Opinion ID: 1473311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act and New Hampshire's Special Education Law

Text: During the past decade, there has been a burgeoning recognition of the needs of the handicapped and of their rights to education and services, which has been reflected in federal and State law. See, e.g., Board of Education v. Rowley, 102 S. Ct. 3037 (1982); Garrity v. Gallen, 522 F. Supp. 171 (1981); Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972); see also SENATE COMM. ON LABOR & PUBLIC WELFARE, EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT OF 1975, S. REP. No. 168, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1975 U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEWS 1425. The law governing the educational rights of handicapped children has been referred to as a hybrid, comprised of elements of both federal and State law. Garrity v. Gallen, 522 F. Supp. at 221. The most significant law in this area is the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1461 (1976) (EHCA), which represents an ambitious federal effort to promote the education of handicapped children who previously had been excluded from receiving adequate education. EHCA provides federal money to the States to assist in the education of handicapped children. A State's receipt of funding is conditioned upon compliance with extensive procedures set forth in EHCA and with regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Education. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412, 1413, 1416 (1976); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.110, 300.111 (1982). New Hampshire receives over 3.5 million dollars in federal funds, and, consequently, is bound by the federal guidelines. Under these laws, in order to qualify for funding, a State must demonstrate that it has in effect a policy that assures all handicapped children the right to a free appropriate public education. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(1) (1976). A free appropriate public education is designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child by means of an individualized educational program (IEP) developed through a consultative process involving the local education agency, the teacher, and the parents. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(18), (19) (1976); see Board of Education v. Rowley, 102 S. Ct. at 3038; see also RSA 186-C:2, III (Supp. 1981) (defining individualized education plan). EHCA also requires the States to provide extensive procedural due process safeguards, which are designed to assure that handicapped children or their parents can enforce the rights guaranteed by federal law. 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (1976); see Board of Education v. Rowley, 102 S. Ct. at 3050-52; see generally Note, Enforcing the Right to an Appropriate Education: The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 92 HARV. L. REV. 1102, 1111-12 (1979). Under these procedures, the parent of a handicapped child must be notified of any proposed change in the child's IEP or placement, and must be permitted to bring a complaint about any matter relating to the child's education. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1)(C), (D), (E) (1976). An impartial due process hearing must be held concerning that complaint, and there must be a procedure providing for an appeal to the State educational agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2), (c) (1976). If there is still dissatisfaction with the decision of the State agency on appeal, EHCA provides that [a]ny party aggrieved has the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint ... in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States . . . . 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) (1976). EHCA provides that a reviewing court shall receive the record of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as [it] determines is appropriate. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) (1976) (emphasis added). The State version of EHCA, RSA chapter 186-C (Supp. 1981), declares: [I]t is the purpose of this chapter to insure that the state board of education and the school districts of the state provide a free and appropriate public education for educationally handicapped children. RSA 186-C:1 (Supp. 1981). In other words, RSA chapter 186-C (Supp. 1981) represents New Hampshire's efforts to ensure compliance with the federal law. Garrity v. Gallen, 522 F. Supp. at 221. Under State law, children between the ages of three and twenty-one who have been determined by the local school district to be educationally handicapped are entitled to attend approved programs which can implement their IEP's. RSA 186-C:9 (Supp. 1981). RSA 186-C:16, IV (Supp. 1981) requires the State Board of Education to adopt rules for hearing the appeals of school district decisions regarding IEP's. Pursuant to this statutory mandate and EHCA, the board adopted elaborate review procedures based upon the federal requirements that an impartial hearing examiner review the decision of the local educational agency, and that an appeal of the hearing examiner's decision to the State Board of Education be guaranteed as a matter of right. See ED chs. 1125 & 1127. It is important to note that State law is silent as to how review of the State board's decision in these matters may be obtained.