SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF FRANKLIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION & others [Note 1] (and a companion case [Note 2]).

LIACOS, J. These consolidated cases raise the recurring question of responsibility for the payment of the cost of educating in a private school a child with "special needs" as defined in "Chapter 766." See G. L. c. 71B, Section 1, as amended by St. 1978, c. 552, Section 18, inserted by St. 1972, c. 766, Section 11 (effective September 1, 1974). In the first action, the School Committee of Franklin (school committee) challenges a decision in which the Department of Education (department) determined that the school committee has financial responsibility for the education of Kevin B. at a private school, Leland Hall, during the 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 school years. In the second action, Kevin's parents (parents) seek reimbursement from the school committee of tution paid by them to Leland Hall and for related

Page 802

transportation costs for those two academic years. A judge in the Superior Court ordered dismissal of the latter complaint and the entry of judgment in the action brought by the school committee, declaring that the school committee was not liable to pay any person or agency for the child's cost of education from 1974 to the date of the judgment. On August 17, 1981, judgments entered, and, on appeal, the Appeals Court affirmed. School Comm. of Franklin v. Commissioner of Educ., 17 Mass. App. Ct. 683 (1984). We granted the department's request for further appellate review, and we now reverse.

This case has a tortuous and complicated procedural history, reflecting perhaps the novelty of Chapter 766 when the initial decisions were made by the parties. The facts and procedural history of the case have been set forth in great detail by the Appeals Court in School Comm. of Franklin, supra at 684-688, 693, and need not be repeated fully here. We state only those facts essential to our decision.

It is undisputed that the child was a special needs child, within the meaning of Chapter 766, who was enrolled in a remedial program at Leland Hall in the summer of 1974 at the suggestion of a learning disabilities specialist employed by the school committee. Kevin continued at Leland Hall for the school years 1974-1975, 1975-1976, and 1976-1977. In 1977-1978, the parents transferred Kevin to another private school.

The evaluation prepared for Kevin by the Franklin school staff (without the participation of the parents) was submitted to the parents in August, 1974. It was unsatisfactory. Further evaluations ensued, and another plan was sent to the parents in March. 1975. The parents rejected this plan. A hearing was held before a hearing officer of the department on November 20, 1975, the 1974-1975 school year having been concluded. Notice of the hearing officer's decision was not received until April, 1976, near the end of the 1975-1976 school year. The school committee took no action to seek judicial review until December 6, 1976. Thus, the 1974-1975 school year was completed, and the 1975-1976 school year was almost half completed, with Kevin still attending Leland Hall, prior to the filing of the school committee's complaint. The hearing officer

Page 803

had found that neither Leland Hall's total residential setting nor the school committee's plan was appropriate for Kevin's educational needs, and he ordered the school committee to devise a new plan. He concluded that "until Franklin designs an appropriate plan for Kevin . . . he may remain at Leland Hall at Franklin's expense." [Note 3]

The school committee's initial complaint, filed in December, 1976, sought review under G. L. c. 30A, Section 14. Although the complaint requested "declaratory judgment," the school committee sought review on the record of the agency proceedings and recited the grounds for judicial review contained in G. L. c. 30A, Section 14(7). In its request for relief, the school committee sought an order that the hearing officer's decision be set aside and that Kevin be placed in the Franklin public schools. The department successfully moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the proceeding before the department was adjudicatory and that, under G. L. c. 30A, Section 14, a complaint seeking judicial review had to be filed within thirty days of the agency decision. In allowing this motion, the judge gave the school committee leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint filed was more particularized in its requests for declaratory relief, but was not different in substance from the original complaint. Both the department and the parents moved for dismissal. Another judge denied theses motions, without stating reasons, on March 31, 1977.

In April, 1977, the department moved that the case be remanded so that a hearing officer could make more specific findings. The case was remanded in June, 1977, and a decision by a different hearing officer issued on December 4, 1978. In this first remand decision, the hearing officer found that the school committee had not proposed an adequate, appropriate educational plan for Kevin from September, 1974, through the

Page 804

end of the 1974-1975 school year. He found Leland Hall to be an adequate and appropriate placement for that time period, and ruled that the school committee had fiscal responsibility for Kevin's education for the same period. The hearing officer stated that there was insufficient evidence on the record to decide whether the school committee's liability should continue beyond the end of the 1974-1975 school year.

