# data[].attributes.headline
American School for the Deaf (founded 1817)

# data[].attributes.subject
American School for the Deaf (founded 1817)

# data[].attributes.body
The American school for the deaf was founded in 1817, and was the first public school for children with disabilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ASD is the oldest permanent school for the deaf in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Located In West Hartford, CT, ASD is a school for deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

# data[].attributes.body
Upheld the legality of separate but equal laws. Allows for the separation of students with disabilities into unequal learning environments.

# data[].attributes.body
Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed decision to kick a student with facial deformities who drooled, but had a normal mental function, out of public school because he nauseated teachers and students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
APPEAL from a judgment of the municipal court of Langlade county: T. W. Hogan, Judge. Reversed.

For the appellant there was a brief by Finucane Avery of Antigo, counsel, and oral argument by Chas. H. Avery.

For the respondent there was a brief by Goodrick Morson of Antigo, and oral argument by H. F. Morson and E. J. Goodrik.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THE PUBLICATION STATUS OF THIS OPINION IS GOVERNED BY WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23 (2) AND (3).]

Public schools: Exclusion of child whose presence is harmful: Powers of school board: Formal action: Interference by courts: Burden of proof.

1. The right of a child of school age to attend the public schools of this state cannot be insisted upon when his presence therein is harmful to the best interests of the school.

2. A board of education which, under the law, had "in all respects the supervision and management of the common schools" of a city, with power to make "rules and regulations for their organization, government or instruction, . . . and the transfer of pupils from one department to another, and generally for their good order and advancement," had power, acting in good faith, to determine that, by reason of his physical condition and ailments, the presence of a boy in school was harmful to the school and to other pupils, and that therefore he should be excluded.

3. Such a determination by a school board should not be interfered with by the courts unless it is shown to have been illegal or unreasonable.

4. Although, in the first instance, the exclusion of the boy from the schools was not the result of action taken at a formal meeting of the board, yet, when the board at a subsequent regular meeting conferred upon the question whether he should be reinstated, and a motion that he be reinstated received no second, this amounted to a determination by the board, acting as such, that he be excluded.

ESCHWEILER, J., dissents.

This is an action of mandamus brought in the municipal court of Langlade county to compel the Board of Education of the City of Antigo to reinstate and admit petitioner's son to the public schools of said city. From a judgment in favor of the petitioner the defendant Board of Education appealed.

Merritt Beattie, thirteen years of age on March 27, 1918, son of petitioner, has been a resident of the city of Antigo since he was two years of age. Merritt has been a crippled and defective child since his birth, being afflicted with a form of paralysis which affects his whole physical and nervous make-up. He has not the normal use and control of his voice, hands, feet, and body. By reason of said paralysis his vocal cords are afflicted. He is slow and hesitating in speech and has a peculiarly high, rasping, and disturbing tone of voice, accompanied with uncontrollable facial contortions, making it difficult for him to make himself understood. He also has an uncontrollable flow of saliva which drools from his mouth on to his clothing and books, causing him to present an unclean appearance. He has a nervous and excitable nature. It is claimed on the part of the school board that his physical condition and ailment produces a depressing and nauseating effect upon the teachers and school children; that by reason of his physical condition he takes up an undue portion of the teacher's time and attention, distracts the attention of other pupils, and interferes generally with the discipline and progress of the school. He did not walk until he was six or seven years of age and did not attend school until he was eight years old. He then entered the first grade of the Antigo public school and continued therein until he was through the fifth grade in 1917. It appears that he is normal mentally and that he kept pace with the other pupils in the respective grades, although the teachers had difficulty in understanding him, and he was not called upon to recite as frequently as the others for the reason that he was slow in speech, requiring more time for him to recite than the other pupils. The city of Antigo maintains a day school under sec. 41.01, Stats., "for the instruction of deaf persons or persons with defective speech." In the fall of 1916 he was placed by the school authorities in this department. He remained there five weeks, when he was transferred to the Fourth Ward public school. During the school year of 1916 and 1917 a representative of the state department of public instruction visited the Antigo schools. The boy Merritt came under her observation and she protested against his being in the public schools and suggested that he be placed in the department for instruction of deaf persons or persons with defective speech. Merritt refused to attend this department, in which he was upheld by his parents and family. At the beginning of the school year in 1917 Merritt presented himself to the Second Ward public school, but on the second day those in charge refused to accept him as a pupil. The matter was taken by the parents to the superintendent of schools and finally laid before the Board of Education. On September 13, 1917, the Board of Education had a regular meeting to consider the demand of the petitioner that his son be reinstated and admitted to the public schools. The matter was considered for an hour, during which time one member of the board moved that the boy be reinstated in the schools. This motion did not receive a second, and after some further discussion it was agreed that the matter should be presented to the state superintendent of public instruction. It appears that correspondence followed between the secretary of the school board and the state superintendent upon the question as to whether Merritt should be reinstated, but it does not appear that the state superintendent ever definitely advised the school board upon the subject and the school board never reinstated the boy. As above stated, the petitioner brought this action to compel his reinstatement. The case was tried before a jury. A general verdict in favor of the petitioner was returned.

