. 1972) (holding that the denial of a free public education to disabled children violated their due process rights and therefore, tha......
-
The mainstreaming requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in the context of autistic spectrum disorders.
...(38.) See Education of the Handicapped Act, Pub. L. No. 91-230, [section] 601, 84 Stat. 171, 175 (1970). (39.) See id. at 178. (40.) 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. (41.) 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1971). (42.) Mills, 348 F. Supp. at 869-70. (43.) 347 U.S. 483 (1954). (44.) Mills, 348 F. Supp. at......
-
Cut and run? Tuition reimbursement and the 1997 IDEA amendments.
...Children v. Commonwealth, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa.1971), and 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972), and Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D. D.C. (159.) Sch. Comm., 471 U.S. at 373. (160.) See Nancy Townsley, District Can't Recoup Quarter Million Spent on Lawsuit: Expense Forest ......
-
Unequal educational opportunities for gifted students: robbing Peter to pay Paul?
...needs and prescribing due process safeguards prior to their being placed outside the regular classroom). (51.) Mills v. Bd. of Educ., 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972) (holding that a school board had an affirmative duty to provide mentally retarded children with publicly supported education s......