School doesn't allow service dog to accompany hearing-impaired teen

[Cathy Weeks]

Hi all,

http://tinyurl.com/ymxhpj

I'm really puzzled by this one. I've read several stories, and watched
an interview, and the mother at least, strikes me as being a bit
mother-bearish (and somewhat annoying). However, I can't figure out the
educators. I don't understand why they would ban the dog, unless it's
because they don't like the family for not necessarily going through
proper channels (at least that's what the school claims). But that
seems like a poor reason for a decision.

The dog isn't strictly necessary as an educational tool. He has some
hearing with the aid of cochlear implants, has an ASL interpeter in
school, plus uses an FM system where the teacher's words are
transmitted into speakers that sit on his desk. However, the dog is,
as the mother calls it, an "independent living tool." He alerts the
boy to sounds - alarms, cars, trains, etc.

Now that said - he's not likely to be hit by a car or train in school.
And he's not terribly likely to be alone when a fire alarm goes off.
For purposes of school, the dog's most important role is to provide a
more normal "access" to school - making it safer for the kid to get to
and from school alone.

So, I wonder the following:

1. What harm will be done by having the dog present?

I would guess that there'd be a few days of distractible students who
are fawning over the dog, but they'd get over it pretty quickly. And
besides, service dogs are a part of life - and school is a fine place
to expose them to the situation, and train *them* how to handle it.

Animal hair allergies? How common are dog hair/dander allergies? Are
they as problematic as cat allergies? And service animals are
protected at other venues - restaurants, theaters, public transit etc,
so I'm not sure if the allergy issue is valid given that?

2. Aren't service dogs protected? Isn't the school violating federal
law by banning the dog, despite the dog not being "strictly necessary"
to his education? If a blind kid had an assigned (human) guide who
took him or her from class to class, would the school be allowed to ban
the dog then?

3. The mother says the boy needs to be with his dog 24x7 in order for
proper bonding and training to occur - I don't know anything about
service animals - is this a valid concern?

I'd appreciate other's thoughts on the matter - particularly why the
school might choose to make the decision that it did.

Cathy Weeks

[Cathy Weeks]

Cathy Weeks wrote:

> The dog isn't strictly necessary as an educational tool. He has some
> hearing with the aid of cochlear implants, has an ASL interpeter in

Er, the *boy* has some hearing, with the aid of the cochlear implants.
;-)

Sorry for the misplaced modifier.

Cathy Weeks

[Jeff]

"Cathy Weeks" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Hi all,
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ymxhpj
>
> I'm really puzzled by this one. I've read several stories, and watched
> an interview, and the mother at least, strikes me as being a bit
> mother-bearish (and somewhat annoying). However, I can't figure out the
> educators. I don't understand why they would ban the dog, unless it's
> because they don't like the family for not necessarily going through
> proper channels (at least that's what the school claims). But that
> seems like a poor reason for a decision.
>
> The dog isn't strictly necessary as an educational tool. He has some
> hearing with the aid of cochlear implants, has an ASL interpeter in
> school, plus uses an FM system where the teacher's words are
> transmitted into speakers that sit on his desk. However, the dog is,
> as the mother calls it, an "independent living tool." He alerts the
> boy to sounds - alarms, cars, trains, etc.
>
> Now that said - he's not likely to be hit by a car or train in school.
> And he's not terribly likely to be alone when a fire alarm goes off.
> For purposes of school, the dog's most important role is to provide a
> more normal "access" to school - making it safer for the kid to get to
> and from school alone.
>
> So, I wonder the following:
>
> 1. What harm will be done by having the dog present?
>
> I would guess that there'd be a few days of distractible students who
> are fawning over the dog, but they'd get over it pretty quickly. And
> besides, service dogs are a part of life - and school is a fine place
> to expose them to the situation, and train *them* how to handle it.
>
> Animal hair allergies? How common are dog hair/dander allergies? Are
> they as problematic as cat allergies? And service animals are
> protected at other venues - restaurants, theaters, public transit etc,
> so I'm not sure if the allergy issue is valid given that?
>
> 2. Aren't service dogs protected? Isn't the school violating federal
> law by banning the dog, despite the dog not being "strictly necessary"
> to his education? If a blind kid had an assigned (human) guide who
> took him or her from class to class, would the school be allowed to ban
> the dog then?
>
> 3. The mother says the boy needs to be with his dog 24x7 in order for
> proper bonding and training to occur - I don't know anything about
> service animals - is this a valid concern?
>
> I'd appreciate other's thoughts on the matter - particularly why the
> school might choose to make the decision that it did.
>
> Cathy Weeks

Apparently, hearing and signal dogs are permitted in any public building,
including schools, just as dogs for the blind are.

http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/service.html

If this is the case, there aren't proper channels to go through. And it
doesn't matter if they don't like the kid or family.

I hope the family wins in court.

Allergies are a valid issue. However, I am sure if it is an issue, they can
work around it.

Jeff

[Donna Metler]

One thing which troubles me on this-my experience is that before you have a
service dog, you have to go through a LOT of training and preparation. It
doesn't sound, based on the article like this is happening. There should be
no question about bonding with the dog when the dog is already out in public
because that has already happened in training. I also wonder what other
demands have been made-for example, has the school been told that the
student will have to take the dog outside every few hours and there's no
safe place to do it or something? I just have the feeling that there's got
to be a bit more to the story than we're seeing-because I honestly don't
know why a school would face the legal repurcussions that could come from
barring a trained, certified service dog unless there's something else going
on.

I'm on a "signing with children" board which has many Deaf adults and
parents of Deaf children, and I'll be very interested in seeing what is said
there about this.

--
Donna DeVore Metler
Orff Music Specialist/Kindermusik
Mother to Angel Brian Anthony 1/1/2002, 22 weeks, severe PE/HELLP
And Allison Joy, 11/25/04 (35 weeks, PIH, Pre-term labor)

[Cathy Weeks]

Donna Metler wrote:
> One thing which troubles me on this-my experience is that before you have a
> service dog, you have to go through a LOT of training and preparation.

One of the articles that I read said that she's been fighting with the
school for a year or thereabouts on this issue - so I *think* there has
been prep work that's been happening for quite awhile.

> safe place to do it or something? I just have the feeling that there's got
> to be a bit more to the story than we're seeing-because I honestly don't
> know why a school would face the legal repurcussions that could come from
> barring a trained, certified service dog unless there's something else going
> on.

That's been my feeling too - I just can't figue out *why* the school
would ban the dog, so I must assume there's more going on than has been
made public.

Cathy Weeks

[bizby40]

"Cathy Weeks" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Donna Metler wrote:
>> safe place to do it or something? I just have the feeling that
>> there's got
>> to be a bit more to the story than we're seeing-because I honestly
>> don't
>> know why a school would face the legal repurcussions that could
>> come from
>> barring a trained, certified service dog unless there's something
>> else going
>> on.
>
> That's been my feeling too - I just can't figue out *why* the school
> would ban the dog, so I must assume there's more going on than has
> been
> made public.

I tried to look up more about this, but it seems like every article I
find is the same one with slight editing changes. Here is what I can
glean:

1. The school has said that the family would have to follow proper
channels to get permission for the dog to be in school. This says to
me that either the family has not followed those channels, or they
tried to and were denied.

2. The school says they are keeping the dog out because of State and
Federal guidelines. Notice the wording there "because of...the
guidelines", not "because the guidelines allow it." This says to me
that the school feels they are required to keep the dog out, probably
because the proper permissions were not gained. This seems to be a
reasonable stance, because otherwise, anyone could show up and claim
they needed their animal, right? So they allow service animals, as
long as they have been properly registered.

3. The school maintains that the dog is not needed at school. The
family has not argued that, nor have they tried to argue that the dog
is needed for traveling to and from school. In fact, the only reason
the family wants the dog at the school is to maintain the "bond." I
know that they do encourage people and their service animals to be
together as much as possible, and even police dog trainers take their
dogs home with them to preserve this bond. So it does seem to me that
the family has a case that not allowing the dog at school would cause
harm, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure one way or the
other.

4. The law doesn't seem to be a slam-dunk in this area. I'm not sure
why not -- it seems to say very explicitly that "any blind person, or
deaf or hearing handicapped person, or other physically handicapped
person accompanied by a dog guide, shall be entitled to any and all
accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of all public
conveyances, public amusements and places of public accommodation,
within the commonwealth, to which persons not accompanied by dogs are
entitled." But perhaps it is because the dog is not expected to
perform a service in this setting, and because the teen has full
access to the facility without the dog.

Bizby

[Cathy Weeks]

bizby40 wrote:
> 1. The school has said that the family would have to follow proper
> channels to get permission for the dog to be in school. This says to
> me that either the family has not followed those channels, or they
> tried to and were denied.

According to the mother, there *are* no processes or proper chanels -
that there is nothing set up at the school to handle this. She made it
*sound* like they had tried. She also suggested that the ADA made it
clear that they should not have to go through such channels, either
way, and that they have been trying to get permission for over a year.
Not sure one way or another how I feel about this. But you are right -
we don't know all the details.

> 2. The school says they are keeping the dog out because of State and
> Federal guidelines. Notice the wording there "because of...the
> guidelines", not "because the guidelines allow it." This says to me
> that the school feels they are required to keep the dog out, probably
> because the proper permissions were not gained. This seems to be a
> reasonable stance, because otherwise, anyone could show up and claim
> they needed their animal, right? So they allow service animals, as
> long as they have been properly registered.

I'm not sure I agree with this. A library or theater or college campus
or restaurant aren't entitled to bar someone with a service dog, until
they've grant permission for someone with a service dog to enter. I
really don't think there's going to be a worry about any non-disabled
kid showing up with a dog, and trying to make a case for bringing the
dog. It's pretty obvious which dogs are service dogs, and which
aren't. And the kid is profoundly deaf - and has a known, serious
disability. *IF* it becomes a problem, then all the school has to do,
is ask for proof that it's a service dog.

> 3. The school maintains that the dog is not needed at school. The
> family has not argued that, nor have they tried to argue that the dog
> is needed for traveling to and from school.

But I think this is a double standard. If a blind kid is provided with
a full-time human guide who takes them around the school, would the
school really be able to argue that he or she didn't need the
seeing-eye dog at school?

In fact, the only reason
> the family wants the dog at the school is to maintain the "bond." I
> know that they do encourage people and their service animals to be
> together as much as possible, and even police dog trainers take their
> dogs home with them to preserve this bond. So it does seem to me that
> the family has a case that not allowing the dog at school would cause
> harm, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure one way or the
> other.
>
> 4. The law doesn't seem to be a slam-dunk in this area. I'm not sure
> why not -- it seems to say very explicitly that "any blind person, or
> deaf or hearing handicapped person, or other physically handicapped
> person accompanied by a dog guide, shall be entitled to any and all
> accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of all public
> conveyances, public amusements and places of public accommodation,
> within the commonwealth, to which persons not accompanied by dogs are
> entitled." But perhaps it is because the dog is not expected to
> perform a service in this setting, and because the teen has full
> access to the facility without the dog.

>From the quote above, I don't think that the school has the right to
ban the dog. Regardless of whether the dog is needed for his
education.

Cathy Weeks

[Beth Kevles]

Hi --

My questions would be:

1. Is it really a Service Dog, with certified training, etc.? If not,
the dog has not legal protections.
2. Dog allergies *can* be very serious. In addition to allergies,
there are children who are completely terrified of dogs, to the
extent that they will become incapable of functioning around one.
Both of these situations would require that the competing needs of
the boy and the other children be considered.
3. If the boy has some hearing with the cochlear implant, it isn't
clear why he actually *needs* the dog. It may be that he needs an
accomodation, but perhaps not that particular one in order to be
able to get around safely.

All of the above are questions, not answers.

My two cents,
--Beth Kevles

http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would
like me to reply.

[Banty]

In article m>, Cathy Weeks
says...
>
>Hi all,
>
>http://tinyurl.com/ymxhpj
>
>I'm really puzzled by this one. I've read several stories, and watched
>an interview, and the mother at least, strikes me as being a bit
>mother-bearish (and somewhat annoying). However, I can't figure out the
>educators. I don't understand why they would ban the dog, unless it's
>because they don't like the family for not necessarily going through
>proper channels (at least that's what the school claims). But that
>seems like a poor reason for a decision.
>
>The dog isn't strictly necessary as an educational tool. He has some
>hearing with the aid of cochlear implants, has an ASL interpeter in
>school, plus uses an FM system where the teacher's words are
>transmitted into speakers that sit on his desk. However, the dog is,
>as the mother calls it, an "independent living tool." He alerts the
>boy to sounds - alarms, cars, trains, etc.
>
>Now that said - he's not likely to be hit by a car or train in school.
>And he's not terribly likely to be alone when a fire alarm goes off.
>For purposes of school, the dog's most important role is to provide a
>more normal "access" to school - making it safer for the kid to get to
>and from school alone.
>
>So, I wonder the following:
>
>1. What harm will be done by having the dog present?
>
>I would guess that there'd be a few days of distractible students who
>are fawning over the dog, but they'd get over it pretty quickly. And
>besides, service dogs are a part of life - and school is a fine place
>to expose them to the situation, and train *them* how to handle it.

Well, there's service dogs and there are service dogs. Seeing eye dogs are
fairly essential to just get around. That's a commonly recognized exception to
a no-dogs rule.

But the given reason here is to foster *bonding*. As if dogs and boys who go to
school don't bond. I don't know if I'd go in for that either as a school
administrator.

They are training dogs as companion and sevice dogs for all kinds of
disabilities now. It's a fair question what's really needed in a place like a
school, which is different from what's needed on the street. And this boy has
other supports, including an interpretor.

>
>Animal hair allergies? How common are dog hair/dander allergies? Are
>they as problematic as cat allergies? And service animals are
>protected at other venues - restaurants, theaters, public transit etc,
>so I'm not sure if the allergy issue is valid given that?

It's *extremely* common. I have problems around some dogs.

>
>2. Aren't service dogs protected? Isn't the school violating federal
>law by banning the dog, despite the dog not being "strictly necessary"
>to his education? If a blind kid had an assigned (human) guide who
>took him or her from class to class, would the school be allowed to ban
>the dog then?

My bet would be - the seeing eye dog would be regarded as more essential and
allowed.

>
>3. The mother says the boy needs to be with his dog 24x7 in order for
>proper bonding and training to occur - I don't know anything about
>service animals - is this a valid concern?

I find that far-fetched.

Banty

[Barbara]

Beth Kevles wrote:
> Hi --
>
> My questions would be:
>
> 1. Is it really a Service Dog, with certified training, etc.? If not,
> the dog has not legal protections.
> 2. Dog allergies *can* be very serious. In addition to allergies,
> there are children who are completely terrified of dogs, to the
> extent that they will become incapable of functioning around one.
> Both of these situations would require that the competing needs of
> the boy and the other children be considered.
> 3. If the boy has some hearing with the cochlear implant, it isn't
> clear why he actually *needs* the dog. It may be that he needs an
> accomodation, but perhaps not that particular one in order to be
> able to get around safely.
>
> All of the above are questions, not answers.
>
As I've read it, the dog is indeed a genuine service dog, trained to
help the deaf.