The right of a child of school age to attend the public schools of this state cannot be insisted upon when its presence therein is harmful to the best interests of the school. This, like other individual rights, must be subordinated to the general welfare. It will be conceded, we think, that the foregoing statement of facts presents a fair question as to the effect of the boy's presence upon the school and the individual pupils attending the same. The question then arises as to what body or tribunal is vested with the authority of determining the question. The trial court seemed to be of the opinion that, while such authority rested with the school board in the first instance, its action in that behalf was reviewable by a jury and subordinate to the jury's opinion thereon, as indicated by its charge to the jury to the effect that "It is incumbent upon the defendant to prove to you the needfulness of the rule in denying Merritt Beattie the privileges of the graded school by a fair preponderance of the evidence." The power of the school board in the premises is set forth in sub. 5, sec. 101, ch. 197 (vol. II), Laws 1889, as follows:

"To have in all respects the supervision and management of the common schools of said city, and from time to time, to make, alter, modify and repeal as they may deem expedient. rules and regulations for their organization, government or instruction, . . . and the transfer of pupils from one department to another, and generally for their good order and advancement."

The situation here presented aroused the power of the board under that provision of law. Having acted, its determination should not be interfered with by the courts unless it acted illegally or unreasonably. State ex rel. Dresser v. District Board, 135 Wis. 619, 116 N. W. 232; Watson v. Cambridge, 157 Mass. 561, 32 N. E. 864; Kinzer v. Independent School Dist. 129 Iowa, 441, 105 N. W. 686. That it acted legally is without question. That it acted unreasonably cannot be said. The duty confronting the school board was a delicate one. It was charged with the responsibility of saying whether this boy should be denied a constitutional right because the exercise of that right would be harmful to the school and to the pupils attending the same. He should not be excluded from the schools except for considerations affecting the general welfare. But if his presence in school was detrimental to the best interests of the school, then the board could not, with due regard to their official oaths, refrain from excluding him, even though such action be displeasing and painful to them. The record convinces us that the board took this view of the situation and considered the question with the highest motives and with a full appreciation of its responsibility. There is no suggestion that any of the members were prompted by bad faith or considerations of ill will. The action of the board in refusing to reinstate the boy seems to have been the result of its best judgment exercised in good faith and the record discloses no grounds for the interference of courts with its action.

There is one other question which should be noticed. It is claimed that the school board never acted as a body upon the question of the exclusion of the boy from the schools and that its action is void within the rule "that when a board of public officers is about to perform an act requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment the members must all meet and confer together, or must all be properly notified of such meeting, in order to make the action binding. Individual and independent action, even by a majority of the members of the board, will not suffice." McNolty v. Board of School Directors, 102 Wis. 261, 78 N. W. 439. It is true that the exclusion of the boy in the first instance was not the result of the action of the Board of Education taken at a formal meeting thereof. However, at its meeting on September 13th the board did meet as a board and conferred upon the question as to whether he should be reinstated. A motion was made that he be reinstated, which motion received no second. This amounted to a refusal on the part of the board, acting as a board, to permit him to attend the public schools of the city. The point is not well taken.

The action of the school board, unless illegal or unreasonable, is not subject to the interference of the courts, from which it follows that the complaint of the petitioner should be dismissed.

By the Court. - Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition.

I cannot agree with the result arrived at in the majority opinion in this case for two reasons:

First, because, even under the rule of law adopted by themajority as to the power vested in the school board, it was still a question for the jury as to whether or not there was an unreasonable interference with plaintiff's rights, there being no evidence that as a fact this boy's presence did have any harmful influence on the other children.

Second, because I believe there is no such exclusive power intended to be vested in such school board.

