Which case established that extended school year services may be required for students who may regress over long periods without formal schooling?

Which case established that extended school year services may be required for students who may regress over long periods without formal schooling?

• A. Greeley v. Smith (1990)
• B. Lombardo v. City School (1988)
• C. Armstrong v. Kline (1979)
• D. Daniel v. Doe (1992)

Answer: (C)

Extended school year services are meant to prevent loss of skills during long breaks for students with disabilities. Armstrong v. Kline (1979) established that, for some students, what’s learned during the regular school year can be lost during extended breaks like summer, and that continuing education during those breaks may be necessary to maintain progress. The court introduced the idea that decisions about ESY should consider regression and the ability to reacquire skills—meaning the IEP team must determine if the student would regress and struggle to catch up without additional services beyond the school year. This case set the foundational principle that ESY can be required to preserve gains for students with significant needs, rather than only providing standard instruction during the regular term. Other cases address different issues and do not establish this regression-based justification for ESY.

Extended school year services are meant to prevent loss of skills during long breaks for students with disabilities. Armstrong v. Kline (1979) established that, for some students, what’s learned during the regular school year can be lost during extended breaks like summer, and that continuing education during those breaks may be necessary to maintain progress. The court introduced the idea that decisions about ESY should consider regression and the ability to reacquire skills—meaning the IEP team must determine if the student would regress and struggle to catch up without additional services beyond the school year. This case set the foundational principle that ESY can be required to preserve gains for students with significant needs, rather than only providing standard instruction during the regular term. Other cases address different issues and do not establish this regression-based justification for ESY.