Thereafter, the parents moved that the case be remanded a second time to determine whether the liability of the school committee established under the first remand decision would continue through the 1978 school year. The motion was granted in April, 1979. In May, 1979, the hearing officer who considered the matter on the first remand took evidence. In July, 1979, a second remand decision issued in which an assessment was made of the school committee's responsibility for the costs of Kevin's education from the 1975-1976 school year through the 1977-1978 school year.

The second remand decision left the first remand decision undisturbed: The school committee was responsible for Kevin's education for the 1974-1975 school year. After taking new evidence, the hearing officer found that until May 20, 1976, the parents had cooperated with the school committee, and that after that date they no longer cooperated. He decided that, even if the parents had cooperated after May 20, 1976, it was unlikely that the school committee could have developed a new educational plan by the end of the 1975-1976 school year. The hearing officer also found that Leland Hall was an adequate and appropriate placement for Kevin through the end of the 1975-1976 school year, and he concluded that the school committee was responsible for the costs of Kevin's tuition at Leland Hall and for his transportation costs for the 1975-1976 school year. He concluded, however, that the school committee was not responsible for the costs of Kevin's education for the school years 1976-1977 and 1977-1978. [Note 4]

Page 805

When the cases came before the Superior Court judge for a consolidated hearing on the merits, the issue then was the liability of the school committee to reimburse the parents for the costs of Kevin's education at Leland Hall for the 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 school years. Two weeks before the hearing in the Superior Court, the school committee filed a motion to present additional evidence, citing G. L. c. 30A, Section 14 (6), G. L. c. 71B, Section 3, and 20 U.S.C. Section 1415 (e)(2). The trial judge allowed the motion over the opposition of the department.

The judge determned that the Federal standards and procedures of 20 U.S.C. Section 1415 (e)(2) preempt State law standards and procedures. He further ruled that "[s]ilent though [20 U.S.C. Section 1415 (e)(2)] and its legislative history may be on the question of retroactivity, . . . the statute governs judicial review of . . . [the first remand decision] that Leland Hall was a suitable alternative private placement." Thus, the trial judge applied the "preponderance of the evidence" test of 20 U.S.C. Section 1415 (e)(2) rather than the "substantial evidence" test of G. L. c. 30A, Section 14. Basing his decision largely on the new evidence received, the trial judge found that Leland Hall was at no time an appropriate placement for Kevin and that the school committee need not reimburse the parents for the costs of sending Kevin to Leland Hall from 1974 on.

We hold that the school committee's complaint, filed in December, 1976, was untimely. Thus, the hearing officer's initial determination of the school committee's liability for the school year 1974-1975 is final. Accordingly, it was error to dismiss the complaint of the parents, to the extent that it sought reimbursement for the 1974-1975 school year. We order entry of judgment on the parents' complaint as to the school year 1974-1975.

We consider the disposition of the appeal which relates to the 1975-1976 school year. As we have stated, the second remand order issued in the context of Superior Court proceedings which should have been dismissed as untimely. However, a challenge to the decision regarding the 1975-1976 school year could have been the basis for a new action. Since this school year came in issue in these proceedings largely because

Page 806

of the motions to remand filed by the department and the parents, it would be unjust to foreclose judicial review to the school committee in this regard. Thus, we will treat the case as if a new, timely complaint had been filed under G. L. c. 30A, Section 14, calling the administrative finding of liability into question for the 1975-1976 school year. [Note 5]

We hold, as to the 1975-1976 school year, that the matter was properly before the court, but that the judge erred in applying the Federal standard of judicial review instead of the standard provided by State law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment for the school committee in its case, as well as the order of dismissal of the parents' complaint seeking reimbursement for the 1975-1976 school year. As to that year, we remand for further proceedings.

Page 807

1. Appropriateness of declaratory relief. The school committee argues that it is entitled to declaratory relief under G. L. c. 231A. Thus, it would seek to avoid the thirty-day limitation for an appeal specified in G. L. c. 30A, Section 14 (1). The school committee's initial complaint, filed in December, 1976, sought review under G. L. c. 30A, Section 14. Although the complaint also requested "declaratory judgment," the school committee sought review on the record of the agency proceedings and recited the grounds for judicial review contained in G. L. c. 30A, Section 14 (7). [Note 6] In its request for relief, the school committee sought an order that the hearing officer's decision be set aside and that Kevin be placed in the town's public schools. Such an action is not a de novo proceeding, as is usually considered appropriate for a declaratory judgment. See Mayo v. Boston Rent Control Adm'r, 365 Mass. 575, 576 (1974).