Those who drafted the constitution of this state evidently intended to secure to every child a substantial and fundamental right to attend the common schools. Sec. 3, art. X, Const., reads as follows:

"The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable; and such schools shall be free and without charge for tuition to all children between the ages of four and twenty years; and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed therein."

Unquestionably the right of the individual child under such constitutional provision is subject to the equal rights of all other children to the same, and when the attendance of any one child in the public school is a material infringement upon the rights of other children to also enjoy the benefits of free schooling his right must yield.

The majority opinion finds the warrant for the construction it gives to the power of the school board in this case upon the statute giving such school boards the supervision, management, and control of the common schools. I cannot agree that a statutory power can be exalted above a guaranty of the constitution. Even were the statute to say, as it does not, that the decision of such a school board is to be exclusive and controlling save and except the one complaining of the exercise thereof is able to show that the exercise of such power by the school board was arbitrary and unreasonable, it would be subject to the substantial objection that it placed an unwarranted burden of proof upon one deprived of a constitutional right.

I think the burden was properly laid, by the instruction given by the trial court to the jury in this case, upon the defendants to show that their action was a reasonable exercise of their statutory duty. If they were unable to convince a jury to that effect their order should be set aside.

Not one of the cases cited in the majority opinion considered any such constitutional privilege as here suggested. The former decision of this court cited does not mention such provision. The Iowa constitution, particularly, expressly grants just such power as is contained in our statute to such board in one of the fifteen subsections of art. IX of that document relating to a board of education. The Massachusetts constitution contains no provision like ours.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State ex Rel. Beattie v. Board of Edn. City of Antigo, 169 Wis. 231 | Casetext Search + Citator

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
APPEAL from a judgment of the municipal court of Langlade county: T. W. Hogan, Judge. Reversed. For the appellant there was a brief by Finucane Avery of Antigo, counsel, and oral argument by Chas. H. Avery. For the respondent there was a brief by Goodrick Morson of Antigo, and oral argument by H.

# data[].attributes.body
Founded by teachers and students to advocate for equal rights for students with disabilities. The first group of its kind in the US.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Council for Exceptional Children | The premier association for special education professionals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Council for Exceptional Children | The premier association for special education professionals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) is the largest international professional organization dedicated to improving the educational success of children and youth with disabilities and/or gifts and talents.

# data[].attributes.headline
National Association of Retarded Citizens (1950)

# data[].attributes.subject
National Association of Retarded Citizens (1950)

# data[].attributes.body
Parents from across the US came together to form this group. Provided legal help to families of students with disabilities and aided the passage of various pieces of legislation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Arc of the US is pleased to announce that we are now accepting applications for our next Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO will lead the largest national community-based organization advocating for and with people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

The next CEO must be a dynamic, engaging, and collaborative leader who can work with chapters, staff, and the IDD community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Arc | For People With Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Arc promotes and protects the human rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

# data[].attributes.headline
Brown v. Board of Education (May 17, 1954)

# data[].attributes.subject
Brown v. Board of Education (May 17, 1954)

# data[].attributes.body
Affirmed that all people regardless of race, gender, or disability have the right to an equal education.

# data[].attributes.headline
President's Panel on Mental Retardation (1962)

# data[].attributes.subject
President's Panel on Mental Retardation (1962)

# data[].attributes.body
Appointed by President Kennedy, this group made recommendations for improvements in regards to special education.

# data[].attributes.body
Black students were disproportionately placed on lower "tracks" in the D.C. school system. Ruling ended use of track system and changed many programs in the schools to better support black students.

# data[].attributes.headline
Diana v. State Board of Education (1970)

# data[].attributes.subject
Diana v. State Board of Education (1970)

# data[].attributes.body
Court ruled that IQ tests were culturally biased towards white American students. These IQ tests were not allowed to determine student placement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Diana v. State Board of Education (Diana) case originated when a group of Spanish-speaking students were inappropriately assigned to EMR classes based on an assessment by an unqualified assessor. [CA 70 RFT (N.D. Cal. 1970).] Diana occurred because a monolingual psychologist tested Spanish speakers in English and used this data to place students in special education classes. The case, filed in 1969, was settled out of court in 1970. The stipulated settlement agreement required that the CDE:

1. Monitor schools for racial imbalance,

2. Correct any imbalance,

3. Collect data annually, and

4. Use representatives of the Latino community when audits are performed in school districts. At the time of the order, Latinos were over-represented in classes for children with intellectual disabilities,constituting 26% of the total statewide children with intellectual disabilities population, but only 14% of the statewide school-age population in 1967.

