Zero Tolerance for epileptics
Updated 9 August 2004: Cheyenne and Mikki allowed into class. (At bottom of post)
Rockcastle girl, 7, needs Mikki’s help during seizures
This one is a bit more infuriating than usual. Cheyenne Gilliam has epilepsy and she suffers several full seizures a week. Her parents raised $8,000 to pay for a service dog and Cheyenne’s training in handling it. Mikki can sense when Cheyenne is going to have a seizure and will indicate this to her so she can lie down. While she is seizing, the dog will lie on top of her to protect her and comfort her. When the seizure has completely passed he will get up to let her know it is safe for her to rise.
Mikki goes a long way toward letting Cheyenne lead as close to a normal life as she can. Unfortunately for the Gilliams, Mikki is not welcome at Mount Vernon Elementary School.
On 7-year-old Cheyenne Gilliam’s first day at Mount Vernon Elementary yesterday, her new principal, Leon Davidson, explained to her classmates that the dog she brought to school isn’t a pet: It’s a working dog trained to respond to Cheyenne’s epileptic seizures.
But the pair’s first day in second grade ended abruptly when Rockcastle County Schools Superintendent Larry Hammond notified Cheyenne’s parents, Jennifer and Anthony Gilliam, that the dog was, in a manner of speaking, being suspended.
Two hours after the day began, the family took the dog, and their daughter, home.
Hammond will not let the dog into the school. There have been no complaints by any parents but Hammond speculates that a service dog in the school could possibly cause problems at some indefinite point in the future.
Jennifer Gilliam said she’s frustrated that the issue is coming up now.
When the family first bought their house in Rockcastle County two months ago, she said she began working with the school system to ensure that it was prepared for the dog, which came home with the family Sunday after five months of training.
Cheyenne was diagnosed with epilepsy about two years ago but did not have a service dog at her previous school in Edmonson County.
Gilliam said she had responded to the district’s questions, sent in the paperwork officials required and worked with them to draw up plans for how the dog would be handled at school.
The article does not note why Hammond waited until the first school day to kick the dog out.
Gilliam said she believes her refusal to have an “Individual Education Program” drawn up for her daughter is part of the problem.
She said the plan would involve not only testing Chey-enne’s intellectual capability, but also her mental and emotional health, something that is not required for most children.
Gilliam said her daughter is a good student and she does not want her treated differently.
The Kentucky Department of Education stated that without one of these plans set up the school is not required to supply special accommodations. I was not aware that service dogs were considered ’special accommodations’. Under common interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act they are essentially considered an extension of their person and cannot be refused admittance to any location where their person is legally permitted. Refusing Mikki is legally the same as not letting a blind student use their cane.
A lawyer with expertise in service animals and the protections guaranteed their owners under the Americans with Disabilities Act said he does not believe Hammond has the right to stop the dog from coming to school, as long as Cheyenne truly has a disability and Mikki truly is a service dog.
“Unless this dog is menacing the other children, that superintendent doesn’t have a leg to stand on,” said Aaron McCullough, who works for the Texas-based Disability Law Resource Project.
At the moment the parents are filing complaints and checking each day to see if the school will admit Cheyenne and Mikki. I have no doubt that if Hammond remains intransigent that this will end up in a court case that the school district will lose. Hopefully he will have an epiphany and reverse his decision. Your politely worded emails to him could very well help (hint, hint).
See No.2 Pencil for an insightful analysis.
(Tip credit to Bumper)
UPDATE
[Principal] Hammond said he would let the girl and her dog into school after Cheyenne’s pediatrician sent him a letter confirming the girl’s health condition and the medical need for the dog.
Cheyenne’s doctor in Bowling Green faxed the letter yesterday morning, and Hammond let Cheyenne and her dog into school about 10:30 a.m., said her mother, Jennifer Gilliam.
So a faxed letter from the girl’s former physician was all that was needed? Sounds to me like Mr.Hammond was getting an earful and found a way out of his self-dug hole.
Hammond said advocates for people with disabilities pelted him with critical e-mail messages.
I’d like to think that I helped load a few of those slings.
