Extended School Year Services (ESY) - The Special Education Team

7/1999
Revised 8/2004
SIGNIFICANT COURT CASES RELATED TO ESY, continued
Armstrong v. Kline 476F.Supp. 583 (E.D. Pa. 1979)
Armstrong v. Kline (affirmed in Battle v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania)
established that for certain handicapped children... a program in excess of 180 days
is required if they are to attain that level of self-sufficiency that is otherwise possible
given an appropriate education. This case provided some standards to be considered
in ESY decisions: 1) nature of handicapping condition, 2) severity of handicapping
condition, 3) extent of regression or recoupment, and 4) skills in self-sufficiency and
independence from caretakers.
Johnson v. Independent School District No. 4 17EHLR170, 921 F.2d 1022 (10 th
Cir. 1990)
Regression-recoupment is not the only measure used to determine the necessity of
ESY. Other factors may include: 1) degree of impairment, 2) ability of the child's
parents to provide educational structure at home, 3) child's rate of progress, 4)
child's behavioral and physical problems, 5) availability of alternative resources, 6)
ability to interact with non-disabled peers, 7) areas of the curriculum which need
continuous attention, and 8) child's vocational needs.
Reusch v. Fountain 21IDELR1107, 872 F. Supp. 1421 (D.Md. 1994)
A federal judge said that a Maryland school district improperly restricted summer
school services by offering summer school only to students likely to regress. He
ordered the district to consider whether a summer break could: 1) halt the student's
progress toward developing critical life skills, 2) interrupt the student at a "critical
breakthrough" period, and 3) intensify "interfering behavior" such as aggression or
self-injurious behavior.
CESA #9: 1999 Determining ESY Services, Revised 2004 12