The rest of it is fuzzy. No one argues that the dog serves any
educational purpose whatsoever, or that the boy needs the dog in any
way, shape or form in school, where he has a full-time aid. Indeed, he
has apparently been attending local public schools his entire life
without a service animal. And, IIRC, there are no issues with his
travel to and from school.

But he will apparently need the service animal more and more as he
gains independence in the world. And the parents are taking the
position that in order to foster a bond between the boy and the dog,
the dog needs to be with him 24/7 -- meaning that the dog needs to be
in school with him solely for the purposes of bonding, not providing
any services.

I'd hazard a guess that what the school wants is for the family to
request modification of the IEP to permit the use of a service animal.
At the very least, the school would want a 504 plan in place. That's
what schools generally require for any educational accomodations, right
down to sitting in the front of the class. I'd also hazard a guess
that the parents really don't want to do that. Right now, the school
district is almost certainly paying for the full-time aid. The last
thing that the parents would want would be to go in to the Committee on
Special Education and suggest that the dog could provide some of the
services that the aid is now providing, and risk losing services. Just
a guess on my part, though.

I also have no way of knowing whether the parents are right about the
bonding. It would seem to me that they should have tried to obtain the
dog over the summer to allow for intensive training and bonding at that
time. Then, if 24/7 contact was needed thereafter, then, well, the
parents are right about bringing the animal to school.

I'm also not real clear how much hearing the boy has. He's been
described as profoundly deaf, with cochlear implants. But there is
also reference to use of an FM unit at school, of the type that has a
box on the desk (as opposed to sound field or ear unit). Now these I
DO know about, since we've long considered getting one for One, who has
auditory processing disorder. The FM unit lets you hear more clearly
as it cuts down on distortion and background noise. But, frankly, if
your hearing is so bad that you can't hear a fire alarm, the FM unit is
not going to work for you. So he has at least sufficient hearing to
allow him to get at least some of the lecture orally. But ... he is
also sufficiently disabled to require an aid.

No easy answers for me. I guess I err on the side of -- if this is
what he will need to gain independence as he becomes a teenager, and
eventually to lead a normal life, then what difference does it make if
it serves a purpose in the school. Let him have it.

Barbara

[bizby40]

"Beth Kevles" > wrote in message
...
> 1. Is it really a Service Dog, with certified training, etc.? If
> not,
> the dog has not legal protections.

I think it is fully trained, but I can't find any requirement under
the law that certification is required. Furthermore, federal law does
*not* seem to guarantee them the right to take the dog to school.
Massachusetts State law looks like it does, but I think the thing that
makes it fuzzy is that he does not *need* to bring the dog with him to
have full access to the school, he just chooses to do so.

> 2. Dog allergies *can* be very serious. In addition to allergies,
> there are children who are completely terrified of dogs, to the
> extent that they will become incapable of functioning around one.
> Both of these situations would require that the competing needs
> of
> the boy and the other children be considered.

According the the Americans with Disabilities Act website, allergies
and fear of dogs are generally *not* considered safety hazards
sufficient to allow service animals to be banned.

> 3. If the boy has some hearing with the cochlear implant, it isn't
> clear why he actually *needs* the dog. It may be that he needs
> an
> accomodation, but perhaps not that particular one in order to be
> able to get around safely.

Yes, and all sides seem to agree that the dog is not necessary for him
in school.

I'm rather disappointed in the family though. Apparently the mom got
in a shouting match with school officials the first day and ended up
cussing them out, and taking her son back home when the dog wasn't
allowed. The next day, knowing what had happened the first, she sent
him back to school, but did not accompany him. When he wasn't allowed
in, she eventually came and got the dog and took it home, but now
she's claiming that the school committed child abuse by leaving the
boy outside in the cold for 1/2 hour.

I was undecided at first, but now I'm leaning towards being on the
school's side.

Bizby

[Cathy Weeks]

bizby40 wrote:
> I'm rather disappointed in the family though. Apparently the mom got
> in a shouting match with school officials the first day and ended up
> cussing them out, and taking her son back home when the dog wasn't
> allowed. The next day, knowing what had happened the first, she sent
> him back to school, but did not accompany him. When he wasn't allowed
> in, she eventually came and got the dog and took it home, but now
> she's claiming that the school committed child abuse by leaving the
> boy outside in the cold for 1/2 hour.
>
> I was undecided at first, but now I'm leaning towards being on the
> school's side.

That's the thing though - even if the mother is obnoxious, and I think
we all agree that she is - I'm not sure that's a good enough reason to
ban the dog, or even to favor the school. Her behavior aside - did
they do the right thing in banning the dog? Did they break federal
law? I agree with you about it not being clear - when I went to the
ADA website, it said all public buildings, and then gave a bunch as
example, and schools were not included in that list.

Cathy Weeks

[bizby40]

"Cathy Weeks" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> bizby40 wrote:
>> I'm rather disappointed in the family though. Apparently the mom
>> got
>> in a shouting match with school officials the first day and ended
>> up
>> cussing them out, and taking her son back home when the dog wasn't
>> allowed. The next day, knowing what had happened the first, she
>> sent
>> him back to school, but did not accompany him. When he wasn't
>> allowed
>> in, she eventually came and got the dog and took it home, but now
>> she's claiming that the school committed child abuse by leaving the
>> boy outside in the cold for 1/2 hour.
>>
>> I was undecided at first, but now I'm leaning towards being on the
>> school's side.
>
> That's the thing though - even if the mother is obnoxious, and I
> think
> we all agree that she is - I'm not sure that's a good enough reason
> to
> ban the dog, or even to favor the school. Her behavior aside - did
> they do the right thing in banning the dog? Did they break federal
> law? I agree with you about it not being clear - when I went to the
> ADA website, it said all public buildings, and then gave a bunch as
> example, and schools were not included in that list.

That statement was intended to refer to the entire post, not merely
this last paragraph. Given that the law does not appear to be
completely clear, and that the family has acknowledged that the boy
does not need to have the dog at school, and that the family seems to
be inclined to be purposely provocative, my sympathies lie with the
school. I'd feel differently if the dog was expected to serve some
purpose.

The law may eventually come down on the family's side, and it may turn
out that the 24 hours/day really is needed for the dog to perform his
duties faithfully, and that's fine. But it looks like the family is
out to demonize the school, and I don't agree with that.

