In which case did parents advocate for extended instructional time due to their children's regression during breaks?

In which case did parents advocate for extended instructional time due to their children's regression during breaks?

• A. Armstrong v. Kline
• B. Doe v. Withers
• C. Smith v. Brown
• D. Adams v. Clarke

Answer: (A)

The correct choice pertains to the significant case of Armstrong v. Kline, where parents highlighted the detrimental effects of extended breaks on their children with disabilities. The parents argued that these scheduled times off from school led to regression in their children’s learning and skills. They effectively advocated for extended instructional time, emphasizing the need to provide additional educational support to help prevent this regression. In Armstrong v. Kline, the concerns revolved around ensuring that children with disabilities receive appropriate educational services that account for their unique needs, particularly during transitions away from structured learning environments. The ruling in this case recognized the importance of maintaining consistency in education for these children, thereby affirming the parents' request for extended instructional time as a legitimate necessity to support their children's developmental progress. This case set a precedent for how educational services can be tailored to prevent regression in students with disabilities, emphasizing the duty of educational institutions to provide adequate support throughout the academic calendar.

The correct choice pertains to the significant case of Armstrong v. Kline, where parents highlighted the detrimental effects of extended breaks on their children with disabilities. The parents argued that these scheduled times off from school led to regression in their children’s learning and skills. They effectively advocated for extended instructional time, emphasizing the need to provide additional educational support to help prevent this regression.

In Armstrong v. Kline, the concerns revolved around ensuring that children with disabilities receive appropriate educational services that account for their unique needs, particularly during transitions away from structured learning environments. The ruling in this case recognized the importance of maintaining consistency in education for these children, thereby affirming the parents' request for extended instructional time as a legitimate necessity to support their children's developmental progress. This case set a precedent for how educational services can be tailored to prevent regression in students with disabilities, emphasizing the duty of educational institutions to provide adequate support throughout the academic calendar.