The CDE must still comply with the 1971 court order to monitor the representation of special education to ensure proportionate representation for Spanish-speaking students. Because of Diana, state law contains provisions for testing in the child's native language so that no child will be placed into special education only because of a limited ability to speak English. [Cal. Ed. Code Sec. 56320.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
(2.48) What was the Diana v. State Board of Education case? What impact does the Diana case have on Spanish-speaking students?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Diana v. State Board of Education (Diana) case originated when a group of Spanish-speaking students were inappropriately assigned to EMR classes based on an assessment by an unqualified assessor. [CA 70 RFT (N.D. Cal. 1970).] Diana occurred because a monolingual psychologist tested Spanish speakers in English and used this data to place students in special education classes.

# data[].attributes.body
Black students were receiving biased treatment based on the results of unfair assessments. Ruled that minority students could not be placed until non-biased tests were given. Very similar to Diana v. State Board of Education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In what some are terming a landmark decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit late last month upheld a lower-court ruling that prohibits California school districts from using iq tests to evaluate black students for placement in special-education classes on the grounds that the tests are culturally biased.

In affirming the 1979 decision of U.S. District Judge Robert F. Peckham, the appellate panel, by a 2-to-1 vote, held that the state "did not take reasonable steps to ensure that non-discriminatory methods" were used to identify and place black students in classes for the "educable mentally retarded" and did not make a reasonable attempt "to alleviate existing disproportionate enrollment."

Donald Bersoff, counsel for the American Psychological Association, said the case is the first in which courts have examined the validity of individual intelligence tests for minority students and offered an interpretation of federal regulations requiring that the tests be validated for the specific uses to which they are to be put.

"I think it establishes an important case and also a warning to people who use the test in school," Mr. Bersoff asserted.

Nationwide Attention

Technically, the appellate court's decision in Larry P. v. Riles is binding only on school districts in Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington State. But because of educators' increasing reliance on standardized tests for the evaluation and placement of students, the case has attracted considerable attention nationwide, and the decision may be used as a guideline in districts outside the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction.

"The decision was based on federal regulation, and I would think it would mean an open-and-shut case," said Armando Menocal of Public Advocates Inc., the lawyer for the plaintiffs. "Any state that continues [to use intelligence tests to evaluate handicapped students] is acting in jeopardy," he added.

"One of the most common misinterpretations," Mr. Menocal noted, "is that most [school officials] say they don't rely solely on the iq" Contrary to the contentions of California authorities, he explained, the court found that the iq test has a "predominant influence in placements and cannot be used."

The class action was filed in the federal district court in 1971 on behalf of six black elementary students in the San Francisco Unified School District and was later expanded to include all black children in the state who were placed in classes for the educable mentally retarded (emr classes).

The plaintiffs charged that the use of intelligence tests to place black children in such classes violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142), and the equal-protection clauses of both the state and federal constitutions.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs ar-gued that between 1968 and 1977, black children were overrepresented in emr classes. In 1968-69, for example, black children represented about 9 percent of the school-age population in the state and 27 percent of all public-school students in emr classes.

During the trial, officials for the California Department of Education argued that black students' low iq scores were the result of blacks' lower socio-economic status and that their placement in emr classes was not based solely on the use of the standardized-test results.

The department used 12 separate iq tests, but, according to court documents, the Stanford-Binet test and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--the two most widely used testing instruments in the country--were the primary tests used.

In rejecting the state education department's arguments, Judge Peckham relied on "historical background" showing cultural bias in standardized tests and on expert witnesses who testified that the students' school records "contained insufficient evidence" that school personnel had considered the students' educational, health, and development histories, or data on their social progress or their cultural backgrounds.

Judge Peckham said that there is "less than a one-in-a-million chance that the over-enrollment of black children and the under-enrollment of nonblack children in the emr classes in 1976-77 would have resulted under a color-blind system."

Judge Peckham noted that even "if it is assumed that black children have a 50-percent greater incidence of this type of mental retardation, there is still less than a one-in-100,000 chance that the enrollment could be so skewed towards black children."

As a remedy, Judge Peckham ordered that all school districts in the state discontinue their use of intelligence tests to identify and place black children, that they re-evaluate all black children previously identified as educable mentally retarded, and that they develop three-year plans designed to correct the imbalance.

