children out of school in america - University of Tennessee Digital ...

Rhode Island Society for Autistic Children v.
Rhode Island, No. 5081 (DR!., filed Jan. 22,
1973)
Association for Mentally III Children v. Greenblatt,
No. 71-3074-J (D.Mass., filed Dec. 30,
1971) (Clearinghouse No. 7426) (Case name
changed to Barnett v. Goldman.)
Panitch v. Wisconsin, No. 72-C-461 (B.D.Wis.,
filed Aug. 14, 1972)
North Carolina Association for Retarded Children
v. North Carolina, No. 3050 (B.D.N.C., filed
May 19, 1972)
North Dakota Association for Retarded Children
v. Peterson, No. 1196 (D.N.D., filed Nov. 28,
1972)
Florida Association for Retarded Children v. State
Board of Education, No. 73-250 Civ. NCR (S.D.
Fla., filed Feb. 14, 1973)
Brandt v. Nevada, No. R-2779 (D.Nev., filed Dec.
22, 1972)
Maryland Association for Retarded Children v.
Maryland, No. 72-733-K (D.Md., filed July 19,
1972) (Class action on behalf of all handicapped
children.)
State Cases Pending That Seek Due Process:
David P. v. State Department of Education, No.
658-826 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County,
filed Aug. 9, 1973) (Clearinghouse No. 10139)
Abella v. Riverside Unified School District, No.
107531 (Cal. Super. Ct., Riverside County, filed
Jan. 10, 1974) (Clearinghouse No. 11,915)
3. In addition to seeking provision of appropriate
SPBD programs, plaintiffs in the following
federal cases seek compensatory education for the
learning opportunities they missed while excluded
from school or inappropriately placed.
North Carolina Association for Retarded Children
v. North Carolina, No. 3050 (B.D.N.C., filed
May 19, 1972)
North Dakota Association for Retarded Children
v. Peterson, No. 1196 (D.N.D., filed Nov. 28,
1972)
Kekahuna v. Burns, No. 73-3799 (D.Hawaii,
filed April 12, 1973) (Case renamed Silva v.
Board of Education.)
Brandt v. Nevada, No. R-2779 (D.Nev., filed Dec.
22, 1972)
282
4. Failure to supply a publicly-supported educa-
tion for children with special needs cannot be excused
by a claim of insufficient funds.
Federal Decisions:
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia,
348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972)
State Decisions:
Maryland Association for Retarded Children v.
Maryland, No. 77676 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore
County, April 9, 1974) (Clearinghouse No.
I 2,451)
5. The notion that certain children are uneducable
or untrainable is without basis. All children
are capable of benefiting from a program of education
and training.
Federal Decisions:
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children
v. Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D.Pa. 1972)
(Bxpert testimony cited by the Court en route to
finding of subject matter jurisdiction.)
State Decisions:
Maryland Association for Retarded Children v.
Maryland, No. 77676 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore
County, April 9, 1974) (Clearinghouse No.
12,451 )
Rainey v. Tennessee Department of Education,
No. A-3100 (Tenn. Chancery Ct., Davidson
County, Dec. 10, 1973) (Clearinghouse No.
] 1,585)
6. Two procedural principles that will be of more
use to lawyers: .
a. Several of the federal cases have been filed on
behalf of plaintiff classes against the defendant class
of all school districts in the state. Two federal decisions
have upheld the use of the defendant class in
this right to education situation, none have ruled
against it.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children
v. Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279 (B.D.Pa. 1972)
Panitch v. Wisconsin, No. 72-C-461 (B.D.Wis.,
filed Aug. 14, 1972) (Decision allowing plaintiff
and defendant classes, Nov. 16, 1972)
b. The passage of new state SPBD laws has sometimes
led courts to dismiss pending cases for mootness.
In addition, some courts have exercised their
discretionary power to abstain on federal constitutional
claims. This should be done only when the