180 Day Barrier: Issues and Concerns

Abstract

Legal and educational issues related to year-round education for handicapped individuals are discussed. A review of legal developments supporting 12 month education and an historical exploration of the goals of compulsory schooling demonstrate the inherent conflict between providing a free appropriate education to all handicapped children and the existence of the 180 day rule. Additional arguments in support of year-round schooling are based on the concerns of parents and teachers, as well as the apparent methodological advantages to avoiding lengthy breaks in programing for the severely handicapped children. Finally, it is suggested that the concept of year-round schooling is not inconsistent with the goals of mainstreaming and the need of severely handicapped individuals to have the opportunity to generalize learned skills.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Armstrong v. Kline, 476 F. Supp. 583 (E. D. Pa. 1979), Aff'd CA 78–0172 (3rd Cir. July 15, 1980).

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Day

R. M.

Day

H. M.

Leisure skills instruction for the moderately and severely retarded: A demonstration program. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1977, 12(2), 128–131.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P. L. 94-142), Rules and Regulations for Implementation of Part B. Federal Register, August 23, 1977, 42474–42514.

Fredericks

H. D.

Anderson

Baldwin

V. L.

Grove

Moore

Beaird

The identification of competencies of teachers of the severely handicapped. Project report (Grant #OEG-0-74-2775). Monmouth OR: Teaching Resources Division, Oregon State Agency for Higher Education, 1978.

McCormick

Cooper

Goldman

Training teachers to maximize instructional time provided to severely and profoundly handicapped children. AAESPH Review, 1979, 4(3), 301–310.

McCormick

Goldman

The transdisciplinary model: Implications for service delivery and personnel preparation for the severely and profoundly handicapped. AAESPH Review, 1979 4(2), 152–161.

Mahoney v. Administrative School District No. 1, 601 P. 2d (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).

10.

North v. The District of Columbia Board of Education, 471 F. Supp. 136 (D.D.C. 1979).

11.

PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1971).

12.

People v. Levisen, 90 N.E.2d 213 (1950).

13.

Schedgick

Deschapelles

Curriculum for the severely handicapped: Focus on the generalization process. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1978, 13(4), 389–393.

14.

Shinn v. People, 195 Cal. App 2d 683, 16 Cal. Rptr. 165 (4th Dist. 1961).

15.

Stephens v. Bongart, 189 Atl. 131 (Jur & Dom Rel Ct. 1937).

16.

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).