And then there is homeschooling by necessity...

I agree Jackie, 100%. While, yes, the boy has rights...so does everyone else!

 

I DO!!!!

And actually....coming from a medical perspective, even if a child doesn't in the beginning, the more and more you are exposed to an allergen on a regular basis, the WORSE off the allergy gets. I use to not have asthma problems due to animals, but as an adult I do now from being overexposed to animal dander.

 

I've had the exact opposite experience. We now have an indoor cat and no symptoms. It's my understanding that you may not react the first time or second, but then you may on a subsequent exposure. However, if you have exposure over long term you can reduce your sensitivity, just like taking allergy shots.

Guess that really is neither here nor there. Looks like the issue with this dog in the classroom has to do with who certified it, not the immunology of the people in the building.

 

I'm actually very allergic to cats. But I've had them my whole life. My doctor told my mom the worst thing she could do for my allergies would be to get rid of the cats. And guess what? I'm fine around them now. I've NEVER heard anyone say increased exposure = increased reaction. Your body builds up the proper immunity to the stimuli when exposed regularly.

 

As to the certification, from a quick look, it seems the organization that they allow doesn't train seizure dogs. Which means it wouldn't be possible for the "right organization" to do certify.

(Again, this was a quick look around the website and what they said they did, which is mostly blind and deaf aid dogs.)

 

Brooke, I will agree with you that not permitting it because of the certification is silly, as long as it's a reputable organization doing the licensing. (And nothing was presented to show otherwise.)

 

It depends on the type of allergy and the person and most importantly the severity of the allergy. All animals carry different dander as well. A cat's dander isn't going to be the same as a dog's. There is also different dander between breeds of animals. I am mostly allergic to small rodents such as rats, mice, rabbits.

From an article:
In many people, mild allergic reactions to pollen, mold, pets and other allergens grow worse from prolonged exposure. Continual contact or periodic episodes of intense exposure can bring on stronger allergy symptoms over time, whether or not patients manage their illness. If this situation persists, lung damage can result.

So, for those kids who even have the mildest of allergies to animals...sorry, but the dog would be protested by me if there is even a small chance that children could develop lung damage.

 

Go work with doctors who do allergen testing and studies (or even talk with them), and you'll hear more about it. It is very common for people to 'grow out' of their allergies or build an immunity, but it is just as common for people to grow an even worse reaction to allergens. ESPECIALLY patients who have asthma on top of their allergies (not just allergen triggered asthma, but full blown acute asthma)! It is common to have one without the other, but for those who have allergies on top of asthma, it can be very dangerous.

 

This could be easily solved by moving kids around at the start of the school year-make sure a note is sent home with all of this child's classmates, then if any child has allergies they can be put in another class-without a service animal. It is the the responsibility of public schools to provide an education to ALL students, both the boy with seizures and any child with allergies to his service animal and to find a way to do so. That boy has a legal right to use a service dog under federal law (The Americans with Disabilities Act or “ADA,” and/or The Rehabilitation Act of 1973)

1-I'm quite sure it's illegal for them not to allow it and 2-I think it's also illegal for them to not allow it because it was trained by a specific organization-If I'm not mistaken-federal law says you can even train a service animal yourself and that no one has a right to ask for proof of your disability (in this case the child's disability) or proof of training for the service animal.

These parents have a case if they want to pursue it. A California school lost a case like this. The U.S. Department of Justice has also settled cases where a teacher was allowed to bring a service animal. The DoE even allows it's employees to use service animals-but not students??? Legally-it's just a bad move by the school.

I wonder, those of you that are against this child being allowed to have his service animal at school I have 2 serious questions-(not trying to argue-just trying to see your point of view)
1. Would you feel the same way about a service animal for a deaf or blind child? An autistic child? A child in a wheelchair? Why or why not?
2. How do you feel about public places like stores, hospitals, taxis, theaters and restaurants allowing service animals (which they are required by federal law to allow)?

 

It's not that I am 'against' it. I love animals...grew up with them my whole life...dogs mostly as well. I think service animals are great! We have one at our local Walmart (belongs to a people greeter) who is EXTREMELY mild and trained very well. He normally just lays there peacefully by the front door with the greeter.

However, it's when the 'right' of someone disrupts the 'right' of other people that I have a problem with. EVERYONE has rights, not just this little boy. I kind of put this on the same level as having a peanut free school. So, getting rid of peanuts in a school is good enough for those allergic children but the rights of other kids who have severe allergies or asthma to animals don't matter? Remember, I said 'kind of'. I know this is a different situation, but the right of those children who have allergies (mild or severe) could be infringed upon just for the right of someone else. That is my issue. And it's a lot easier said than done when you talk about moving kids around. There are other factors that could be involved that might make just 'moving around kids' a lot harder than it seems. It's situations like these that cause a stir because some people want to not include the feelings of others for one other child who has a special situation. If things can be accomodating to make it safe and secure for ALL involved, then that is wonderful. But, when it can't be, people need to think of EVERYONE involved, not just this one little boy instead of throwing stones at those who want to make sure it's a good environment for everyone, not just one.

As far as service animals at the store, etc. That to me is comparing apples to oranges. My children don't spend 7 hours a day in tight quarters at Walmart.

ETA: I'm sorry, but people are so free to call out on their 'rights' these days, without thinking of other people too. That is what irritates me. As Christians, don't we get irritated sometimes when people call out for tolerance who don't give it in return??? This is kind of similar to me. So, whose rights are more important...this one child, or the other kids?

