Armstrong verses Kline-1979

Vincent O’Neil

Introduction to Special Education 203

Landmark Court Case

Sat. September 26, 2020

 The case of Armstrong v. Kline dealt with children requiring special education who

needed more than 180 days of schooling per year. This need was based on the fact that during

their off time from school they regressed and would lose skills and knowledge they learned. “In

January 1978, five handicapped children and their parents commenced three class action

lawsuits. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated and continue to violate plaintiff children's

constitutional and statutory rights by denying them a free publicly funded education in excess of

180 days, the provision of which they seek to compel in these suits” (“Armstrong v. Kline, 476

F. Supp. 583 (E.D. Pa. 1979)”). These plaintiffs were suing against the then Secretary of

Education, Caryl M. Kline, the school district and superintendent of Philadelphia, members of

the Philadelphia Board of Education, the school district and superintendent of Abington, and the

Woods Schools and its president. “Defendants deny that regression is an effect of programming

interruptions and contend that any skill loss occurring during a break can be quickly recouped,

without major impact on the child's progress” (“Armstrong v. Kline, 476 F. Supp. 583 (E.D. Pa.

1979)”).

The case of Armstrong v. Kline was a landmark case because it helped better define and

implement the “Education for All Handicapped Children Act.” School districts and private

agencies throughout the country rely on federal funds provided to them for offering special

education services and through this case those special education services that are offered are now

held at a higher standard. “One of the major responsibilities of these agencies is assuring all

handicapped children provision of a "free appropriate public education," 20 U.S.C. § 1412(1).

And, under the Act, these children's parents and guardians have a right to secure its provision. 20

U.S.C. § 1415. By defendants' inflexible application of the 180 day rule, plaintiffs claim that

defendants have failed to meet their responsibilities under the Act and deny plaintiffs and
members of the class the right to a free appropriate public education” (“Armstrong v. Kline, 476

F. Supp. 583 (E.D. Pa. 1979)”).

The case of Armstrong v. Kline originated through due process hearings where the

children involved were advised that they would do better if they received summer or all year

schooling. For one child, “the hearing examiner decided that "as much programming as possible

should be done to prevent regression”” (“Armstrong v. Kline, 476 F. Supp. 583 (E.D. Pa.

1979)”). Not all of the children and parents involved challenged their I.E.P. or filed for due

process hearing. “Turning to the federal authorities, counsel for Armstrong, H., and Anderson

plaintiffs wrote to the federal Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education and

Welfare requesting an interpretive ruling on whether federal statutory law, i. e., the Education for

All Handicapped Children Act and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, can ever require

defendants to provide a program of continuous education to a handicapped child” (“Armstrong v.

Kline, 476 F. Supp. 583 (E.D. Pa. 1979)”).

The plaintiffs win their case and their hard work paved a new way for justice for all

persons who are disabled and/or handicapped. “…Congress recognized that "equal" services

does not always provide handicapped children with an "appropriate education" and, thus by

requiring defendants to meet the handicapped child's "unique needs", demanded that, in certain

instances, more be provided. Therefore, the Court must declare that the 180 day rule deprives

plaintiffs and the class they represent of an "appropriate education" and violates the Education

for All Handicapped Children Act.” (“Armstrong v. Kline, 476 F. Supp. 583 (E.D. Pa. 1979)”).

“Imagine what would be possible if the focus of our education system was on learning, rather

than on the number of days in the school year” (Hansen).

 Works Cited

“Armstrong v. Kline, 476 F. Supp. 583 (E.D. Pa. 1979).” Justia Law,

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/476/583/1378802/. Accessed 25 Sept.

2020.

Hansen, Ulcca. “Why Do Children Attend School for 180 Days Each Year?” Education Reimagined,

5 June 2019, https://education-reimagined.org/why-180-days/.