The court also commented that although California law and regulations regarding the classification of children as educable mentally retarded require the collection of extensive information, it is the I.Q. score which is given the most weight in final decision-making. Finally, the judge indicated that this use of the I.Q. score deprived black children of their right of equal protection of the laws. In granting the preliminary injunction Judge Peckham stated that "the Court is not now inclined to grant any of the specific forms of relief which plaintiffs seek." He required that black children currently enrolled in EMR programs must stay there "... but their yearly re-evaluations must be conducted by means which do not deprive them of equal protection of the laws." Similarly, no action is required to compensate black students who were wrongfully placed at some time in the past. LEBANKS v. SPEARS, Civil Action No. 71-2897 (U.S. District Court, E. D. Louisiana, New Orleans Division) Eight black children classified as mentally retarded, have brought suit against the Orleans Parish (New Orleans) School Board and the superintendent of schools on the basis of the following alleged practices: 1. Classification of certain children as mentally retarded is done arbitrarily and without standards or "valid reasons. It is further alleged that the tests and procedures used in the classification process discriminate against black children. 2. The failure to re-evaluate children classified as retarded to determine if a change in their educational status is needed. 3. Failure to provide any "education or instruction" to some of the children on a lengthy waiting list for special education programs, and also denial of educational opportunities to other retarded children excluded from school and not maintained on any list for readmittance. 4. Maintenance of a policy and practice of not placing children beyond the age of 13 in special education programs. 5. Failure "... to advise retarded chilren of a right to a fair and impartial hearing or to accord them such a hearing with respect to the decision classifying them as 'mentally retared,' the decision excluding them from attending regular classes, and the decision excluding them from attending schools geared to their special needs.' 6. The unequal opportunity for an education provided to all children who are classified as mentally retarded; unequal opportunity between children classified as mentally retarded and normal; and unequal opportunity between black and white mentally retarded children. The attorneys for the plaintiffs in summary indicate that many of the alleged practices of the parish* violate the equal protection and due process provisions of the fourteenth amendment. They further state that "continued deprivation (of education) will render each plaintiff and member of the class functionally useless in our society; each day leaves them further behind their more fortunate peers. " The relief sought by the plaintiffs includes the following: 1. 2. A $20,000.00 damage award for each plaintiff; Preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent classification of the plaintiffs and their class as mentally retarded through use of procedures and standards that are arbitrary, capricious, and biased; the exclusion of the plaintiffs and their class from the opportunity to receive education designed to meet their needs; discrimination "in the allocation of opportunities for special education, between plaintiffs, and other black retarded children, and white retarded children," the classification of plaintiffs and their class as retarded and their exclusion from school or special education classes without a provision of a full, fair, and adequate hearing which meets the requirements of due process of law." *Parish is the Louisiana term for county. GUADALUPE ORGANIZATION, INC. v. TEMPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Civil Action No. 71-435 (Phoenix District, Arizona, January 24, 1972) This Arizona case was brought by the Guadalupe Organization, Inc. regarding the disproportionate number of bilingual children enrolled in classes for the mentally handicapped. The action which has now been stipulated provides for the following: 1. Re-evaluation of children assigned to the Tempe special education program for the mentally retarded to determine if any bilingual children had been incorrectly assigned to such placements. 2. Prior to the assignment of a bilingual child to the program for the mentally retarded, the child must be retested in his primary language and have his personal history and environment examined by an appropriate "professional advisor," such as a psychologist or social worker. 3. The records of children found to be incorrectly assigned to the programs must be corrected. 4. All communications from the school to the family of a bilingual child must be in the family's primary language and must include information about the success of the special education program and notice of their right to withdraw their children from it. STEWART v. PHILIPS, Civil Action No. 70-119 F (U.S. District Court, Massachusetts) In this 1970 class action seven poor children placed in Boston public special school classes for the mentally retared contest the manner in which they were classified for and placed in those programs. The children range in age from eight to 12 and have spent from one to six years in special class programs for the mentally retarded. The named plaintiffs are subdivided into three groups as follows: " Group I Poor or black Boston children who are not mentally retarded and have been, are, or may be denied the right to a regular public school education in a regular class by being misclassified mentally retarded." Group II Poor or black Boston children who are not mentally retarded and "... have been, are, or may be denied the right to be assigned to an educational program created for their special education needs [under applicable state statute] by being misclassified mentally retarded." Group III "All parents of students who have been, are, or may be placed in a special class placement, an opportunity to review test scores or the reasons for special class placement, or an opportunity to participate in any meaningful or understanding way in the decision to place the student in a 'special' class." The defendants include the members of the Boston School Committee (board), the superintendent and his assistants, the director of the department of testing and measurements, the director of special education, two state education officials, and the state commissioner of mental health. It is alleged in the complaint that the Group I plaintiffs have simply been misclassified and placed in classes for the mentally retarded while the Group II plaintiffs have been misclassified as mentally retarded and incorrectly placed in special classes for the mentally retarded while in fact they were in need of special programs but for the remediation of handicaps other than mental retardation. It is further alleged that the plaintiff children were so placed because they were perceived as behavior problems. Specific allegations regarding the misclassification are as follows: 1. The process of classification ... is based exclusively upon tests which discriminate against [plaintiffs] in that the tests are standardized on a population which is white and dissimilar to the [plaintiffs]." 