 

This whole thing could be solved it we made it law that everyone must homeschool their own children.

 

I WISH! Then my hubby wouldn't get to argue with me and I wouldn't have to send my children to PS. Yay for me!!! Ha!

 

The reality is that if the Gov't wants to mandate public education, they MUST accommodate the rights of EVERY child. That's the bottom line. Sonita expressed my feelings wonderfully, so I won't really repeat. But, as I said before, for a school to tell a disabled child that they can't have their DOCTOR RECOMMENDED treatment is a dangerous precedent.

 

Yes-I forgot to mention doctor recommended service animal is important to the issue as well.

To jen-thank you for answer my questions.

Both this child who wants his service animal with him at school and a child that might be allergic to said animal BOTH have the right to a free public education that meets their needs. (the boy in the story to have his service animal and any child who might have a allergy to dogs to be in an environment that doesn't expose him to this allergy)

But honestly, I see it as no different than my child who spent 2 years in PS and was allergic to red dye (Valentine's day, Halloween and Christmas parties are a NIGHTMARE!! LOL) Ever tried to tell 20-25 moms they can't bring in anything with red dye for a class party??? (that's just about any traditional store bought party food or drink that is red, pink, orange, purple, brown, black....) So those things were brought and my child wasn't allowed to have what his classmates had because of his allergy. No fruit loops for afternoon snack like the other kids, no Doritos, etc. The school provided alternatives to all these things. The lunchroom lady checked all the school's condiments for red dye so my son would know which ones to avoid (some BBQ has red dye-some doesn't , etc) She read the labels on the hot dogs the school used-cause those have red dye sometimes. They HAD to accommodate my child's allergy because it's a public school and he had as much a right to that free education as any child not allergic to red dye. The first school he attended had never had a child with red dye allergy-so I was asked a ton of questions my his teacher, para-pro, lunch lady, even the principal. Even though his reaction was not life threatening they took it seriously. They accommodated him-because they had to-because it was his right by law.

 

IMO, the reality is that people take their 'rights' a little too far sometimes. The school also has every 'right' to ask for a more trained dog and more assistance provided by the family. It's one thing to exercise your right, but it's also another to ask someone to bend over backwards while holding onto their ankles.

 

My problem with the boy having his dog at school is not the disruption of the classroom, or the allergies others have, or any of those concerns. My problem here is that mom wants the boy to go to school with his dog all day and who will be caring for the dog? The child is not able to properly care for a dog all day, and the teachers certainly should not be made responsible for this dog.

If a blind, or deaf, or autistic child had a service dog I would feel the same way. IF the child is not able to take full responsibility for the dog then the child can not take the dog to school unless the dog has a certified handler to take responsibility (which if I understood correctly is all the school is asking for) for the animal.

I have no problems with service animals in restaurants, stores and other public places because they are under the control of their handler. In most cases the handler is the person the dog is assisting, but that person is usually an adult as well. When I have seen service animals with children there has always been an adult around as well.

Like I said I have no problems with the service animal or the child, but since the child functions on a k/1st level he is not capable of caring for the dog on his own, and since his parents won't be in school with him, a certified handler is needed.

 

But that's not what they're asking the school to do. The school's big objection is not the dog, it's the specific certification.

Again, I stand by what I said. If a doctor told my child to take a service dog to school, that's not just a "right", that's a medical treatment. NO SCHOOL has the authority to second guess my child's doctor. Like I said, I don't think the organization they want to certify the dog CAN certify the dog. So the child is penalized because the school is asking for the impossible.

I don't think people take rights too far when they are medical combined with compulsory education. As long as education is compulsory and as long as schools are public institutions, funded by the gov't, medical treatment is absolutely a right.

If it was a private school, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. But it's not...

 

GREAT points!

 

I will just agree to disagree with you. :love: I, on many occassions from working in a PS, have seen people wanting the schools to bend over backwards and expect the unreasonable. People often take their 'right', and turn it into ridiculous expectation. Sometimes when you see things from the inside it makes you think a little differently. Perhaps that is why I am on the same page as Jackie.

 

See, we have a child with a severe allergy in my son's classroom much like yours. She has been a part of our school for 4 years. Her mom doesn't expect anything extra from the school. She provides all the extra snacks for her daughter...makes her own party snacks for parties that are allergy free for her. She doesn't expect the school to accomodate her other than keeping her child safe by making sure she doesn't accidentaly eat something she's not suppose to. She packs her lunch every day. She sends her child to school to be educated (which is her 'right'), period.

I guess I would see it the same way as her mom. If my child had a severe food allergy, or allergy of any kind to food, I would not expect the school to provide me alternatives. I would provide them from home, because it's my child afterall, and I don't think it would be too bothersome or a problem for me to provide my child with that simple of alternatives. Not only would I be fearful of my child eating something he shouldn't, but I wouldn't want to put that stress on the school for something I can MUCH more easily provide from home. It's bad enough teachers and staff have their hands tied with other things, unruly kids, the stupid 'no child left behind', testing, etc. I would honestly feel like I'd be burdening to them.

However, it's much more easy for someone to skirt around a food allergy issue than it is a dog allergy issue. You can't provide an alternative for something like that. It's not like you can cut out the dander of an animal.