Seven-year-old Bradley Dallatore depends on his service dog, Jiffy, to help him with his autism. The problem is the dog is banned from his school because the district superintendent says some students are allergic to or afraid of the dog.
Thomas Turnbaugh from Washington County,Pennsylvania is finding himself under fire for denying the autistic student access to his certified service dog during school hours. His parents are filing a complaint the Department of Education.
Turnbaugh has even went as far as saying he would not allow a seeing eye dog in schools and would have another student aide a blind child instead. The American Disabilities Act does give protection to those that need service dogs in public areas.
Who the hell does this gut think he is? The ADA assures that anyone needing a service dog may have one in public areas. Not only does his banning of the dog for this young boypiss me off (the photo shows the dog is wearing a service dogs "work attire") he also is saying he would even deny a blind child a dog.
The article has a little more including the fact that the school HAS let service dogs in the school on past occasion.
Federal and State law should prevail in this case and the super should find himself on the retiring side of education.
Bradley's right to a dog in school should not supersede the rights of the other children who do have allergies or are afraid of the dog to be able to go to school in an environment without dog hair or fear.
Im on fence on this particular issue. I can see both sides of the conflict. If the dog is actually causing problems to allergic or fearful children (remember they are very young) that would be a real problem. Children who are really allergic to dogs shouldn't be forced to be around a dog that causes allergic reactions in them and at the same time potentially cause psychological problems because of this. The position of these children need to be considered and weighed against the autistic child's position.
However, if this child really needs the dog, it would be very unfair, cruel even, to not allow him to use it. The law does seem to be on the side of the autistic child so they will probably win, but it seems to me that the superintendent has only the children's best interests in mind.
BUT, his comment about having another child guide a blind child instead of a dog would seem like it would put too much responsibility on the guide child, possibly depriving him of his own education and development so all around allowing service dogs would seem like the right choice.
Another person is NOT a substitute for a trained service animal. Congratulations for showing your ignorance on the subject. Their are problems with the ADA, but denying a service animal trained to assit an with a disability isn't one of them.
Actually I'm not ignorant about the ADA. Worked at a college for 5 years helping students because of it. Now onto the rest.
There is nothing a dog can do that a person can't. Forcing other people to be around an animal when they are fearful or allergic to it seems to be a pretty good example of how this part of the ADA is wrong.
What about service dogs for epileptic kids? They know when the kid is about to have a seizure. Humans can't do that. Plus, the principal said he would make a student assist the kid. Another student is not trained to this kid's needs. An adult could assist the child, but it would have to be a professional who has been trained as an assistant. Another student is no substitute.
I missed that he was going to provide a student to be this child's aid. Yeah, that wouldn't work. The child, for one thing, has never been trained for this job. If they provided a real aid then i don't see the problem.
Imagine if other student were afraid of wheelchairs, should accessibility be denied to differently abled students just because of that. Fear of domesticated animals, in particular animals trained to assist the differently abled is irrational and wrong. This fear will only be overcome through exposure to the object feared. As to the issue of allergens, most dog allergens are transfered through physical contact with fur and or saliva. Service dogs should never be touched or otherwise distracted when assisting the differently abled, so allergic reactions are highly unlikely. Likewise, if severe allergic reactions do occur, why are the rights of the allergic great than the rights of the child requiring a service animal?
"There is nothing a dog can do that a person can't."
Actually with autism you may find the child interacts very differently to the dog than it would another human. I would suggest that putting a person in has a high chance of failing, possibly in a quite spectacular fashion. Have you had any dealings with autism?
I'm going to come down strongly on the side of the child and the dog. Disability dogs are there to aid their owner to be independent. Removing the dog and putting a person in its place fosters dependence, not indendendence, even if it works. In a lot of schools it would be possible to rearrange classes so that students who had a genuine health condition could be in a seperate class to the dog.
The fear issue doesn't play at all for me. I've seen a surprising number of kids freaked out by wheelchairs yet never once have I heard it suggested that the wheelchair not be allowed and someone be hired to carry the person around all day. Why should dogs be different? A fear of dogs is the other kids issue which they have to deal with.
