The 1980 court case, Armstrong V. Kline, drew from parents of children with exceptionalities becoming upset with the education system’s 180-day school year rule1. Beginning in January of 1980, they decided that enough was enough and they needed to do something before summer vacation came so, their child/children would not lose everything they learned during the school year1. The parents took on the court case, filing three class action lawsuits, all of which were against Caryl Kline, the secretary of education and chief official of the Department of Education1. The result of this particular case relieved me but, the fact it had to become a court case, I found to be absolutely ridiculous. Also, the terminology they used while describing the
…show more content…
Kline case was based out of Pennsylvania with the plaintiffs being five severely disabled children against Caryl Kline1. On the side of the plaintiffs were their parents to speak for them and argue for their rights, under the Education for all Handicapped Children Act1. They argued that their child/children, and children like them, lost the skills they acquired over the school year during summer break1. Basically, they would come back to school and start in the same exact spot they did a year prior1. The parents wanted school and/or services to be made available to their children year round, so, they could make and maintain their progress1. The plaintiffs side challenged the 180-day school year rule under the violation of equal protection, under the fourteenth amendment, and, as I mentioned previously, the Education for all Handicapped Children Act, too1. This side, also, made the point that the Department of Education requires at least one annual IEP per child1. An IEP includes the current levels of the child and, the goals they hope to obtain within that years’ time1. However, districts refused to fund more than the 180 days, even though it is an annual, aka one years’ time, goal(s) to achieve list1. On the other side of this debate are the defendants, who claim that the loss of skills are due to the nonfunctionality of what is being taught to the children, a lack of competence in teachers and, that parents are failing to practice the program properly with their children1. To sum it up, they believe that the absence during the summer is of no significance to the loss of skills in the children1. After a few months, on July 15, 1980, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs thus creating school and services year round for students who qualify for special education and, the new program, ESY (Extended School Year)1. Although, the children must qualify for ESY, they are still one step closer in the right direction for helping students with
Kline case was based out of Pennsylvania with the plaintiffs being five severely disabled children against Caryl Kline1. On the side of the plaintiffs were their parents to speak for them and argue for their rights, under the Education for all Handicapped Children Act1. They argued that their child/children, and children like them, lost the skills they acquired over the school year during summer break1. Basically, they would come back to school and start in the same exact spot they did a year prior1. The parents wanted school and/or services to be made available to their children year round, so, they could make and maintain their progress1. The plaintiffs side challenged the 180-day school year rule under the violation of equal protection, under the fourteenth amendment, and, as I mentioned previously, the Education for all Handicapped Children Act, too1. This side, also, made the point that the Department of Education requires at least one annual IEP per child1. An IEP includes the current levels of the child and, the goals they hope to obtain within that years’ time1. However, districts refused to fund more than the 180 days, even though it is an annual, aka one years’ time, goal(s) to achieve list1. On the other side of this debate are the defendants, who claim that the loss of skills are due to the nonfunctionality of what is being taught to the children, a lack of competence in teachers and, that parents are failing to practice the program properly with their children1. To sum it up, they believe that the absence during the summer is of no significance to the loss of skills in the children1. After a few months, on July 15, 1980, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs thus creating school and services year round for students who qualify for special education and, the new program, ESY (Extended School Year)1. Although, the children must qualify for ESY, they are still one step closer in the right direction for helping students with