In Meenes v. Goldberg, 331 Mass. 688, 691 (1954), a case involving the validity of a tax lien, we stated that declaratory relief "should not be denied because of the possibility of some other form of remedy, if the case presented comes within the general scope of [declaratory relief] and no special reasons exist against the use of the declaratory process." We noted, however, in East Chop Tennis Club v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 364 Mass. 444, 449-451 (1973), that we generally have not extended the rule in Meenes to reach cases involving different administrative agencies and procedures than those involved in Meenes. We further noted that, even within the context of tax cases, parties were permitted to circumvent the normal course of administrative review by bringing declaratory judgment actions only where the facts of a particular case raised "important public questions whose resolution concer[ed] or . . . affect[ed] more persons than the parties to the case." East Chop Tennis Club, supra at 450. The normal course of administrative review requires a timely appeal to the Superior Court under G. L. c. 30A, Section 14. Absent

Page 808

special circumstances, an action for a declaratory judgment cannot be used as a substitute for timely appeal under G. L. c. 30A, Section 14. See Goldman v. planning Bd. of Burlington, 347 Mass. 320, 326 (1964); Second Church in Dorchester v. Boston, 343 Mass. 477, 479 (1962). No special circumstances are shown here. The entire thrust of the complaint was aimed at setting aside a single adjudicatory decision of the department; we consider the action to have been brought pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, Section 14.

2. Motion to dismiss. The department and the parents first argue that the motion judge erred in denying their motions to dismiss the town's first amended complaint as untimely filed. General Laws c. 30A, Section 14 (1)(1984 ed.), establishes a thirty-day appeal period for judicial review of a final agency decision. [Note 7] The department's initial decision issued on April 9, 1976, and the town filed the instant complaint in the Superior Court on December 6, 1976. The Appeals Court noted that (1) the April 9, 1976, decision was withdrawn and replaced by the first remand decision of December 4, 1978, and (2) the first remand decision was substantively different from the initial April 9, 1976, decision. School Comm. of Franklin, supra at 693. The court reasoned that the first remand decision could have been the subject of a new action but that such was not necessary, and concluded that therefore there was no delay in seeking judicial review because judicial proceedings were ongoing. We disagree. The hearing officer found in the initial April 9, 1976, decision that the school committee's plan and Leland Hall were each too restrictive a placement for Kevin. See G. L. c. 71B, Section 2 (1984 ed.). He ordered the school committee to devise a new plan but permitted Kevin to remain at Leland Hall at the school committee's expense until a new plan was developed. Even though, in the first remand decision of December, 1978, a second hearing officer decided that Leland Hall was an appropriate placement for Kevin, the initial April, 1976, decision was certainly a "final decision of [an] agency in

Page 809

an adjudicatory" from which the school committee should have sought timely review. G. L. c. 30A, Section 14. Cf. East Longmeadow v. State Advisory Comm'n, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 939, 940 (1983) (an administrative order requiring a subordinate administrative body to reconsider its order is not a final order). Thus, all subsequent judicial decisions concerning the 1974-1975 school year were improperly rendered. The hearing officer's initial determination of the school committee's liability for the 1974-1975 school year is final and enforceable in a court of law without substantive judicial review. [Note 8] We consider, however, the school committee's appeal from the 1975-1976 school year decision, in the interests of fairness, for the reasons stated previously at 805-806, supra.

3. Applicability of Federal law. The second remand decision, issued in July, 1979, addressed, inter alia, the question of responsibility for the costs of Kevin's education for the 1975-1976 school year. As is discussed in School Comm. of Franklin v. Commissioner of Educ., 17 Mass. App. Ct. 683, 688 (1984), following this second remand decision, the trial judge took additional evidence and applied to the evidence the standard prescribed by 20 U.S.C. Section 1415 (e)(2) (1976). [Note 9] These

Page 810

standards were established by Section 615 (e)(2) of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA), as appearing in Section 5(a), Part B of Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 789. For convenience, we shall refer to the sections of the Act as numbered in the corresponding sections of the United States Code. The department contends that the trial judge erred in applying the standard for judicial review contained in Section 1415 (e)(2). We agree. Section 1415 (e)(2) is inapplicable to State agency determinations for those school years which do not come within the terms of the act.

