Introducing
Prezi AI.
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Loading…
Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools
155
Transcript
Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools
Meet Jonathan
Meet Jonathan Spielberg:
OVERVIEW
- A profoundly disabled 19 year old from Henrico County Virginia
- Developmentally, Jonathan has the functional skills of an 18 month old
U.S Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit
August 5, 1988
Schooling
- Since 1977 Jonathan attended Melmark school, a residual facility in Pennsylvania
- His services are paid for by the government under the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA)
- Jonathan's IEP goals focus on survival skills such as toileting
- He receives after school and evening care there
IN DEPTH
- The Spielbergs sought to appeal the decision to move Jonathan's placement
- The local hearing officer decided that there were no procedural violations of the EHA, and that the IEP was appropriate
- However, he felt that there was a residual violation and that Jonathan should live at Melmark
- The state reviewing officer disagreed, stating that Jonathan's placement at Randolph was adequate
DETAILS
Facts of the Case
FACTS
1
1
- In March of 1985, the county began re-evaluating Jonathan's placement
- They proposed that he should be educated at a local school
2
2
- County officials decided on a new placement at Virginia Randolph Special Education Center in Henrico
3
3
- Jonathan was scheduled to attend Randolph 5 1/2 hours per day during the school year
- In the summer, he would attend a 6 week program for 4 hours per day
- He would also be provided after school activities at home with either a caretaker of his parents
- The school would pay to train the caretaker
Decision
DECISION
- Judge Merhige finally concluded that the defendants did not provide proof that Randolph was a quality placement for Jonathan
- He made the final decision that the Melmark placement is the best fit for Jonathan
- The district court initially found that the school violated EHA
- Reason being, that they determined Jonathan's placement before creating an IEP
- The court later changed it's mind, due to referencing a similar case; Patterson C. v. Board of Education of Prince George's county
Patterson C. v. Board of Education of Prince George's County
- According to section 300.347, a chosen private school is supposed to be a part of formulating a student's IEP
- Under the EHA, an IEP should be created BEFORE a placement is decided for the student
- This process should only be reversed if the student is attending a private school. This is the exception to the rule
Significance
- This case is significant to the field of special education because it is an example of the importance of parental involvment and advocating for student needs
- My future students and parents might benefit from this case because it emphasizes the importance of an IEP that includes the student's best interest
- Administrators and educators should learn that an IEP needs to be formulated prior to making decisions for the student
- My overall impression is that this case is a good example of how parents can adovcate for their child's needs
SIGNIFICANCE
LINK
Samantha Stark
https://casetext.com/case/spielberg-v-henrico-county-public-schools?resultsNav=false
WEB LINK
REFERENCES
References
ERVIN, C. J. (n.d.). Spielbergv.Henrico County Public
Schools. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://casetext.com/case/spielberg-v-henrico-county-public-schools?resultsNav=false
Choose a template
Presentations from around the world
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi