Answer:
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp 866 (D. DC 1972)
Yes. Procedural due process involves a claim of unfair deprivation under the Bill of Rights pertaining to one or more of three elements: Life, Liberty, or Property.
Although free public education is not a constitutional right, it is considered both a fundamental right and legal obligation under state (and District) laws. The District of Columbia, where Mills occurred, required children to attend school between the ages of seven and sixteen under Section 31 of their Code. This created a dual obligation on the part of parents and public school districts to ensure the codified legal requirements were met.
A free public education may be considered a "property interest" for the purpose of invoking procedural due process, because "property interest" is defined by the courts as "a legitimate claim of entitlement" to something provided under state (or District) law.
In the Mills case, a large number of special needs children were expelled or excluded from the District of Columbia public schools without the proper notice or hearing required under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause (DC is federal territory; in a state, the Fourteenth Amendment would be invoked). This right was explicated in the landmark case Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150 (5 Cir. 1961), a District Court decision specifically requiring due process in educational proceedings, upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dixon overturned a longstanding policy allowing schools to act in loco parentis, or to make decisions regarding students' welfare (including discipline and expulsion) as a parent would, without following established legal procedures. The Court reasoned that any government agent (for example, tax-supported public schools) acting to cause injury to an individual must adhere to Constitutional due process requirements.
The school district failed to exercise procedural due process by refusing to follow the established guidelines of giving notice to each student and supplying a valid reason for excluding the student, or providing a means of appealing the decision to the school board.
In Mills, Judge Waddy held the District of Columbia had a legal obligation to follow due process guidelines and to provide mandated educational services regardless of expense.
Bear in mind that Mills was a US District Court decision, and only binding in the District of Columbia. This decision was later confirmed by the US Supreme Court in Goss v. Lopez, 419 US 565 (1975), Honig v. Doe, 484 US 305 (1988), and in other cases tailored explicitly to exceptional-needs students.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.