Name of the Law
The name of the law to be canvassed herein is “Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania”. As far as laws go, this name may seem irregular as it is more of a name of a case rather than the name of a law. However, among the two main sources of laws in America is Case Law, based on the common law concept of stare decisis where laws are based on court decisions. In the instant case, a court case was filed by PARC, a non-governmental organization, against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. When all facts were placed before the trial court, the two parties to the case came to consent agreement, which upon ratification by the court became a law, named after the case.
What Brought About the Law?
The law came about when PARC sought to undo an illegality in the education system of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Ordinarily, the said Commonwealth would provide free basic education for all through a public education system. However, in an ill-advised effort to save on costs the Commonwealth introduced a regulation that denied education of any intellectually challenged children, or as they were called in the 1970s, “mentally retarded” children. As per the regulation, any child who, by the age of eight years had not acquired the intellectual capacity of a five-year-old child, would no longer be eligible for free education. Pursuant to this rule, all intellectually challenged children would be denied an education unless they could be able to make private arrangements for learning (Li, 2013) . PARC had been involved in providing education for intellectually challenged children but the burden was inordinate. The case upon which the law would be based was put in place to have aforementioned regulation declared unconstitutional so that intellectually challenged children could benefit from free education without any form of discrimination.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Review of the Law
Under the consent judgment entered in court in 1972, any and all children within the state of Pennsylvania who aspired to study under the public system would not be discriminated upon based on intellectual disabilities. Therefore, intellectually challenged children would not only be eligible for public education at the expense of the state but also have special measures put in place to ensure that they get as much of an education as the rest of the school. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was not only bound to educate these challenged children by virtue of this law but also go out of its way to ensure that measures are put in place to try and bridge the intellectual gap that existed between the special children and their counterparts in school (Li, 2013) . This was both a victory to the children with intellectual challenges in the state and a sign of progress from a perspective of equality in the American education system.
Implications for Children with Special Needs
A lot of stigma and discrimination is associated with children with special needs even in the most progressive of societies. The situation is compounded when this stigma and discrimination becomes institutionalized through laws and regulations (Li, 2013) . The special needs children in Pennsylvania had always been at a disadvantage even before the regulations had been put in place to deny them free education. The passing of the regulation only exacerbated the situation and also created a hefty burden for the families of these children. The law canvased herein, however, not only leveled the playfield for these children but also gave them a manifest advantage. The Commonwealth was compelled to go over and above what they had been providing before the regulation by providing a studying advantage for the less fortunate children (Li, 2013) . In so doing, the special needs children not only got a chance to get an education but also a plausible chance to succeed in this education.
Implication for Educators
Great things almost always come at a great price and the instant law was no exception. By virtue of the law, the education system was not only compelled to accept intellectually challenged children but also treat them without any discrimination. The children were not just to be allowed in school but also to be granted a chance to learn alongside their peers or at the very least without too much segregation (Li, 2013) . For the teachers, this would require specialized training and extra effort to accommodate the new children. Educators and administrators had to come up with more resources to accommodate the special children, in some cases to the detriment of the general school population.
Reflection in the Law
If I was to play the devil’s advocate, state governments always operate on a budgetary deficit. With education being one of their largest expenses, it is understandable for them to try and cut their budgets by thinning out extra costs. However, whatever their intent was, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was wrong in penalizing and discriminating upon little children because of an issue that was not their fault. The regulation to deny special children education was barbaric, and unfair. The new law cured this unfairness and discrimination by reversing the regulation and providing a chance for a productive future for the special children. Further, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would never have escaped the pecuniary burden of taking care of less fortunate special children. Refusing to educate them would only have increased the burden of having to take care of them, perhaps throughout their lives. Whichever angle this law is looked at, it is a great law for all stakeholders.
Reference
Li, F. (2013, December 11). PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education, DC. Retrieved March 16, 2018, from http://www.rootedinrights.org/15321-revision-v1/