>>Imagine if other student were afraid of wheelchairs, should accessibility be denied to differently abled students just because of that. ::No. But there is a difference between your example and what is actually happening. The difference is the wheelchair is something that this hypothetical student has to have. A dog is not, no matter how trained. A school aid specifically trained to work with autistic kids is just as good. >>Fear of domesticated animals, in particular animals trained to assist the differently abled is irrational and wrong. ::That is the definition of a phobia, an irrational fear. >>This fear will only be overcome through exposure to the object feared. ::True, in a calm setting known as a psychologists office, not a school. >>As to the issue of allergens, most dog allergens are transferred through physical contact with fur and or saliva. Service dogs should never be touched or otherwise distracted when assisting the differently abled, so allergic reactions are highly unlikely. ::Allergens are also transmitted through the air or contact with surfaces that the dog has touched or licked. Also, it's disabled not differently abled. >>Likewise, if severe allergic reactions do occur, why are the rights of the allergic great than the rights of the child requiring a service animal? ::Because allergies cannot be changed while having a dog in a school can.
>>"There is nothing a dog can do that a person can't." Actually with autism you may find the child interacts very differently to the dog than it would another human. I would suggest that putting a person in has a high chance of failing, possibly in a quite spectacular fashion. Have you had any dealings with autism? ::Nope. Not that i am aware of. I can see that a dog provides comfort for a person with autism but I can not see how 1 person being comfortable in a school should make others uncomfortable due to fear or allergies. >>I'm going to come down strongly on the side of the child and the dog. Disability dogs are there to aid their owner to be independent. Removing the dog and putting a person in its place fosters dependence, not independence, even if it works. In a lot of schools it would be possible to rearrange classes so that students who had a genuine health condition could be in a separate class to the dog. ::But in that case you are moving other students around just to make sure one students comfortable. What about the other students that had to be moved and now aren't in classes with their friends? You know, the people that make them comfortable? >>The fear issue doesn't play at all for me. I've seen a surprising number of kids freaked out by wheelchairs yet never once have I heard it suggested that the wheelchair not be allowed and someone be hired to carry the person around all day. Why should dogs be different? ::As I say in the post above this one, that is apples and oranges. In one case the student requires the wheelchair, in the other case many autistic people get along without dogs. >>A fear of dogs is the other kids issue which they have to deal with. ::Correct. But not in a school setting when they are there to learn, not worry about when that dog they are afraid of is going to show up.
I suggest some research on autism then. The dog isn't just there for the child's comfort. Autistic children can have the tendency to run and another human physically touching them to restrain them can be extremely upsetting. The dog can restrain the child much more effectively and with much less fuss. An autistic child will often accept touch and guidance from a dog when they will not do so from a human. When with the dogs autistic children will tend to be less susceptible to major outbursts (if you think having a kid who is scared of dogs is unsettling wait until you've seen what autism + sensory overload does to a class) and will function better socially and mentally. I can't speak for all cases but I believe that in quite a number of cases the dog would be the difference between being able to function in a mainstream classroom and not.
"But in that case you are moving other students around just to make sure one students comfortable. What about the other students that had to be moved and now aren't in classes with their friends? You know, the people that make them comfortable?"
You're in class to learn, not to socialise. I don't see being able to sit with friends as being a factor that should override a child having a dog which may well be the difference between functional and non-functional. Let's be realistic. Kids get shuffled around between classes for various reasons anyway. I don't see how this is significantly different.
"As I say in the post above this one, that is apples and oranges. In one case the student requires the wheelchair, in the other case many autistic people get along without dogs."
How does your logic play when it is a dog for a vision impaired student? I think that would qualify as a need. If you've been approved for an autism dog you're probably at the severe end of what can actually function in a normal classroom so the autism dogs probably fall under need as well.
