Opinion ID: 472144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: California Education Code Sec. 48212

Text: 51 The defendants seek to refute our conclusions by invoking California Education Code Sec. 48212, which provides that [t]he governing board of the school may exclude from attendance on regular school classes any child whose physical or mental disability is such as to cause his attendance to be inimical to the welfare of other pupils. Cal.Educ.Code Sec. 48212 (Deering 1978). Defendants argue that this statutory provision does not violate the EAHCA and that the district court erred in declaring otherwise. 52 First, they contend that section 48212 can be harmonized with federal standards by construing it to refer only to disabilities that are not covered by the EAHCA. But what disabilities are those? The definition of handicap for the purposes of the EAHCA, see 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(1) (Supp. I 1983); supra note 2, is nothing if not comprehensive. A section 48212 that refers only to those disabilities not protected by the EAHCA would be a section irrelevant for the purposes of this case. We reject this construction. 53 Defendants also suggest that the statutory term disability might be interpreted to cover only contagious diseases, and that the exclusion of children afflicted with such diseases would not violate the EAHCA. Our difficulty with this argument is twofold. First, such a narrow construction of the term disability is plainly contrary to common usage. Second, possession of a contagious disease is a specifically enumerated ground for exclusion under a separate statutory provision, see Cal.Educ.Code Sec. 48211 (Deering 1978). We think it unlikely that the legislature would have restated ambiguously an authorization it had elsewhere made explicit. 54 Defendants argue finally that the child's exclusion from regular school classes under section 48212 does not necessarily mean that he will be excluded from receiving an appropriate public education. We acknowledge that the EAHCA does not compel localities to place handicapped students in regular education classes, but only in the least restrictive setting consistent with their needs and those of other students. See 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(5)(B) (1982); 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.552 comment (1985) (quoting 34 C.F.R. Part 104, app. A, at p 24 (1985)). Nonetheless, section 48212 is fatally defective on procedural grounds. Like expulsion, exclusion from regular school classes constitutes a change in placement that triggers the EAHCA's procedural requirements and safeguards, see 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415 (1982)--including the necessity to make placement decisions through the vehicle of the IEP team, see id. Sec. 1401(19); Sec. 1412(5)(B); 34 C.F.R. Secs. 300.340-.346 (1985). Section 48212 ignores these strictures. But it is precisely these strictures that are binding on school officials. Section 48212 cannot relieve them of this burden. 55