Spielberg by Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools
| Decision Date | 22 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 87-3640,87-3643,s. 87-3640 |
| Citation | 853 F.2d 256 |
| Parties | 48 Ed. Law Rep. 352 Jonathan SPIELBERG, a minor, by his parents, Howard and Susan SPIELBERG, as his next friend; Howard Spielberg; Susan Spielberg, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HENRICO COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; Malcolm M. Christian, Chairman, Henrico County School Board; William C. Bosher, Jr., Superintendent, Henrico County Public Schools; Morton Bradman, Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Support Services, Henrico County Public Schools; Joann Marchant, Principal, Virginia Randolph Special Education Center, Henrico County Public Schools; Patricia Martin, Special Education Teacher, Virginia Randolph Special Education Center, Henrico County Public Schools; Gwendolyn Whiting, Home Support Trainer, Virginia Randolph Special Education Center; Dorothy Sugarman, Social Worker, Henrico County Public Schools; School Psychologist, Henrico County Public Schools, Defendants-Appellants. Jonathan SPIELBERG, a minor, by his parents, Howard and Susan SPIELBERG, as his next friend; Howard Spielberg; Susan Spielberg, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HENRICO COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; Malcolm M. Christian, Chairman, Henrico County School Board; William C. Bosher, Jr., Superintendent, Henrico County Public Schools; Morton Bradman; Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Support Services, Henrico County Public Schools; Joann Marchant, Principal, Virginia Randolph Special Education Center, Henrico County Public Schools; Patricia Martin, Special Education Teacher, Virginia Randolph Special Education Center, Henrico County Public Schools; Gwendolyn Whiting, Home Support Trainer, Virginia Randolph Special Education Center; Dorothy Sugarman, Social Worker, Henrico County Public Schools; Social Worker, Henrico County Public Schools; School Psychologist, Henrico County Public Schools, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Joseph T. Tokarz, II, Richmond, Va., for defendants-appellants.
Thomas Franklin Guernsey, Richmond, Va., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan Spielberg is a severely retarded nineteen year old resident of Henrico County, Virginia. Since 1977, the Henrico County Public Schools have paid the full cost of his education at the Melmark School ("Melmark"), a residential facility in Pennsylvania, under the Education of All Handicapped Children Act ("EHA"), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401, et seq. In March 1985, the county initiated a reevaluation of Jonathan's placement which concluded that he could be educated at a local school. His parents appealed that decision, seeking to continue his institutional placement. The district court reversed the state administrative decision, first finding that the county violated EHA procedures, and on reconsideration finding that Jonathan requires institutional placement. We affirm based on procedural violations of the EHA.
Jonathan Spielberg possesses the functional skills of an eighteen month old child. His capabilities are extremely limited, and his individualized education programs ("IEP") at Melmark have concentrated on survival skills, such as toilet training. At Melmark, where he continues to study under the "stay put" provision of the EHA, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(3), he goes to school throughout the year and receives after school and evening care and training.
The 1985 reevaluation began only nine months after a regular triennial evaluation which continued Jonathan's Melmark placement. From the beginning, county officials focused on a new placement at Virginia Randolph Special Education Center ("Randolph"), a public facility in Henrico County. After a series of letters and meetings between school officials and the Spielbergs, a new IEP was drawn up providing for Jonathan to attend Randolph during the day while living at home. He would attend school 5- 1/2 hours per day during a nine month school year and four hours daily during a six week summer session. After school activities would be home-based, involving either his parents or a hired caretaker, with training available for them from a trainer provided by the school.
The Spielbergs first appealed the placement decision administratively. The local hearing officer concluded that there were no procedural violations of the EHA, and that the new IEP was appropriate, but that Jonathan required residential placement at Melmark. The state reviewing officer affirmed on the procedural compliance issue, but reversed on the placement issue, finding Randolph placement to be appropriate. The Spielbergs appealed this decision to the district court under 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2).
The district court initially found that the school system violated EHA procedure by determining appropriate placement before developing an IEP. See 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.552. The court based its finding on a series of letters written before the IEP meeting held in November, 1985, which focused on a change from Melmark to Randolph. Based on the procedural violation, the court ordered the continuation of Melmark placement.
The court subsequently vacated its initial decision in light of 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.347 and Patterson C. v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, No. M-85-3948 (D.Md. Sept. 23, 1986), aff'd, 818 F.2d 29 (4th Cir.1987) (per curiam). In Patterson C., the courts affirmed an IEP developed after placement in a private school was decided. Section 300.347 specifically calls for a chosen private school to participate in IEP development. After vacating his earlier decision, however, Judge Merhige reached the same result on the merits. He found that the burden of proof was on the defendants as they were seeking to change Jonathan's placement. He further found that they had not carried that burden by showing that Jonathan would receive educational benefits at Randolph. Therefore, he ordered the Melmark placement to continue. The defendants appeal his decision regarding placement, and the Spielbergs appeal his finding of procedural compliance.
Congress, through the EHA, uses federal money to induce the states to provide handicapped students with a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"). An IEP is developed for each handicapped child by school officials and the child's parents. Educational placement is based on the IEP, which is revised annually. Disputes regarding the IEP or placement are subject to administrative and judicial review.
In judicially reviewing the administrative outcome, the courts should make "independent decisions based on a preponderance of the evidence." Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 205, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3050, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982); see 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2). 1 Due weight shall be given to state administrative proceedings, as the primary responsibility for developing IEPs belongs to state and local agencies in cooperation with the parents, not the courts. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-207, 102 S.Ct. at 3050-51. The reviewing court should make two inquiries: (1) Did the school board procedurally comply with the EHA and its implementing regulations? (2) Is the IEP reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits to the child? Id. 2
The district court found that the defendants decided to change Jonathan's placement from Melmark to Randolph before developing a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Natrona County School Dist. No. 1 v. McKnight
...limitation statutes. Cf. Spiegel v. School Dist. No. 1, Laramie County, 600 F.2d 264 (10th Cir.1979). Spielberg By Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools, 853 F.2d 256 (4th Cir.1988); Adler, 760 F.2d 454; Flavin v. Connecticut State Bd. of Educ., 553 F.Supp. 827 (D.Conn.1982); and Note,......
-
Independent School Dist. No. 283 v. S.D. by J.D.
...Concord School Committee, supra at 991, citing Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884, 887 (D.C.Cir. 1988); Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools, 853 F.2d 256, 258 n. 2 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1016, 109 S.Ct. 1131, 103 L.Ed.2d 192 (1989). For our purposes here, we think the d......
-
Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Educ.
...substantive harm and therefore deprived Zachary of a FAPE. The leading case on predetermination is Spielberg ex rel. Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools, 853 F.2d 256 (4th Cir.1988). There, the district court had concluded, based on a series of letters written before the IEP meeting ......
-
Goleta Union Elementary School Dist. v. Ordway
...placement decisions must be based upon the IEP. 34 C.F.R. § 300.552(a)(2). Thus, the IEP must be developed before a placement is chosen. Spielberg by Spielberg v. Henrico County Pub. Sch., 853 F.2d 256, 259 (4th The Court finds that under clearly established law, Andrew's transfer from Gole......