Section 1415 of EAHCA (Section 5[a], Part B of Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 788) took effect in October, 1977. prior to the enactment of EAHCA, Massachusetts, unlike some other States, had a highly developed special education law which was a model for other State statutes. Burlington v. Department of Educ., 736 F.2d 773, 789 n. 17 (1st Cir. 1984) (Burlington II), aff'd, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). The purpose of the Federal law was, in large measure, to provide assistance to the various States to ensure "a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet [the] unique needs . . . of handicapped children." 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 (c) (1982). The Congress found that many handicapped children were not receiving adequate public educational support. 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 (b). The history of the act is traced in Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. School Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). In Rowley, the court stated at 179: "The Education of the Handicapped Act (Act), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U.S.C. Section 1401 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), provides federal money to assist state and local agencies in educating handicapped

Page 811

children, and conditions such funding upon a State's compliance with extensive goals and procedures. The Act represents an ambitious federal effort to promote the education of handicapped children, and was passed in response to Congress' perception that a majority of handicapped children in the United States `were either totally excluded from schools or [were] sitting idly in regular classrooms awaiting the time when they were old enough to "drop out."' H.R. Rep. No. 94-332, p. 2 (1975) (H.R. Rep.)." (Emphasis supplied.)

The court further stated, at 180-181: "In order to qualify for federal financial assistance under the Act, 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. Section 1412 (1). That policy must be reflected in a state plan submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Education, Section 1413, which describes in detail the goals, programs, and timetables under which the State intends to educate handicapped children within its borders. Sections 1412, 1413. States receiving money under the Act must provide education to the handicapped by priority, first `to handicapped children who are not receiving an education' and second `to handicapped children . . . with the most severe handicaps who are receiving an inadequate education,' Section 1412(3), and `to the maximum extent appropriate' must educate handicapped children `with children who are not handicapped.' Section 1412(5)." (Footnotes omitted.) Additionally, when a State receives Federal moneys under EAHCA, Section 1415 of the Act "imposes extensive procedural requirements upon States receiving federal funds under its provisions" (emphasis supplied). Id. at 182. The EAHCA leaves, however, the primary responsibility for developing and executing educational programs for handicapped children with the States. Id. at 183. [Note 10]

Page 812

The key question here is whether Section 1415, on which the trial judge relied, applies to agency decisions as to school years prior to the receipt by a State of Federal funds under Section 5(a), Part B of Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 793. We hold that it does not. Section 1415(a) states:

"Any State educational agency, any local educational agency, and any intermediate educational unit which receives assistance under this subchapter shall establish and maintain procedures in accordance with subsection (b) through subsection (e) of this section to assure that handicapped children and their parents or guardians are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of free appropriate public education by such agencies and units."

We agree with the court in Scokin v. Texas, 723 F.2d 432, 440 (5th Cir. 1984), which stated:

"The requirements set forth in the EAHCA are tied directly to the receipt of federal funds. . . .

". . . .

"Although Section 1412 allowed school districts until September 1, 1978 to provide a free appropriate education to handicapped children, the language of the Act indicates that its procedural requirements, set out in Section 1415, were to be enforced during any fiscal year that the state received funds under the Act. . .

". . . .

"Because the defendants in this case were not receiving EAHCA funding . . . , they were not subject to either the

Page 813

procedural or substantive requirements of the Act during the 1977-78 school year." [Note 11]

The judge in this case undertook no review of the agency decision pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, Section 14. His decision to take additional evidence was not in accord with the nature of judicial review provided by Section 14. See Fanion v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 391 Mass. 848 (1984); Marmer v. Board of Registration of Chiropractors, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 162, 164-168 (1974). Additionally, by applying the Federal standard of "fair preponderence" under Section 1415, rather than a review on the administrative record to determine whether the agency decision was supported by "substantial evidence," the judge committed error. Accordingly, his decision cannot stand, and the matter must be remanded for further proceedings.

On remand, the court is to apply the substantial evidence standard to its review of the administrative record to determine whether the decision of the agency as to the 1975-1976 school

Page 814

year is warranted. Assuming that the judge concluded that the agency decision is warranted by substantial evidence, then, reimbursement may be ordered paid to the parents for that school year in accordance with the criteria set forth by this court in Amherst-Pelham Regional School Comm. v. Department of Educ., 376 Mass. 480, 498 (1978). See Commonwealth v. School Comm. of Springfield, 382 Mass. 665, 677 (1981). 603 Code Mass. Regs. 28.00, Section 504.5 (f) (1981). Judgment is to be entered for the parents on their complaint, without further hearing, except as to the amount due for the reimbursement of their costs for Kevin's education for the 1974-1975 school year.

So ordered.