2. The administration and interpretation of the tests by Boston school officials fail "... to distinguish among a wide rage of learning disabilities, only one of which may be mental retardation. " 3. Classification and placement is made on the basis of a single test score standard and other necessary information is neither gathered nor considered. 4. Boston's "school psychologists" are unqualified to interpret the limited classification devices used in the Boston schools. Further, the complaint alleges that children in "special classes" which are segregated from the regular class population receive a substantially different education than children retained in regular programs. Such placements, it is alleged results in "... substantial educational, psychological, and social harm ..." which is cumulative. Thus, the longer children are incorrectly retained in special classes, the greater the damage. It is also indicated that even when such children are returned to the regular class they remain irreparably harmed because counterpart children will have continued to make academic progress while the former remained in the special class, educationally static. Reference is also made to the negative stigmatic effect upon the child himself and the educational community by the assigning of the label, mental retardation. ... Assigning of the Group I plaintiffs to classes for the mentally retarded when they are not mentally retarded is arbitrary and irrational and ". deprives them of the right to equal protection of the laws in violation of the fourteenth amendment in that students who are similar to the Group I plaintiffs with respect to their educational potential are not placed in classes for the mentally retarded and are permitted to receive a regular education in a regular class. A similar allegation is made of the denial of equal protection of the laws on behalf of the Group II plaintiffs on the basis that similar children are not placed in classed for the mentally retarded and are placed in classes specifically organized to meet their special education needs. " The final series of allegations concerns the Group III plaintiffs and in summary charges that in the process of classifying children mentally retarded and subsequently placing them in special classes the Boston city schools have deprived the plaintiffs of procedural due process as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. The relief sought is as follows: 1. An award of $20,000 to each named plaintiff and members of the class for compensatory and punitive damages. 2. A permanent injunction specifying that children may neither be placed or retained in a special class unless a Commission on Individual Educational Needs with members from state agencies, professional associations, the mayor of Boston, the chairman of the Boston school committee and two Boston parents is established to specify appropriate classification procedures, to monitor that tests are administered by qualified psychologists, to establish procedural safeguards for the classification and placement of chidren in special programs. 3. All children in special classes or on waiting lists be re-evaluated and reclassified and placed as necessary. 4. All children requiring reassignment shall be provided with transitional programs to serve specific individual needs. score. 5. No child may be placed in special classes solely on the basis of an I.Q. The state and city responded to the suit by seeking a dismissal on the grounds that no claim was presented. In addition the state also asserted that they were not proper parties to the action and that the plaintiffs did not exhaust available administrative remedies. Plaintiffs' attorneys responded to the motion to dismiss on the basis of no claim by asserting the following: 1. "The arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory manner in which Boston public school students are classified mentally retarded denies them equal protection and due process of law." 2. "The failure to accord Boston public school students an opportunity to be heard prior to denying them the right to receive a regular education, by classifying them as mentally retarded, violates their right to procedural due process." 3. "The plaintiffs have no obligation to exhaust a state administrative remedy under the civil rights act when that remedy is in fact inadequate." It is not clear at this time if the case has been abandoned or if action is pending. RUIZ v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Civil Action No. 218294 (Superior Court of The three children named in this December, 1971 class action are MexicanAmericans from Spanish speaking homes. They all have or will be administered group intelligence tests. It is alleged that the I.0. scores obtained from these tests will be used to their detriment in the process of teaching, placing, and evaluating them in school. The defendants are the state superintendent of public instruction and the members of the state board of education. Such tests are required by state law to be administered to all sixth and twelfth grade students, the purpose is to obtain gross measures of public school effectiveness for the public, state agencies and the legislature. However, while individual scores are not reported to the state, they are, it is alleged, recorded in students' permanent records. It is alleged that these records influence teacher expectations of children's ability to learn, are utilized to place children in tracks or at specific academic levels, are used by school counselors as a basis to encourage participation in college preparatory or vocational programs, and are used by counselors to identify children for further evaluation for possible placement in classes for the mentally retarded. The complaint contains documentation including personal views, professional opinion and scientific evidence that the IQ score by itself is an invalid predictor of educational attainment in non-middle class culture children. Further, the inadequacies of group test scores both from the view of the inadequacies of the testing environment itself and in the absence of background information about the child is discussed. It is further alleged that rather than predicting ability to learn, the tests only report what has been learned. It is further alleged that when scores such as the group tests are attached to individual children such as the plaintiffs they will '...be irreparably harmed in that they will be denied their right to an education equal to that given all other students" which it is argued is a denial of equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendments. 96-675 73-9 |