i agree with the guy who banned the dog so what just because hes retarded he deserves the right to scare other kids he deserves the right to make peoples allergies rise up? i dont think so if this kid needs a dog he should go to a school he is sure that he wont make people afraid or rise their allergies
>>I suggest some research on autism then. The dog isn't just there for the child's comfort. Autistic children can have the tendency to run and another human physically touching them to restrain them can be extremely upsetting. The dog can restrain the child much more effectively and with much less fuss. An autistic child will often accept touch and guidance from a dog when they will not do so from a human. When with the dogs autistic children will tend to be less susceptible to major outbursts (if you think having a kid who is scared of dogs is unsettling wait until you've seen what autism + sensory overload does to a class) and will function better socially and mentally. I can't speak for all cases but I believe that in quite a number of cases the dog would be the difference between being able to function in a mainstream classroom and not. ::Didn't know that. >>"But in that case you are moving other students around just to make sure one students comfortable. What about the other students that had to be moved and now aren't in classes with their friends? You know, the people that make them comfortable?" You're in class to learn, not to socialise. I don't see being able to sit with friends as being a factor that should override a child having a dog which may well be the difference between functional and non-functional. Let's be realistic. Kids get shuffled around between classes for various reasons anyway. I don't see how this is significantly different. ::The difference is that they are being moved to accomodate someone. Not for one of those various other reasons. If a school wanted to move kids around because of budgetary constraints I say go at it. In the end that will help all of the children to learn. In this case you are moving students to help one person to learn. >>"As I say in the post above this one, that is apples and oranges. In one case the student requires the wheelchair, in the other case many autistic people get along without dogs." How does your logic play when it is a dog for a vision impaired student? I think that would qualify as a need. If you've been approved for an autism dog you're probably at the severe end of what can actually function in a normal classroom so the autism dogs probably fall under need as well. ::A vision impaired student can use a white cane. An autism dog is not a need. What if the boy was allergic to dogs? He would use something else. In this case, let him use that something else.
Just to be clear, I know the law is going to side with him. I just don't think it's right.
I don't know how many people read the actual article but this is what Mr Turbaugh said and yet shows he is not consistant. This guy seems to have issues with the needs of others. Plus one thing I would like to say is that no one has even confirmed that other kids are allergic or scared it is just what this man says.
"Superintendent Thomas Turnbaugh told WTAE Channel 4 Action News that he "would not allow a guide dog inside the building either" and instead would "bring another child to assist a blind child around the school."
But WTAE Channel 4 confirmed through the Washington County Blind Association that Trinity West has accepted their invites in the past to allow guide dogs in a classroom setting for a one-hour educational lesson."
fear of service dogs is unacceptable, it is a prejudice as saying its ok to be afraid of black people. it is not the dog, a service dog becomes an extention of the disabled person so fear of the service dog means fear of the disabled for being disabled. Children need to be taught that these service animals are not pets they are and essential part of the person who become as dependent on the dog as a paraplegic does a wheelchair.
you have obviously never spent any time with someone with a service animal. the dependace is the same as a wheelchair. the best way to explain it is, for a blind person the dog really does open up the world, once they get used to having the dog losing it is like being made blind all over again.
>>fear of service dogs is unacceptable, it is a prejudice as saying its ok to be afraid of black people. it is not the dog, a service dog becomes an extension of the disabled person so fear of the service dog means fear of the disabled for being disabled. Children need to be taught that these service animals are not pets they are and essential part of the person who become as dependent on the dog as a paraplegic does a wheelchair. ::Being afraid of a dog is not the same as being afraid of a black person. It is not prejudiced to be afraid of an animal or an object. Fear of a service animal does not mean you are afraid of the disabled for being disabled, it means you are afraid of the dog. If a blind person walked into the class with a seeing eye horse and different kids were now afraid of the horse, does that mean that the first batch are now no longer afraid of the blind kid and now these new ones suddenly are? No. It means that the first batch aren't afraid of a horse and the new batch are. It has nothing to do with the disabled person. >>you have obviously never spent any time with someone with a service animal. the dependence is the same as a wheelchair. the best way to explain it is, for a blind person the dog really does open up the world, once they get used to having the dog losing it is like being made blind all over again. ::Actually I have hung out with a blind person. She had a seeing eye dog. The dependence wasn't the same because she used her cane sometimes to get around. A person in a wheelchair has no other option.
Quote" ::Because allergies cannot be changed while having a dog in a school can."
Actually medicine has made significant advances in the treatment of allergies particularly those related to dometicated animals, unfortunatly the treatments for blindness and autism have not been so successful. If your allergic take you pills and nasal spary and shut the fu#k up and thank god that your not Autistic.
Quote :: many autistic people get along without dogs.
many people dont need a pacemaker but if the doctors give you one you dont want to be with out it. service dogs are valuable medical equipment, dispite how you feel legally they more specific and harder obtain medical equipment than a wheelchair, you cant just go get one, even if you are eligable there is a cost and waiting lists involved. For the Blind Losing their dog is like losing their sight again.