Bizby

[Knit Chic]

"Banty" > wrote in message
...
> In article m>, Cathy
> Weeks
> says...
>>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/ymxhpj
>>
>>I'm really puzzled by this one. I've read several stories, and watched
>>an interview, and the mother at least, strikes me as being a bit
>>mother-bearish (and somewhat annoying). However, I can't figure out the
>>educators. I don't understand why they would ban the dog, unless it's
>>because they don't like the family for not necessarily going through
>>proper channels (at least that's what the school claims). But that
>>seems like a poor reason for a decision.
>>
>>The dog isn't strictly necessary as an educational tool. He has some
>>hearing with the aid of cochlear implants, has an ASL interpeter in
>>school, plus uses an FM system where the teacher's words are
>>transmitted into speakers that sit on his desk. However, the dog is,
>>as the mother calls it, an "independent living tool." He alerts the
>>boy to sounds - alarms, cars, trains, etc.
>>
>>Now that said - he's not likely to be hit by a car or train in school.
>>And he's not terribly likely to be alone when a fire alarm goes off.
>>For purposes of school, the dog's most important role is to provide a
>>more normal "access" to school - making it safer for the kid to get to
>>and from school alone.
>>
>>So, I wonder the following:
>>
>>1. What harm will be done by having the dog present?
>>
>>I would guess that there'd be a few days of distractible students who
>>are fawning over the dog, but they'd get over it pretty quickly. And
>>besides, service dogs are a part of life - and school is a fine place
>>to expose them to the situation, and train *them* how to handle it.
>
> Well, there's service dogs and there are service dogs. Seeing eye dogs
> are
> fairly essential to just get around. That's a commonly recognized
> exception to
> a no-dogs rule.
>
> But the given reason here is to foster *bonding*. As if dogs and boys who
> go to
> school don't bond. I don't know if I'd go in for that either as a school
> administrator.
>
> They are training dogs as companion and sevice dogs for all kinds of
> disabilities now. It's a fair question what's really needed in a place
> like a
> school, which is different from what's needed on the street. And this boy
> has
> other supports, including an interpretor.
>
>>
>>Animal hair allergies? How common are dog hair/dander allergies? Are
>>they as problematic as cat allergies? And service animals are
>>protected at other venues - restaurants, theaters, public transit etc,
>>so I'm not sure if the allergy issue is valid given that?
>
> It's *extremely* common. I have problems around some dogs.
>
>>
>>2. Aren't service dogs protected? Isn't the school violating federal
>>law by banning the dog, despite the dog not being "strictly necessary"
>>to his education? If a blind kid had an assigned (human) guide who
>>took him or her from class to class, would the school be allowed to ban
>>the dog then?
>
> My bet would be - the seeing eye dog would be regarded as more essential
> and
> allowed.
>
>>
>>3. The mother says the boy needs to be with his dog 24x7 in order for
>>proper bonding and training to occur - I don't know anything about
>>service animals - is this a valid concern?
>
> I find that far-fetched.
>
> Banty

I don't know ... 24/7 rings true to me. My aunt has had 4 service dogs. W/
each dog she has had to spend 24/7 w/ them for the first year. The dog is
considered part of her body. In the same way that you can't cut off part of
your body if someone finds it offensive, a person w/ a service dog shouldn't
be separated from their dog.

I can't see how the school has a leg to stand on. From what I see the school
would like to get the kid out of the school system to avoid paying
peripheral educational costs for a child w/ a disability. Children w/
disabilities are often bullied out of school systems so the school can avoid
the extra expenses. I have BTDT.

btw, we will be getting our first service dog in the spring. Even though I
have a child w/ a disability, this dog will not be for her. We will keep the
pup for a year to 18 months and then return the dog for service training for
a person w/ a disability.


>

[Caledonia]

Knit Chic wrote:

> I don't know ... 24/7 rings true to me. My aunt has had 4 service dogs. W/
> each dog she has had to spend 24/7 w/ them for the first year. The dog is
> considered part of her body. In the same way that you can't cut off part of
> your body if someone finds it offensive, a person w/ a service dog shouldn't
> be separated from their dog.
>
> I can't see how the school has a leg to stand on. From what I see the school
> would like to get the kid out of the school system to avoid paying
> peripheral educational costs for a child w/ a disability. Children w/
> disabilities are often bullied out of school systems so the school can avoid
> the extra expenses. I have BTDT.

I'm not sure how you've jumped from the school not wanting to pay for
educational costs from the concept that the school wants the parent(s)
to go through standard channels, and would support them if they did
that. We've had service dogs at our elementary, but in the 2 cases
(heck, it's a very very small school) an *adult * was the handler for
at least 2 months, and there was a whole big deal regarding who had to
take the dog out for dog breaks and whatnot, and the appropriate
signage. (And where to put the whanot...)

Caledonia

[Cathy Weeks]

Caledonia wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how you've jumped from the school not wanting to pay for
> educational costs from the concept that the school wants the parent(s)
> to go through standard channels, and would support them if they did
> that.

I think the idea was that really, they don't want the kid there, and
that the proper channel thing was just a smoke screen they provided in
the hopes they'd just withdraw their kid from the school.

Cathy Weeks

[Barbara]

Cathy Weeks wrote:
> Caledonia wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure how you've jumped from the school not wanting to pay for
> > educational costs from the concept that the school wants the parent(s)
> > to go through standard channels, and would support them if they did
> > that.
>
> I think the idea was that really, they don't want the kid there, and
> that the proper channel thing was just a smoke screen they provided in
> the hopes they'd just withdraw their kid from the school.
>
I haven't seen anything that would suggest that to me (although I do
think there's a possibility that they want to revise his IEP),

Every child is entitled to a free and appropriate education. If it
cannot be provided by the public schools, then the school district has
to pay for a placement in a private school. School districts really
don't like that option, because its expensive. So getting this kid to
leave the school is probably not a goal.

Moreover, even if the school district could win that fight (that the
public school was appropriate, so it wouldn't have to pay for a private
school), in NY, you still get services in private school. So they
would still have the expense of an aid unless it was no longer
necessary.

Barbara

[Cathy Weeks]

Barbara wrote:
>> I haven't seen anything that would suggest that to me (although I do
> think there's a possibility that they want to revise his IEP),
>
> Every child is entitled to a free and appropriate education. If it
> cannot be provided by the public schools, then the school district has
> to pay for a placement in a private school. School districts really
> don't like that option, because its expensive. So getting this kid to
> leave the school is probably not a goal.
>
> Moreover, even if the school district could win that fight (that the
> public school was appropriate, so it wouldn't have to pay for a private
> school), in NY, you still get services in private school. So they
> would still have the expense of an aid unless it was no longer
> necessary.

Thanks for the info, Barbara!

Cathy Weeks

[Banty]

In article om>, Cathy Weeks
says...
>
>
>Barbara wrote:
>>> I haven't seen anything that would suggest that to me (although I do
>> think there's a possibility that they want to revise his IEP),
>>
>> Every child is entitled to a free and appropriate education. If it
>> cannot be provided by the public schools, then the school district has
>> to pay for a placement in a private school. School districts really
>> don't like that option, because its expensive. So getting this kid to
>> leave the school is probably not a goal.
>>
>> Moreover, even if the school district could win that fight (that the
>> public school was appropriate, so it wouldn't have to pay for a private
>> school), in NY, you still get services in private school. So they
>> would still have the expense of an aid unless it was no longer
>> necessary.
>
>Thanks for the info, Barbara!
>
>Cathy Weeks
>

It still strikes me that, at the least, there is a problem with how the family
is dealing with the school. If they're not outright wrong. It's a damn good
point that the school needs to have plans for the, um, needs of the dog. You
can't just dump kid and dog on their front step one day whatever needs he has.

That this goes to the press just fits with how the family is dealing with this.
Methinks this was brought to the press waaay early before the school could
really come to some resolution as a tactic on the part of the mother involved.

It's an open question whether or not he really needs the dog in school. That
the ideal time for 24/7 bonding with a service animal necessarily translates to
the school's problem to resolve isn't so obvious to me. I think there's more
than a tad of knee-jerk automatic sympathy with a student with some disability
going on here, and that's what the family is counting on in going to the press.

Even for people with disabilities and their families, needs and wants are two
different things. I know families are encouraged to advocate, advocate,
advocate for their children. But there's a world beyond even their noses.

I'm not saying the school is necessarily right, or even that they're on the
right side of the law. But I just dont' think the opposite has been shown.

