The Landmark Case: Ieps And Education Law

In 1972, the Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia case established that all children are entitled to free public education and training appropriate to their learning capacities. The case was brought to court on behalf of seven children who were denied public education by the District of Columbia School District because of their disabilities and the cost of accommodations the school would incur to educate them. The court ruled that students with disabilities must be given a public education even if they are unable to pay for the cost of the education. This was a significant step forward in providing access to education for children with disabilities and led to comprehensive federal legislation protecting their rights.

The case was a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of seven children denied public education due to their disabilities and the cost of accommodations

The case of Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972) was a landmark lawsuit that established the right of children with disabilities to receive a public education, regardless of their ability to pay or the cost of accommodations to the school. The case was brought on behalf of seven children who had been denied access to public education due to their disabilities, with their next friends acting as representatives. These children, aged eight to sixteen, had various disabilities, including epilepsy, behavioural issues, and degrees of mental retardation. They were unable to afford private education and were therefore entirely excluded from receiving an education.

The lawsuit argued that the Board of Education of the District of Columbia, the Superintendent of Schools, and the Commissioner of the District of Columbia had violated a congressional decree that mandated publicly funded education for all children in the district. The case highlighted the issue of "exceptional" children being denied access to public education. "Exceptional" children included those with physical, mental, intellectual, and developmental disabilities, and they made up a significant portion of the student population in the District of Columbia at the time.

The lawsuit sought declaratory relief, an injunction to prevent further exclusion, and orders to compel the provision of adequate education in public schools or alternative settings at public expense. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, granting a summary judgment and ordering the defendants to provide appropriate educational placements and due process protections to the plaintiffs and similarly situated children. This case was significant as it was one of the first to guarantee the right of students with any disability to a public education and led to comprehensive federal legislation protecting the rights of disabled children to receive a free and appropriate education.

The court ruled that students with disabilities must be given a public education even if they are unable to pay for it

In the case of Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972), the court ruled that students with disabilities must be given a public education, even if they are unable to pay for it. The ruling established that "all children are entitled to free public education and training appropriate to their learning capacities". The case was brought to court on behalf of seven children who were denied public education by the District of Columbia School District because of their disabilities and the cost of accommodations the school would incur to educate them. The children, aged eight to sixteen, had various disabilities, including epilepsy, unspecified "behaviour problems", and degrees of "mental retardation". They were all unable to afford private education.

The case relied on precedent from Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) and Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), which determined that education is crucial for the basic development of citizens and is, therefore, a right that must be provided equally regardless of race. The court also cited Hobson v. Hansen (1967), which found that denying opportunities to low-income public school children that affluent public school children receive violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The students in Mills were not granted any hearings or appeals to challenge their exclusion from the public school system, and therefore, the Mills class argued that no such due process was present.

The Board of Education of the District of Columbia argued that including the "exceptional" children would require millions of dollars in additional funds, or they would have to divert funds already appropriated to other educational services. The court was unconvinced by this argument, citing Goldberg v. Kelly (1969), which considered whether a welfare recipient had a right to a hearing prior to losing benefits if the hearing was expensive. In Goldberg, the Supreme Court found that the state's interest in protecting due process rights surpasses the interest in reducing financial burden by bypassing a hearing. The court applied the same reasoning in Mills since the interest in educating all children surpasses the need to save government funds.

The court ordered the Board of Education to provide public education to all students regardless of the severity or extent of their disability or the availability of funds. The court also required the Board to identify, contact, and provide education to any eligible student who had been previously excluded or expelled by the school system and to publicly advertise the policy change. The Board could also no longer suspend a student for more than two days without due process in the form of a hearing. The ruling was one of the first cases in the US that guaranteed the right of students with any disability to a public education, regardless of the cost to the school system.

The case established that all children are entitled to free public education and training appropriate to their learning capacities

The Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia case was a landmark lawsuit that established the right of all children to a free public education suited to their learning abilities. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 1972 by the National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA) on behalf of seven children aged eight to sixteen with various disabilities. These children were denied access to public education by the District of Columbia School District due to their disabilities and the cost of accommodations.

The NLADA argued that the Board of Education violated a congressional decree that mandated publicly funded education for all children in the District of Columbia. The Board of Education, however, claimed that including "exceptional" children would require additional funds, and they were unable to divert resources from other educational services. The court disagreed with this argument, citing that the interest in educating all children took precedence over financial concerns.

Judge Joseph Cornelius Waddy ruled in favour of the students, stating that no child could be denied a public education because of "mental, behavioural, physical, or emotional handicaps or deficiencies." He ordered the Board of Education to provide public education to all students, regardless of the severity of their disabilities or the availability of funds. The court's decision set a precedent for ensuring equal access to education for children with disabilities and led to comprehensive federal legislation, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), protecting the rights of disabled children to a free and appropriate education.

The Mills case established a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment's due process clause, which was used to make changes to local school district policies. It affirmed that all children, regardless of their disabilities, are entitled to free public education and training appropriate to their unique learning capacities. This ruling had a significant impact on special education law and contributed to the growing recognition of the rights of children with disabilities to access the same educational opportunities as their non-disabled peers.

The Board of Education did not provide adequate schooling for these children, violating their own board regulations

The Board's failure to provide adequate schooling was also a violation of the District of Columbia Code, which requires that all children residing in the District of Columbia, including those with disabilities, be provided with a publicly supported education. The Board's inaction went against the statutory mandates from the District of Columbia Code, resulting in many children being denied their legal right to education.

The Board's inaction also resulted in a lack of due process for the affected children. They were denied educational opportunities because they were considered "exceptional", which included categories such as "mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, physically handicapped, hyperactive, and other children with behavioral problems". The Board failed to provide the required due process hearings and periodic reviews of each exceptional student's case, which was a violation of their own regulations.

The Board's defense for their failure to provide adequate schooling was the lack of financial resources. They claimed that it would take "millions of dollars" to create the necessary conditions in the school district to adequately educate all exceptional students. However, the court disagreed with this argument, ordering the district to serve all students, regardless of disability, and to distribute all available resources equally to accommodate disabled students. The judge, Joseph Cornelius Waddy, ruled that public education and suitable alternatives were to be provided and paid for by the Board of Education, regardless of the price.

The court disagreed with the Board's claim that it would take millions of dollars to create conditions to adequately provide education for all exceptional students

In the Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia case, the Board of Education argued that providing education to "exceptional" children would require millions of dollars in additional funds from the US government. Alternatively, they would have to divert funds already appropriated to other educational services. The Board claimed that doing so would violate an Act of Congress by making the school system unequal in favour of disabled students and to the detriment of non-disabled students.

The court disagreed with the Board's claim, citing Goldberg v. Kelly (1969), which considered whether a welfare recipient had a right to a hearing prior to losing benefits if the hearing was expensive. In the Goldberg case, the Supreme Court found that the state's interest in protecting due process rights surpasses the interest in reducing financial burden by bypassing a hearing. The court applied the same reasoning in Mills, as the interest in educating all children surpasses the need to save government funds.

The court ordered the Board to provide public education to all students regardless of the severity or extent of their disability or the availability of funds. The Board was given 30 days to provide education to the participants of the Mills class. The court also required the Board to identify, contact, and provide education to any eligible student who had been previously excluded or expelled by the school system. The Board was also ordered to publicly advertise the policy change and could no longer suspend a student for more than two days without due process in the form of a hearing.

The court's decision in Mills was a significant step towards ensuring that all children, regardless of their disabilities, have access to a free and appropriate public education.

Frequently asked questions