Since 1979, California school districts have eliminated emr as a classification for placement in special-education classes and have instituted categories of "learning disabled" and "mentally retarded,'' according to Kathryn J. Ross, a special-education administrator for the state department of education.

Ms. Ross said the lower court's decision created a "practical dilemma" for school officials because they were "forbidden" to use iq tests. "I think professionals in the field would say they've been denied a valuable tool," she added.

Although there are numerous court decisions prohibiting the use of discriminatory tests in hiring, according to Mr. Bersoff, the courts, in general, have been silent on the va-lidity of testing in the schools. Several years ago, he added, a federal judge ruled in pase (Parents in Action for Special Education) v. Hannon that the Chicago school system could continue to use iq tests to evaluate minority students for placement in programs for handicapped students.

Requirement Upheld

In another case, Debra P. v. Turlington, a federal district judge last spring upheld the state of Florida's requirement that all high-school students pass a minimum-competency test before receiving a diploma. (See Education Week, May 11, 1983.)

The plaintiffs, who were primarily black students, had charged that the tests were culturally biased and that "vestiges of segregation" hampered their ability to score at the levels of their white peers. They are appealing the district court's ruling.

According to Mr. Bersoff, the decision in the Larry P. case does not resolve the issues surrounding how tests are used by schools, but it ''sets up the possiblity of a review by the U.S. Supreme Court later in the decade."

The full text of the opinion in the Larry P. case is reproduced in the Education for the Handicapped Law Report, Supplement 113, page 555:304.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Court Finds I.Q. Tests Racially Biased for Black Pupils' Placement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In what some are terming a landmark decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit late last month upheld a lower-court ruling that prohibits California school districts from using iq tests to evaluate black students for placement in special-education classes on the grounds that the tests are culturally biased.

# data[].attributes.headline
PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972)

# data[].attributes.subject
PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972)

# data[].attributes.body
Found that the state could not deny educational opportunities to residents with mental disabilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Please click here if you are not redirected within a few seconds.

Images
PARC v. Pennsylvania: Changing Children's Lives and Foreshadowing ...

studentslawyer.com

Images may be subject to copyright.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please click here if you are not redirected within a few seconds. Images PARC v. Pennsylvania: Changing Children's Lives and Foreshadowing ... studentslawyer.com Images may be subject to copyright.

# data[].attributes.body
First civil rights act for people with disabilities. Prohibited discrimination on the basis of disability in federally funded programs. The basis for the Americans with Disabilities Act.

# data[].attributes.headline
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975)

# data[].attributes.subject
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975)

# data[].attributes.body
Required all schools that accepted federal funding to provide students with disabilities equal access to education. Mandated a Free Appropriate Public Education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law that makes available a free appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services to those children.

The IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to more than 8 million (as of school year 2022-23) eligible infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

Infants and toddlers, birth through age 2, with disabilities and their families receive early intervention services under IDEA Part C. Children and youth ages 3 through 21 receive special education and related services under IDEA Part B.

Additionally, the IDEA authorizes:

Formula grants to states to support special education and related services and early intervention services.

Discretionary grants to state educational agencies, institutions of higher education, and other nonprofit organizations to support research, demonstrations, technical assistance and dissemination, technology development, personnel preparation and development, and parent-training and -information centers.

Congress reauthorized the IDEA in 2004 and most recently amended the IDEA through Public Law 114-95, the Every Student Succeeds Act, in December 2015.

In the law, Congress states:

Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.

Other Laws for Children with Disabilities

The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) provides additional resources of interest for individuals with disabilities and their families.

OCR does not enforce the IDEA; however, OCR does enforce the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title II rights of IDEA-eligible students with disabilities.

To learn more, visit the OCR's Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504 and the Education of Children with Disabilities.

Visit OCR's website for additional resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About IDEA - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The IDEA is a law that makes available a free appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services to those children.

# data[].attributes.headline
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982)

# data[].attributes.subject
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982)

# data[].attributes.body
The US Supreme Court ruled that schools do not have to go "above and beyond" for students with a disability that are already achieving at an average level.

# data[].attributes.headline
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Re-authorization (1990)

# data[].attributes.subject
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Re-authorization (1990)

# data[].attributes.body
EAHCA changed to IDEA. More focus placed on individual.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Department of Education’s Individuals with Disabilities Education Act website brings together department and grantee IDEA information and resources. The IDEA makes available a free appropriate public education to and ensures special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities.