## Facts

- A statewide parents’ organization and parents of children with intellectual disabilities brought a federal civil-rights class action on behalf of children ages 6–21 allegedly excluded from public education and training.
- Pennsylvania officials and representative school districts administered and enforced statutes and practices allowing denial or postponement of public schooling for children labeled “uneducable,” “untrainable,” or unable to “profit” from attendance.
- Key provisions permitted: (1) exclusion based on a public school psychologist’s certification; (2) indefinite delay of admission for children deemed to have a mental age below five; (3) exemption from compulsory attendance based on perceived inability to benefit; and (4) use of compulsory-attendance age limits to delay entry or end services.
- Plaintiffs alleged the statutory scheme denied equal educational access compared to non-disabled children and allowed exclusion without adequate notice, hearing, or review.
- The case was resolved through a court-approved consent agreement and injunction, later supplemented by an opinion and order addressing implementation and objections.

## Issues

1. Whether Pennsylvania could deny or postpone access to free public education for children with intellectual disabilities based on statutory classifications and psychological certifications.
2. Whether exempting such children from compulsory attendance and educational services, without individualized safeguards or alternative programming, violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The three-judge district court approved and enforced a consent decree and entered an injunction binding the Commonwealth and all school districts and intermediate units.
- The injunction prohibited applying specified School Code provisions to postpone, terminate, or otherwise deny any child with intellectual disabilities access to a free public program of education and training.
- The order required that eligible children receive access to a free public program “appropriate to [their] learning capacities,” rather than exclusion based on categorical labels.
- The decree required procedural protections (including notice, evaluation, and review mechanisms) before changes in identification or placement that would limit educational access.
- The court retained jurisdiction to oversee compliance.

## Legal Principles

- When a state provides public education, it may not administer statutory classifications that deny a discrete class of children meaningful access to that education on unequal terms, consistent with equal protection.
- Categorical exclusions of children with intellectual disabilities from public schooling, based on determinations such as “uneducable” or “untrainable,” are impermissible where they result in denial of any public educational program.
- A child’s interest in access to public education may not be curtailed through unilateral determinations without basic procedural due process protections, including notice and an opportunity for review.
- The required remedy is access to a free public program of education and training tailored to the child’s learning capacities, rather than uniform programming or placement.

## Conclusion

The court’s consent decree and injunction required Pennsylvania to provide children with intellectual disabilities access to free public education and training appropriate to their learning capacities, barred use of state-law mechanisms to exclude or delay them from school, and mandated procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary deprivation of educational access.


Pennsylvania Ass'n for Retarded Child. v. Commonwealth of Pa., 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972)