Opinion ID: 437193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975

Text: 32 EAHCA provides federal funds to assist state agencies in educating handicapped children. EAHCA conditions funding on the state's compliance with a variety of regulations and procedures. The state may qualify for federal assistance only if it has in effect a policy that assures all handicapped children the right to a free appropriate public education. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(1). The term free appropriate public education is defined in 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(18). 33 The term free appropriate public education means special education and related services which (A) have been provided at public expense, under the public supervision and direction, and without charge, (B) meet the standards of the State Educational Agency, (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved, and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(a)(5) of this title. 34 (Emphasis added.) 35 The definition of free appropriate public education says nothing about the seismic safety of physical structures; the emphasis is on services. Free appropriate public education means special education and related services.... 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(18). Special education means specially designed instruction ... to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child .... 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(16). Related services refers to transportation, speech, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, transportation, and medical and counseling services. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(17). Thus, there is no explicit coverage of the students' plaintiffs' seismic safety claims in EAHCA. 36 We find, however, that the statutory definition of free appropriate public education supports the students' position. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(18)(B) provides that a free appropriate public education is one that meet[s] the standards of the State educational agency. EAHCA thus incorporates state educational standards. The students correctly point out that EAHCA does not specifically provide for textbooks, writing materials or appropriately trained teachers, but EAHCA incorporates the state standards that provides those items. We note that California law requires seismic safety of schools. See Cal.Educ.Code Secs. 39002, 39002.5 (West 1978 and Supp.1984). In light of specific provisions for seismic safety in the California Education Code, there is a strong argument that a seismically unsafe school would not meet the standards of the state educational agency, and thus, would not be part of an appropriate public education under EAHCA. 37 The state defendants argue first that seismic safety is not a standard of the state educational agency within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(18)(B), but rather relates to non-educational standards imposed by the office of the state architect. This argument is not persuasive in light of the fact that there are seismic safety standards relating directly to schools that are codified as part of the California Education Code. 38 The state defendants' second argument is based on a footnote in the only Supreme Court case construing EAHCA, Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). In the footnote, Justice Rehnquist observes that the legitimacy of Congress' authority under the spending power to legislate vis-a-vis the states rests on whether a state knowingly and voluntarily accepts conditions set forth in the federal statute. Accordingly if Congress intends to impose a condition on a grant of federal monies, it must do so unambiguously. Id. at 204 n. 26, 102 S.Ct. at 3049 n. 26 (quoting Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 1539, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981) (Pennhurst I )). The state defendants argue that regulation of seismic safety is not clear or unambiguous under EAHCA. It is clear, however, that EAHCA both funds and regulates states' assistance to handicapped students. Department of Education, State of Hawaii v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809, 813 (1983) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). While the statute does not unambiguously place conditions relating to seismic safety of schools on states accepting funds, it expressly provides that an appropriate education meets the standards of the State educational agency. California knew when it accepted federal monies for programs funded under EAHCA that it would have to meet the standards established by its educational agency, and that those standards encompassed seismic safety of school sites. 39 This court has previously found that physical safety is part of an appropriate education under EAHCA. See Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District v. Sharron B.H., 709 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that parent cannot unilaterally transfer child to private school and seek reimbursement of tuition under EAHCA except where transfer is justified by a threat to child's physical health); Dept. of Education, State of Hawaii v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d at 821 (educational plan involving risk to child's life cannot be considered appropriate education under EAHCA) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting in part). See also Anderson v. Thompson, 658 F.2d 1205, 1213-14 (7th Cir.1981) (Congress could not have intended a child to remain in an educational placement where there is a serious risk of injury to the child's physical health). Although these cases are not directly on point because they involve reimbursement for safer alternatives to placement in public schools, they illustrate that physical safety, not surprisingly, is considered an element of an appropriate education. 40 In short, although EAHCA does not expressly provide for seismic safety, there is a strong argument that it incorporates state law seismic safety standards. Moreover, physical safety is considered part of the appropriate public education guaranteed by EAHCA. Thus, while we need not finally decide this jurisdictional issue, Lopez v. Heckler, 725 F.2d at 1498-99, we find that the students have raised serious legal questions and are likely to succeed on the merits.