>>Quote"::Because allergies cannot be changed while having a dog in a school can." Actually medicine has made significant advances in the treatment of allergies particularly those related to dometicated animals, unfortunatly the treatments for blindness and autism have not been so successful. If your allergic take you pills and nasal spary and shut the fu#k up and thank god that your not Autistic. ::Or you could have the one kid that brings his dog to class, forcing everyone else with allergies to take that medicine when they shouldn't have to, leave it at home. >>Quote:: many autistic people get along without dogs. many people dont need a pacemaker but if the doctors give you one you dont want to be with out it. service dogs are valuable medical equipment, dispite how you feel legally they more specific and harder obtain medical equipment than a wheelchair, you cant just go get one, even if you are eligable there is a cost and waiting lists involved. For the Blind Losing their dog is like losing their sight again. ::For the people with a pacemaker, they will die without it. For those without a dog, ummm... they feel unfomfortable?
Children with alergies can be placed in another class room. A little bit of of thinking by these highly educated morons would allow everyone to get the best education available.
This looks like a power trip by someone that has decieved themselves into thinking a degree confers intelligence.
These dogs alert their "partner" to distracting repetitive movements that are often common with people with autism.
They allow that person to stop that movement. For example, hand flapping.
There was also a Dateline episode on seizure response dogs, dogs that are trained to assist a person who has a seizure disorder. These dogs may serve that person differently depending on the need. They may be trained to stand guard over a person who has a seizure or go and get help or may help to stabilize a person. Some of those dogs have somehow gotten the ability to predict a seizure, but certainly sense the precursors to a full-blown seizure and can provide some warning to people in advance. What they call the aura of an oncoming seizure.
Theres no way a "human helper" could possibly be trained for that. And Autistic people do have seizures.
The school is wrong, and Bradley deserves an education amongst his peers. If there are children 'afraid' then I am sure Bradley's parents can arrange a time when the dog is "off duty" in order for them to be introduced to service animal. If there are allergic children, then they must be identified and arrangements made to restrict contact with the service animal. Simple enough eh Mr. Principal?!
It's not enough to just send the kids out of the room and bring them back later. Lingering dander or fur maybe enough to cause a reaction. Not to mention yanking all of kids with allergies out of one class and putting them in another is a major disruption of the schedule for both the teachers and the students. If he needs the dog that badly he should be in a SCC. (Self contained classroom)
On the other hand if there are no severe allergies notify the parents and let them sort it out.
Ok he may need help and should get it but only because this boy is different (not in a bad way and not less worthy) and needs help you can not let a dog inside the school. That will have a effect on plenty of students. They will suffer from it. It could even cause breathing troubles with a few kids.
there aren't that many kids who would be severely allergic to the dog? I think there was one person in my class at school who was allergic to cats and dogs, it wasn't a particularly common thing. Surely they could find a class that doesn't have any allergic kids in it, or shuffle a couple of kids around. Maybe if one kid is allergic, they could offer to move them to a different class but take a fried or 2 with them, swapping a group of 3 kids with a group of 3 kids from a different class would mean nobody was really separated from their friends and would mean that this autistic boy could have the same chance at education as all the other kids who were lucky enough not to have autism.
On the other hand, if this boy is badly affected enough to need a service dog, then would he not benefit from attending a special school rather than a mainstream school, where the other kids are more likely to tease him than show any form of compassion for his condition?
That comment stood out to me. I will tell you right off the bat I am a service dog user. I wish so badly that I could have used my partner in school when I went but like this poor little boy I was never allowed.
There was talk yesterday about the ADA being wrong and that is why we as people with special needs are still fighting for our rights.
I use a wheelchair would you people tell me I am not allowed to use my chair in public?
IF IF IF the allergy to the dog would make the other child disabled then yes they would BOTH have to be taken into thought.
Yes a dog can alert to many things people cannot infact my own service dog does things that my husband cannot. This child may be to young to handle the dog right now BUT BUT BUT as soon as he is able to that dog needs to be at his side.
The ones fighting to keep the dog out or even a guide dog for the blind are the ones that have never had to use a service dog or have anyone in their family use one. They do not know the bond and boost given by being able to do more for yourself.
If you had a disabled child would you want that child's well being placed in the hands of another child? One that does not have the ability to alert to certain needs before they become a life or death?
A service dog can calm an Autistic melt down better then anything...they can make sure that same child does not just bolt away and most likely into something that could not only hurt them but kill them. A human/child aid is not able to do that. Infact a child should not have to be responseable for making sure that does not happen.
A service dog can also bring the boost needed for a child that is shut down to the point of not wanting to talk to people to do just that.
So to all the people that say the ADA is wrong or that a person can do the same as a service dog I hope that you never become disabled for you will sadly find out the truth.