Banty

[bizby40]

"Banty" > wrote in message
...
> It still strikes me that, at the least, there is a problem with how
> the family
> is dealing with the school. If they're not outright wrong. It's a
> damn good
> point that the school needs to have plans for the, um, needs of the
> dog. You
> can't just dump kid and dog on their front step one day whatever
> needs he has.
>
> That this goes to the press just fits with how the family is dealing
> with this.
> Methinks this was brought to the press waaay early before the school
> could
> really come to some resolution as a tactic on the part of the mother
> involved.
>
> It's an open question whether or not he really needs the dog in
> school. That
> the ideal time for 24/7 bonding with a service animal necessarily
> translates to
> the school's problem to resolve isn't so obvious to me. I think
> there's more
> than a tad of knee-jerk automatic sympathy with a student with some
> disability
> going on here, and that's what the family is counting on in going to
> the press.
>
> Even for people with disabilities and their families, needs and
> wants are two
> different things. I know families are encouraged to advocate,
> advocate,
> advocate for their children. But there's a world beyond even their
> noses.
>
> I'm not saying the school is necessarily right, or even that they're
> on the
> right side of the law. But I just dont' think the opposite has been
> shown.

You have described my feelings on the matter very well.

Bizby

[Cathy Weeks]

bizby40 wrote:
>>
> You have described my feelings on the matter very well.

And in actuality, mine too. Thanks to both of you, and everyone else,
for this great discussion.

My own feelings on the matter come down to this:

1. Federal Law trumps any state or local regulations. It's not clear if
the school district broke the law and if so, they need to back off, and
figure out a way to make this work.

2. When making decisions aside from issue 1 above, the school needs to
ask themselves "What harm is done?" by having the dog there. The ADA
does not consider allergies and fears to be legitimate reasons for
denying access, and I suspect the school should follow those same
guidelines. They could also turn this into a learning experience for
all students to understand how to behave around service animals, etc.

3. I think the mother should probably back off, and should have handled
it differently. EVEN IF SHE IS RIGHT, and they should not need to "go
through proper channels" (and it's not clear to me that she did or
didn't), what harm would it do to have done so - especially given that
the law isn't terribly clear with regard to schools. To have done so
shows respect and courtesy. Now, if the school said no, and is in the
wrong, THEN contacting an attorney, or the human rights commission, etc
might have been the right thing to do.

4. I suspect a long-standing poor relationship between the school and
the family. That is the only explanation in my mind for this to have
turned into the circus that it did. I blame poor behavior on
everyone's part - poor handling of other people by both the school
officials and the mother. I've known unreasonable parents, who made
stupid demands on schools, and I've known unreasonable
educators/administrators who made stupid decisions for completely
arbitrary reasons - and in my experience, both are equally common. It
looks like to me both are probably at play here, or at least a lot of
past bad blood causing both to be unreasonable. Either way, shame on
all of them for turning this into a standoff, instead of a negotiation.
They are supposed to be grownups, and setting a good example for the
children in their care, and I'm sure that is not happening!

To be quite honest, I feel bad for all involved here.

Cathy Weeks

[Barbara]

Banty wrote:
> In article om>, Cathy Weeks
> says...
> >
> >
> >Barbara wrote:
> >>> I haven't seen anything that would suggest that to me (although I do
> >> think there's a possibility that they want to revise his IEP),
> >>
> >> Every child is entitled to a free and appropriate education. If it
> >> cannot be provided by the public schools, then the school district has
> >> to pay for a placement in a private school. School districts really
> >> don't like that option, because its expensive. So getting this kid to
> >> leave the school is probably not a goal.
> >>
> >> Moreover, even if the school district could win that fight (that the
> >> public school was appropriate, so it wouldn't have to pay for a private
> >> school), in NY, you still get services in private school. So they
> >> would still have the expense of an aid unless it was no longer
> >> necessary.
> >
> >Thanks for the info, Barbara!
> >
> >Cathy Weeks
> >
>
> It still strikes me that, at the least, there is a problem with how the family
> is dealing with the school. If they're not outright wrong. It's a damn good
> point that the school needs to have plans for the, um, needs of the dog. You
> can't just dump kid and dog on their front step one day whatever needs he has.
>
Revised opinion -- Banty is right.

http://1010wins.com/pages/180593.php?contentType=4&contentId=286599

The family refuses to talk to the District Committee on Special
Education about the dog? Sorry, but that's just not the way it works
in the US. You want an accomodation for your kid -- special seating,
additional test time, the right to type tests instead of hand writing
them, etc -- you have to get it approved before the CSE. Trust me, it
sucks. But that's just the way it is, and the family knows it.

Barbara

[Cathy Weeks]

Barbara wrote:
>
> http://1010wins.com/pages/180593.php?contentType=4&contentId=286599
>
> The family refuses to talk to the District Committee on Special
> Education about the dog? Sorry, but that's just not the way it works
> in the US. You want an accomodation for your kid -- special seating,
> additional test time, the right to type tests instead of hand writing
> them, etc -- you have to get it approved before the CSE. Trust me, it
> sucks. But that's just the way it is, and the family knows it.

A few things about this:

1. I still think there is likely a history of bad blood between the
school and the parents. Here's my thinking: *WHY* would she have made
that refusal? Just because? Most people want things to go smoothly
and easily - it's human nature. Yes, some people ARE looking for a
fight, and that might be the case here. But who knows? Who wants to
admit to the media that they hate each other, and that's the reason for
the refusal?

2. What if she *is* right? What if the law says she doesn't need their
permission? (And what if she thinks they are likely to be turned down
due to possible problem above) What then?

3. The "safety" issues listed were allergies and dangerous crowded
hallways. Allergies is not considered a good reason by the ADA. I
doubt the crowded hallways is really a problem. I've been in said
hallways both as a student and as a teacher (in several different sized
schools, I might add) and I doubt that's really much of a problem.
Disrupting their routine? Maybe. Other schools over time have had
service dogs in them, and they seemed to make it work.

4. According to the mother, she has had discussions with the school for
a year. How the school is describing it, and how she is aren't exactly
the same. And the language couching the different "sides" it can be
leading toward one conclusion or another.

5. I stand by my other note: I don't think the situation is as
clearcut as what either the district or the parents make it out to be:
a) a beleagered principal/superintendent who are the victim of an
obnoxious mother bear or b) an innocent family who are being treated
unfairly by power-loving school administrators. I suspect that we
don't know the whole story -only that what is being reported in the
news, and thereby most sensational, and that both are behaving poorly.

Cathy Weeks

[Banty]

In article m>, Cathy Weeks
says...
>
>
>Barbara wrote:
>>
>> http://1010wins.com/pages/180593.php?contentType=4&contentId=286599
>>
>> The family refuses to talk to the District Committee on Special
>> Education about the dog? Sorry, but that's just not the way it works
>> in the US. You want an accomodation for your kid -- special seating,
>> additional test time, the right to type tests instead of hand writing
>> them, etc -- you have to get it approved before the CSE. Trust me, it
>> sucks. But that's just the way it is, and the family knows it.
>
>A few things about this:
>
>1. I still think there is likely a history of bad blood between the
>school and the parents. Here's my thinking: *WHY* would she have made
>that refusal? Just because? Most people want things to go smoothly
>and easily - it's human nature. Yes, some people ARE looking for a
>fight, and that might be the case here. But who knows? Who wants to
>admit to the media that they hate each other, and that's the reason for
>the refusal?

If anything, the school would CYA. I think the motivation to refuse to go
through channels would be more suspicously be on the "side" more impacted by a
"no" answer.

>
>2. What if she *is* right? What if the law says she doesn't need their
>permission? (And what if she thinks they are likely to be turned down
>due to possible problem above) What then?

THe school has a heck of a lawsuit on its hands!

>
>3. The "safety" issues listed were allergies and dangerous crowded
>hallways. Allergies is not considered a good reason by the ADA. I
>doubt the crowded hallways is really a problem. I've been in said
>hallways both as a student and as a teacher (in several different sized
>schools, I might add) and I doubt that's really much of a problem.
>Disrupting their routine? Maybe. Other schools over time have had
>service dogs in them, and they seemed to make it work.

Can you give me a reference for these not being accepted as good reasoning to
refuse trained animals?

The school's concerns as stated are legit. Whether or not they're *overriding*
is another question. Does the ADA cover *any* trained animal aid in this
statement about these concerns not being overriding? Or just certain kinds,
like for the blind. Do you have a reference? I couldn't turn up one on my
search of the ADA website, but it was overwhelmed by references to animal
training schools and discussions of professional schools and there were too
many, likely I didnt' know the right keywords.

I think what's key here is whether or not this student, with his particualr
disability, level of disability, and other aids, *needs* to have the dog. The
answer is already "no". It's all about the "bonding". Just that a person has a
disability of some level, + that a kind of trained animal is appropriate for
that disability, does not equal necessity.

Like I said before, there are more and more kinds of trained animal aids. The
school may be able, with much planning, accomodate a seeing eye dog for actual
mobility for a student. But, for *any* trained animal - for the sake of
"bonding"? I think it's fair for the school to balk. And dollars to donuts
they've looked hard at the law.


>
>4. According to the mother, she has had discussions with the school for
>a year. How the school is describing it, and how she is aren't exactly
>the same. And the language couching the different "sides" it can be
>leading toward one conclusion or another.
>
>5. I stand by my other note: I don't think the situation is as
>clearcut as what either the district or the parents make it out to be:
>a) a beleagered principal/superintendent who are the victim of an
>obnoxious mother bear or b) an innocent family who are being treated
>unfairly by power-loving school administrators. I suspect that we
>don't know the whole story -only that what is being reported in the
>news, and thereby most sensational, and that both are behaving poorly.

Well, the school district gets its ass majorly and publicly sued if they're
wrong. Mother bear is just mother bear, with less to lose and certain "wins"
either way. Futhermore, consider that she can be wrong, but still win, if the
school district decides that it's easier to settle. Fighting something like
this is a heck of a thing to have hanging around come time for school budget
votes - it's all on the property holders in New York State. My district has BTDT
(and they won!) That's a heck of a motivation for momma bear to kick up dust
even if she is wrong.

So, divining this from probable motivations and stakes involved, my bets are
more with the school. But, yes, we don't know the whole story.


Banty

[Barbara]

Cathy Weeks wrote:
> Barbara wrote:
> >
> > http://1010wins.com/pages/180593.php?contentType=4&contentId=286599
> >
> > The family refuses to talk to the District Committee on Special
> > Education about the dog? Sorry, but that's just not the way it works
> > in the US. You want an accomodation for your kid -- special seating,
> > additional test time, the right to type tests instead of hand writing
> > them, etc -- you have to get it approved before the CSE. Trust me, it
> > sucks. But that's just the way it is, and the family knows it.
>
> A few things about this:
>
> 1. I still think there is likely a history of bad blood between the
> school and the parents. Here's my thinking: *WHY* would she have made
> that refusal? Just because? Most people want things to go smoothly
> and easily - it's human nature. Yes, some people ARE looking for a
> fight, and that might be the case here. But who knows? Who wants to
> admit to the media that they hate each other, and that's the reason for
> the refusal?
>
I can think of a million reasons why she would make that refusal. The
role of the dog is to alert him to sounds. That's also the role of the
aid that the school district is already paying for.

But my guess is that she refuses to go to CSE because she knows that
she's going to lose. She admits that the dog serves no educational
purpose. So instead she takes the whole thing to the media, trying to
make the school district cave. In her position, I might do the same
thing. That doesn't make it right, though.


> 2. What if she *is* right? What if the law says she doesn't need their
> permission? (And what if she thinks they are likely to be turned down
> due to possible problem above) What then?
>
Then she does what every other person in the country who gets turned
down by the CSE does -- she takes it to due process, and then to court
if need be. If she had done that a year ago, when this came up, it
would all be over by now.

> 3. The "safety" issues listed were allergies and dangerous crowded
> hallways. Allergies is not considered a good reason by the ADA. I
> doubt the crowded hallways is really a problem. I've been in said
> hallways both as a student and as a teacher (in several different sized
> schools, I might add) and I doubt that's really much of a problem.
> Disrupting their routine? Maybe. Other schools over time have had
> service dogs in them, and they seemed to make it work.

What the school is saying is that it has a policy against bringing pets
to school, and explaining why *pets* are not allowed. Obviously,
service animals would be permitted as an educational accomodation
pursuant to an IEP or a 504 Plan -- the same way he gets an aid and an
FM system. If tomorrow, you decide that your child could benefit from
an FM system, you couldn't force the school to provide one without an
IEP. Even if you bought one, you couldn't force the teacher to wear
the little microphone, although it doesn't harm anyone or get in the
way. I, OTOH, could easily get an IEP for an FM system for my son, and
no teacher would have the right to refuse to use it.

If he doesn't need to go through channels for the dog, then why do I
need to go through channels to get extra test time for my son? Who does
it harm? Just let us have it. I mean, his need for it should be clear
to everyone. And what about the kid who suffers from anxiety, and is
calmed by his cat? Why is his need any less?

The mother is taking the position that the her son having the dog in
school is no different from, eg, a kid with a broken let using
crutches. Its simply a part of his extended body. But crutches and a
dog are qualitatively different.


>
> 4. According to the mother, she has had discussions with the school for
> a year. How the school is describing it, and how she is aren't exactly
> the same. And the language couching the different "sides" it can be
> leading toward one conclusion or another.
>
Actually, its exactly the same. She is saying that for a year, she has
been telling the school that her son will be bringing the dog to
school. She is also saying that for a year, she has been telling the
school that she will not go before the CSE to present reasons why her
son needs to bring the dog to school. The school is saying that unless
she goes before the CSE, he doesn't get to bring the dog, that this is
the correct procedure. It is entirely consistent.


> 5. I stand by my other note: I don't think the situation is as
> clearcut as what either the district or the parents make it out to be:
> a) a beleagered principal/superintendent who are the victim of an
> obnoxious mother bear or b) an innocent family who are being treated
> unfairly by power-loving school administrators. I suspect that we
> don't know the whole story -only that what is being reported in the
> news, and thereby most sensational, and that both are behaving poorly.
>
We'll agree to disagree then. I think that the school district is
legally right here.

Barbara

[Cathy Weeks]

Banty wrote:
> In article m>, Cathy Weeks
> says...
> >3. The "safety" issues listed were allergies and dangerous crowded
> >hallways. Allergies is not considered a good reason by the ADA. I
> >doubt the crowded hallways is really a problem. I've been in said
> >hallways both as a student and as a teacher (in several different sized
> >schools, I might add) and I doubt that's really much of a problem.
> >Disrupting their routine? Maybe. Other schools over time have had
> >service dogs in them, and they seemed to make it work.
>
> Can you give me a reference for these not being accepted as good reasoning to
> refuse trained animals?
>
> The school's concerns as stated are legit. Whether or not they're *overriding*
> is another question. Does the ADA cover *any* trained animal aid in this
> statement about these concerns not being overriding? Or just certain kinds,
> like for the blind. Do you have a reference? I couldn't turn up one on my
> search of the ADA website, but it was overwhelmed by references to animal
> training schools and discussions of professional schools and there were too
> many, likely I didnt' know the right keywords.

Sure. Here it is:

http://www.ada.gov/svcanimb.htm

I don't remember what key words I used yesterday when I looked it up.
But today I found it again by typing "service dogs ada" into google.
The page talkes primarily about *businesses* , which is why several of
us have decided it's not at all clear-cut about how the law applies to
the school. In fact, I couldn't find much of anything about how ADA
rules are applied to schools at all, on that site. I agree that it's a
hard-to-use site.

Cathy Weeks

[Cathy Weeks]

Banty wrote:
> In article m>, Cathy Weeks
> says...

> >2. What if she *is* right? What if the law says she doesn't need their
> >permission? (And what if she thinks they are likely to be turned down
> >due to possible problem above) What then?
>
> THe school has a heck of a lawsuit on its hands!

Hey, I did find this:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg2.html

"Some commenters asked for clarification about the responsibilities of
public school systems under section 504 and the ADA with respect to
programs, services, and activities that are not covered by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), including, for
example, programs open to parents or to the public, graduation
ceremonies, parent-teacher organization meetings, plays and other
events open to the public, and adult education classes. Public school
systems must comply with the ADA in all of their services, programs, or
activities, including those that are open to parents or to the public.
For instance, public school systems must provide program accessibility
to parents and guardians with disabilities to these programs,
activities, or services, and appropriate auxiliary aids and services
whenever necessary to ensure effective communication, as long as the
provision of the auxiliary aids results neither in an undue burden or
in a fundamental alteration of the program."

I think the final sentence might be the important one. Undue burden
might be taken care of by requiring that the kid bring a pooper-scooper
for use with the dog. I think "fundamental alteration of the program"
is fairly subjective. Hard to say.

Cathy Weeks

[Banty]

In article . com>, Cathy Weeks
says...
>
>
>Banty wrote:
>> In article m>, Cathy Weeks
>> says...
>
>> >2. What if she *is* right? What if the law says she doesn't need their
>> >permission? (And what if she thinks they are likely to be turned down
>> >due to possible problem above) What then?
>>
>> THe school has a heck of a lawsuit on its hands!
>
>Hey, I did find this:
>
>http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg2.html
>
>"Some commenters asked for clarification about the responsibilities of
>public school systems under section 504 and the ADA with respect to
>programs, services, and activities that are not covered by the
>Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), including, for
>example, programs open to parents or to the public, graduation
>ceremonies, parent-teacher organization meetings, plays and other
>events open to the public, and adult education classes. Public school
>systems must comply with the ADA in all of their services, programs, or
>activities, including those that are open to parents or to the public.
>For instance, public school systems must provide program accessibility
>to parents and guardians with disabilities to these programs,
>activities, or services, and appropriate auxiliary aids and services
>whenever necessary to ensure effective communication, as long as the
>provision of the auxiliary aids results neither in an undue burden or
>in a fundamental alteration of the program."
>
>I think the final sentence might be the important one. Undue burden
>might be taken care of by requiring that the kid bring a pooper-scooper
>for use with the dog. I think "fundamental alteration of the program"
>is fairly subjective. Hard to say.

Yep.

And this still doesn't tell me about dogs for hearing-impaired (or any other
dogs, even) specifically. I mean, one needs to know -exactly- what *are* the
ADA requirements that need to be complied with. You need another quote.

Banty

[Barbara]

Banty wrote:
> In article . com>, Cathy Weeks
> says...
> >
> >
> >Banty wrote:
> >> In article m>, Cathy Weeks
> >> says...
> >
> >> >2. What if she *is* right? What if the law says she doesn't need their
> >> >permission? (And what if she thinks they are likely to be turned down
> >> >due to possible problem above) What then?
> >>
> >> THe school has a heck of a lawsuit on its hands!
> >
> >Hey, I did find this:
> >
> >http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg2.html
> >
> >"Some commenters asked for clarification about the responsibilities of
> >public school systems under section 504 and the ADA with respect to
> >programs, services, and activities that are not covered by the
> >Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), including, for
> >example, programs open to parents or to the public, graduation
> >ceremonies, parent-teacher organization meetings, plays and other
> >events open to the public, and adult education classes. Public school
> >systems must comply with the ADA in all of their services, programs, or
> >activities, including those that are open to parents or to the public.
> >For instance, public school systems must provide program accessibility
> >to parents and guardians with disabilities to these programs,
> >activities, or services, and appropriate auxiliary aids and services
> >whenever necessary to ensure effective communication, as long as the
> >provision of the auxiliary aids results neither in an undue burden or
> >in a fundamental alteration of the program."
> >
> >I think the final sentence might be the important one. Undue burden
> >might be taken care of by requiring that the kid bring a pooper-scooper
> >for use with the dog. I think "fundamental alteration of the program"
> >is fairly subjective. Hard to say.
>
> Yep.
>
> And this still doesn't tell me about dogs for hearing-impaired (or any other
> dogs, even) specifically. I mean, one needs to know -exactly- what *are* the
> ADA requirements that need to be complied with. You need another quote.
>
I think you're focusing on the wrong language. The requirement is that
services be provided "whenever necessary to ensure effective
communication." In this case, everyone agrees that the dog does not do
that.

There may be other applicable parts of the ADA, though.

Barbara

[Donna Metler]

"Cathy Weeks" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Banty wrote:
> > In article m>, Cathy
Weeks
> > says...
>
> > >2. What if she *is* right? What if the law says she doesn't need their
> > >permission? (And what if she thinks they are likely to be turned down
> > >due to possible problem above) What then?
> >
> > THe school has a heck of a lawsuit on its hands!
>
> Hey, I did find this:
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg2.html
>
> "Some commenters asked for clarification about the responsibilities of
> public school systems under section 504 and the ADA with respect to
> programs, services, and activities that are not covered by the
> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), including, for
> example, programs open to parents or to the public, graduation
> ceremonies, parent-teacher organization meetings, plays and other
> events open to the public, and adult education classes. Public school
> systems must comply with the ADA in all of their services, programs, or
> activities, including those that are open to parents or to the public.
> For instance, public school systems must provide program accessibility
> to parents and guardians with disabilities to these programs,
> activities, or services, and appropriate auxiliary aids and services
> whenever necessary to ensure effective communication, as long as the
> provision of the auxiliary aids results neither in an undue burden or
> in a fundamental alteration of the program."
>
> I think the final sentence might be the important one. Undue burden
> might be taken care of by requiring that the kid bring a pooper-scooper
> for use with the dog. I think "fundamental alteration of the program"
> is fairly subjective. Hard to say.
>
It's not just the pooper scooper, though. IS there a safe place that the boy
could take the dog outside to, well, do his business? Who would be
supervising the child at that time, since the school would have legal
liability for the child during that time, and may or may not have a safe
place on school grounds to do so (I wouldn't want a dog relieving himself on
a playground actively in use by younger children, for example). Does the dog
need a physical outlet during the day? If so, would the student need to take
the dog out for a walk, and who would supervise the child?

I imagine the school has seriously looked at their requirements under the
law, and if they've chosen to refuse, has done so under advice of
counsel-because they're facing heavily liability otherwise. And it may well
be that while a service animal would be allowed (and the school mandated to
allow the animal) if it was needed for educational access, or if it were a
parent needing the animal to navigate the building for an occasional
conference, the school may be under no obligation to accept the animal when
it's sole utility is outside the school building.


> Cathy Weeks
>

[Banty]

In article . com>, Cathy Weeks
says...
>
>
>Banty wrote:
>> In article m>, Cathy Weeks
>> says...
>> >3. The "safety" issues listed were allergies and dangerous crowded
>> >hallways. Allergies is not considered a good reason by the ADA. I
>> >doubt the crowded hallways is really a problem. I've been in said
>> >hallways both as a student and as a teacher (in several different sized
>> >schools, I might add) and I doubt that's really much of a problem.
>> >Disrupting their routine? Maybe. Other schools over time have had
>> >service dogs in them, and they seemed to make it work.
>>
>> Can you give me a reference for these not being accepted as good reasoning to
>> refuse trained animals?
>>
>>The school's concerns as stated are legit. Whether or not they're *overriding*
>> is another question. Does the ADA cover *any* trained animal aid in this
>> statement about these concerns not being overriding? Or just certain kinds,
>> like for the blind. Do you have a reference? I couldn't turn up one on my
>> search of the ADA website, but it was overwhelmed by references to animal
>> training schools and discussions of professional schools and there were too
>> many, likely I didnt' know the right keywords.
>
>Sure. Here it is:
>
>http://www.ada.gov/svcanimb.htm
>
>I don't remember what key words I used yesterday when I looked it up.
>But today I found it again by typing "service dogs ada" into google.
>The page talkes primarily about *businesses* , which is why several of
>us have decided it's not at all clear-cut about how the law applies to
>the school. In fact, I couldn't find much of anything about how ADA
>rules are applied to schools at all, on that site. I agree that it's a
>hard-to-use site.
>
>Cathy Weeks
>

Well, now I have my head exploding over the juxtaposition on one short page of:

"A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from
the premises unless: (1) the animal is out of control and the animal's owner
does not take effective action to control it (for example, a dog that barks
repeatedly during a movie) or (2) the animal poses a direct threat to the health
or safety of others."


and:

"Allergies and fear of animals are generally not valid reasons for denying
access or refusing service to people with service animals."

As a ten year old, I experienced anaphylactic shock. These two bulleted items
do NOT go together on the same page unless there are some heavy duty blinders on
some legislator's eyes.

Banty

[bizby40]

"Banty" > wrote in message
...
> Well, now I have my head exploding over the juxtaposition on one
> short page of:
>
> "A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service
> animal from
> the premises unless: (1) the animal is out of control and the
> animal's owner
> does not take effective action to control it (for example, a dog
> that barks
> repeatedly during a movie) or (2) the animal poses a direct threat
> to the health
> or safety of others."
>
>
> and:
>
> "Allergies and fear of animals are generally not valid reasons for
> denying
> access or refusing service to people with service animals."
>
> As a ten year old, I experienced anaphylactic shock. These two
> bulleted items
> do NOT go together on the same page unless there are some heavy duty
> blinders on
> some legislator's eyes.

I think the key word is "generally". Most allergies are not so
severe, and people who do have allergies that severe will hopefully be
prepared for encountering allergens in public places. However, in a
place like a school, if you have a child who needs a dog, and a child
who needs to be kept away from dogs, then you have competing
disabilities, and something special would need to be worked out.

Bizby

[Banty]

In article >, bizby40 says...
>
>
>"Banty" > wrote in message
...
>> Well, now I have my head exploding over the juxtaposition on one
>> short page of:
>>
>> "A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service
>> animal from
>> the premises unless: (1) the animal is out of control and the
>> animal's owner
>> does not take effective action to control it (for example, a dog
>> that barks
>> repeatedly during a movie) or (2) the animal poses a direct threat
>> to the health
>> or safety of others."
>>
>>
>> and:
>>
>> "Allergies and fear of animals are generally not valid reasons for
>> denying
>> access or refusing service to people with service animals."
>>
>> As a ten year old, I experienced anaphylactic shock. These two
>> bulleted items
>> do NOT go together on the same page unless there are some heavy duty
>> blinders on
>> some legislator's eyes.
>
>I think the key word is "generally". Most allergies are not so
>severe, and people who do have allergies that severe will hopefully be
>prepared for encountering allergens in public places. However, in a
>place like a school, if you have a child who needs a dog, and a child
>who needs to be kept away from dogs, then you have competing
>disabilities, and something special would need to be worked out.

Which is yet another reason to have a process for this, and to be prepared not
to honor every request for an animal to come in.

I don't know which dogs I react to until I come into contact with them.

Banty

[Cathy Weeks]

Banty wrote:
>
> And this still doesn't tell me about dogs for hearing-impaired (or any other
> dogs, even) specifically. I mean, one needs to know -exactly- what *are* the
> ADA requirements that need to be complied with. You need another quote.

http://www.ada.gov/svcanimb.htm

"Service animals are animals that are individually trained to perform
tasks for people with disabilities such as guiding people who are
blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling wheelchairs, alerting and
protecting a person who is having a seizure, or performing other
special tasks. Service animals are working animals, not pets."

The other quote was merely meant to show that there WAS langauge with
regard to schools. I haven't read the entire text of the ADA or the
IDEA laws (nor do I really want to!)

Mostly, I think it all hinges on whether the law was violated, and it's
not clear to me whether it was or not (though I *suspect* so - but
suspicions aren't good enough - lol)

Cathy Weeks

[Banty]

In article . com>, Cathy Weeks
says...
>
>
>Banty wrote:
>>
>> And this still doesn't tell me about dogs for hearing-impaired (or any other
>> dogs, even) specifically. I mean, one needs to know -exactly- what *are* the
>> ADA requirements that need to be complied with. You need another quote.
>
>http://www.ada.gov/svcanimb.htm
>
>"Service animals are animals that are individually trained to perform
>tasks for people with disabilities such as guiding people who are
>blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling wheelchairs, alerting and
>protecting a person who is having a seizure, or performing other
>special tasks. Service animals are working animals, not pets."
>
>The other quote was merely meant to show that there WAS langauge with
>regard to schools. I haven't read the entire text of the ADA or the
>IDEA laws (nor do I really want to!)
>
>Mostly, I think it all hinges on whether the law was violated, and it's
>not clear to me whether it was or not (though I *suspect* so - but
>suspicions aren't good enough - lol)

See I don't see that there's the necessary connection between what is said
concerning service animals and schools being listed as included among those who
need to make good environments for the handicapped.

That does does not equal "everything one wants".

Banty

[Caledonia]

Cathy Weeks wrote:

> 2. When making decisions aside from issue 1 above, the school needs to
> ask themselves "What harm is done?" by having the dog there. The ADA
> does not consider allergies and fears to be legitimate reasons for
> denying access, and I suspect the school should follow those same
> guidelines. They could also turn this into a learning experience for
> all students to understand how to behave around service animals, etc.

The harm done by make an accommodation for a kid without this going
through a 'standard' process seems huge, to me, regardless of whether
the accommodation is letting the dog in or giving Johnny more time to
take the test.

(snip)

> 4. I suspect a long-standing poor relationship between the school and
> the family. That is the only explanation in my mind for this to have
> turned into the circus that it did.

The explanation for me that makes the most sense is that the parents
wanted an accommodation but didn't want to document why, and the
parents are over the top.

I too have known unreasonable parents and unreasonable school
administrators, but I'm with Barbara on this one -- the school has the
'most to lose' and their position seems reasonable to me.

Caledonia