[1] The law had also been used by the state in multiple occasions to deny free public education to children who had a hard time integrating into classroom environments and schools.

The language used during this case is outdated to modern times; therefore, the use of the word "mentally retarded" refers to any intellectual disability.

[3] The argument of the case was that all children, whether having an intellectual disability or not, could benefit from any type of free training or education.

[2] The plaintiffs in the case are the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens and the families of children with intellectual disabilities who were denied an education.

The PARC chapters ran education programs for children with intellectual disabilities and had been doing so for up to 20 years before the case.

One such case,Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia was settled in 1972 and expanded the PARC vs. PA decision to include children with physical disabilities.