Pennsylvania Ass'n, Retard. Child. v. Commonwealth of Pa., Civ. A. No. 71-42.
| Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 334 F. Supp. 1257 |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN, Nancy Beth Bowman, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, David H. Kurtzman, et al. |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 71-42. |
| Decision Date | 08 October 1971 |
334 F. Supp. 1257
PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN, Nancy Beth Bowman, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, David H. Kurtzman, et al.
Civ. A. No. 71-42.
United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
October 8, 1971.
Thomas K. Gilhool, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.
J. Shane Craemer, Atty. Gen., Ed Weintraub, Deputy Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., for defendants.
Before ADAMS, Circuit Judge, and MASTERSON and BRODERICK, District Judges.
ORDER, INJUNCTION and CONSENT AGREEMENT
PER CURIAM.
And now, this 7th day of October, 1971, the parties having consented through their counsel to certain findings and conclusions and to the relief to be provided to the named plaintiffs and to the members of their class, the provisions of the Consent Agreement between the
And for the reasons set out below it is ordered that defendants the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Secretary of the Department of Education, the State Board of Education, the Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, the named defendant school districts and intermediate units and each of the School Districts and Intermediate Units in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, their officers, employees, agents and successors be and they hereby are enjoined as follows:
(a) from applying Section 1304 of the Public School Code of 1949, 24 Purd. Stat. Sec. 13-1304, so as to postpone or in any way to deny to any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training;
(b) from applying Section 1326 or Section 1330(2) of the School Code of 1949, 24 Purd.Stat. Secs. 13-1326, 13-1330(2) so as to postpone, to terminate or in any way to deny to any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training;
(c) from applying Section 1371(1) of the School Code of 1949, 24 Purd.Stat. Sec. 13-1371(1) so as to deny to any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training;
(d) from applying Section 1376 of the School Code of 1949, 24 Purd.Stat. Sec. 13-1376, so as to deny tuition or tuition and maintenance to any mentally retarded person except on the same terms as may be applied to other exceptional children, including brain damaged children generally;
(e) from denying homebound instruction under Section 1372(3) of the School Code of 1949, 24 Purd.Stat. Sec. 13-1372 (3) to any mentally retarded child merely because no physical disability accompanies the retardation or because retardation is not a short-term disability.
(f) from applying Section 1375 of the School Code of 1949, 24 Purd.Stat. Sec. 13-1375, so as to deny to any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training;
(g) to immediately re-evaluate the named plaintiffs, and to accord to each of them, as soon as possible but in no event later than October 13, 1971, access to a free public program of education and training appropriate to his learning capacities;
(h) to provide, as soon as possible but in no event later than September 1, 1972, to every retarded person between the ages of six and twenty-one years as of the date of this Order and thereafter, access to a free public program of education and training appropriate to his learning capacities;
(i) to provide, as soon as possible but in no event later than September 1, 1972, wherever defendants provide a pre-school program of education and training for children aged less than six years of age, access to a free public program of education and training appropriate to his learning capacities to every mentally retarded child of the same age.
The above Orders are entered as interim Orders only and without prejudice, pending notice, as described in Paragraph 3 below, to the class of plaintiffs and to the class of defendants determined in Paragraphs 1 and 2 below.
Any member of the classes so notified who may wish to be heard before permanent Orders are entered shall enter his appearance and file a written statement of objections with the Clerk of this Court on or before October 20, 1971. Any objections so entered will be heard by the Court at 10 o'clock on October 22, 1971.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
The Complaint in this action having been filed on January 7, 1971, alleging the unconstitutionality of certain Pennsylvania statutes and practices under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and certain pendent claims; a three-judge court having been constituted, after motion,
Now, therefore, this 7th of October 1971, the parties being desirous of effecting an amicable settlement of this action, the parties by their counsel agree, subject to the approval and Order of this Court, as follows:
I.
1. This action may and hereby shall be maintained by plaintiffs as a class action on behalf of all mentally retarded persons, residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who have been, are being, or may be denied access to a free public program of education and training while they are, or were, less than twenty-one years of age.
It is expressly understood, subject to the provisions of Paragraph 44 below, that the immediate relief hereinafter provided shall be provided to those persons less than twenty-one years of age as of the date of the Order of the Court herein.
2. This action may and hereby shall be maintained against defendant school districts and intermediate units as a class action against all of the School Districts and Intermediate Units of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
3. Pursuant to Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P., notice of the extent of the Consent Agreement and the proposed Order approving this Consent Agreement, in the form set out in Appendix A, shall be given as follows:
(a) to the class of defendants, by the Secretary of Education, by mailing immediately a copy of this proposed Order and Consent Agreement to the Superintendent and the Director of Special Education of each School District and Intermediate Unit in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
(b) to the class of plaintiffs, (i) by the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children, by immediately mailing a copy of this proposed Order and Consent Agreement to each of its Chapters in fifty-four counties of Pennsylvania; (ii) by the Department of Justice, by causing an advertisement in the form set out in Appendix A, to be placed in one newspaper of general circulation in each County in the Commonwealth; and (iii) by delivery of a joint press release of the parties to the television and radio stations, newspapers, and wire services in the Commonwealth.
II.
4. Expert testimony in this action indicates that all mentally retarded persons are capable of benefiting from a program of education and training; that the greatest number of retarded persons, given such education and training, are capable of achieving self-sufficiency, and the remaining few, with such education and training, are capable of achieving some degree of self-care; that the earlier such education and training begins, the more thoroughly and the more efficiently a mentally retarded person will benefit from it; and, whether begun early or not, that a mentally retarded person can benefit at any point in his life and development from a program of education and training.
5. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has undertaken to provide a free public education to all of its children between the ages of six and twenty-one years, and, even more specifically, has undertaken to provide education and training for all of its exceptional children.
6. Having undertaken to provide a free public education to all of its children, including its exceptional children, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may not deny any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training.
7. It is the Commonwealth's obligation to place each mentally retarded child in a free, public program of education and training appropriate to the child's capacity, within the context of a presumption that, among the alternative programs of education and training required by statute to be available, placement in a regular public school class is preferable to placement in a special public school class and placement in a special public school class is preferable to placement in any other type of program of education and training.
III.
Section 1304
8. Section 1304 of the School Code of 1949, as amended, 24 Purd.Stat. Sec. 13-1304, provides:
"Admission of beginners
The admission of beginners to the public schools shall be confined to the first two weeks of the annual school term in districts operating on an annual promotion basis, and to the first two weeks of either the first or the second semester of the school term to districts operating on a semi-annual promotion basis. Admission shall be limited to beginners who have attained the age of five years and seven months before the first day of September if they are to be admitted in the fall, and to those who have attained the age of five years and seven months before the first day of February if they are to be admitted at the beginning of the second semester. The board of school directors of any school district may admit beginners who are less than five years and seven months of age, in accordance with standards prescribed by the State Board of Education. The board of school directors may refuse to accept or retain beginners who have not attained a mental age of five years, as determined by the supervisor of special education or a properly certificated public school psychologist in accordance with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welsch v. Likins, No. 4-72-Civ. 451.
...if given adequate and suitable treatment. See Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257, 1259 (E.D. Pa.1971) (three judge court); see generally Residential Programming for Mentally Retarded Persons (collection of pamphlets published by ......
-
David H. v. Spring Branch Independent School Dist., C.A. No. H-80-2739.
...525 (1972). The decisions to which Senator Humphrey referred are Penn. Asso. for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257 (E.D.Pa.1971), (hereinafter "PARC") and Mills v. Bd. of Edu. of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C.1972); See also 45 C.F.R. § 84 ap......
-
David D. v. Dartmouth School Committee, Nos. 84-1937
...v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.C.1972), and Pennsylvania Assn. for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth, 334 F.Supp. 1257 (E.D.Pa.1971) and 343 F.Supp. 279 In addition to the explicit comments within the statute itself and the Supreme Court's ruling that Cong......
-
Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital, No. 78-1490
...32 See, e. g., Mills v. Board of Educ., 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C.1972); Pennsylvania Ass'n for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257 (E.D.Pa.1971), 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D.Pa.1972). 33 See, e. g., Chicago Hous. Auth. v. Austin, 511 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1975) (overseeing impleme......
-
Hayes v. Commission on State Mandates, No. C009519
...v. Commonwealth of Pa. (E.D.Pa.1972) 343 F.Supp. 279 (see also Pennsylvania Ass'n, Retard. Child. v. Commonwealth of Pa. (E.D.Pa.1971) 334 F.Supp. 1257), and Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (D.C.1972) 348 F.Supp. 866, were the most prominent of these judicial decisions. ......
-
St. Louis Dev. Dis. Treatment Center v. Mallory, No. 80-4012-CV-C-H.
...of education and training appropriate to his learning capacities ...." Pennsylvania Assoc. for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257, 1258 (E.D.Penn.1971); PARC v. Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279, 296 n. 53 (E.D.Penn.1972) (cited the 50,000 figure referred to). A year lat......
-
J.H. ex rel. Her Minor Child J.P. v. Bernalillo Cnty. & J.M. Sharkey, No. CIV 12-0128 JB/LAM
...to Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866, and Pennsylvania Assn. for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257, and 343 F. Supp. 279, thereby establishing that the omission of an emergency exception for dangerous students was intentional.Honig v. D......
-
Bradley v. Milliken, Civ. A. No. 35257.
...477 (1970); Acree v. County Board of Education, 458 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1972); Rule 53, Fed.R.Civ.P.; P. A. R. C. v. Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257, 1266-7 (E.D.Pa.1971). Only then will the court in this case be apprised fully of the practicalities of the situation, and what is reasonable an......