Robert Tierney, recognized by the U.S. Department of Justice as a specialist on accessibility issues for a wide range of clients, volunteered to help the Gilliams and went to school with them yesterday morning to meet with Hammond.
Tierney, of Stanford, said the law is clear that people who use service animals are not required to show proof of their disability or need for the animal, or of the animal’s training. It was “clearly out of bounds” to require such proof before allowing Cheyenne and Mikki into school, he said.
I imagine that the legal specialist was at least as convincing as the doctor’s letter.
In any case, Cheyenne and Mikki are in school and Cheyenne seems quite happy about it.
Later, Cheyenne was “ecstatic” about being allowed into class with her dog, her mother said.
“When they said she could go in, she just smiled,” Gilliam said.
(Tip credit to Maryland Bob)
That’s an outrage. It’s clear under the ADA that the dog must be allowed in. Service dogs are allowed on public buses and all places of business. What makes Hammond think he’s above the law on this?
As I read this I initially thought “another example of….” until I got to the part about the parents refusing an IEP….. That explains it. To make provisions for special students, we have an in-place way to do that. We design an Individualized Educational Program for the student. That program not only allows the school to make special provisions for the student, but requires them to do so. The parent has absolute veto power on the plan. They have the right to get the plan set up the way they want it, no matter how silly or expensive the plan is to implement. There are very few exceptions this this. The parent also has many levels of appeal — both before and after involving the courts.
However, these parents have refused to set up a IEP. This document gives them control, protects the school district and them from actionable events and makes sure they are all on the same page. It is reasonable for the district to test students who need IEPs so they have more information available to the committee (including the parents) who will decide what the IEP for this girl is. The parents are being unreasonable expecting the district to make provisions for their child without the information needed to make intelligent decisions. What are the parents hiding?
The district cannot honor their request. Lets take an extreme example. Say the district allows the girl in with the dog but no IEP. Suppose the girl is Learning Disabled. With no IEP, she will not get the help she needs to learn. The district is liable for her not learning, but can’t even test her.
Once they let the girl in with her dog without an IEP, suppose some nutcase says his child doesn’t feel secure unless he has a handgun in his desk. Silly, but once you open the door to no IEP, but make provisions anyway, the courts might rule that you have to honor all requests for provisions — you have established a “past practice”.
Another point: I have read of some use of dogs for epilepsy help, but I don’t think this is mainstream care. I have doubts that this is such a good idea. Since the dog’s job is to “protect” the child during a seizure, what is to stop the dog from attacking a 2nd grade child or the teacher who is trying to help? I suspect the parents are trying to “pull something over on” the district here. That is understandable, since parents want the best for their child and this family seems to be pushing the limits of what is acceptable to help their child. But they are not accepting the help the district can give — instead trying to impose what they want whether it is appropriate for the other 25 (or so) students in the class or their own daughter.
Barry, the parents’ resistance to an IEP is because they do not want her to be subject to grand evaluation for a physical disability. She has no evidence of a learning disability so why must she be evaluated for her mental capacity/ability?
Say the district allows the girl in with the dog but no IEP. Suppose the girl is Learning Disabled. With no IEP, she will not get the help she needs to learn.
The exact same thing would happen as with any other student that showed signs of a learning problem. The dog has no relation to her mental abilities. On the contrary, she’s shown excellent maturity and ability to learn simply by passing the training and evaluations needed to get the dog.
I understand that people who are not familiar with assistance dogs have concerns over them. For example, you question that Mikki might attack a student who was trying to help Cheyenne. That won’t happen with one of these dogs. This is precisely the type of thing that the parents worked with the school to address before the school year started. It’s the type of thing that is easily overcome with a bit of education.
A good basic criteria list for these dogs is here.
Besides Barry the school was perfectly willing to let her in until the first day of school. if they had any reservations it should have been addressed before the school year started.
As for your gun remark it holds no weight. animal assistance is a well documented form of assited living. what is more than likly going on here is A the parents are trying to hide somthing
And / Or
The school is worried about a law suit from another parrent and are trying to find the best course of action for the district to protect its self at all cost.
What I’m saying is that while the parents don’t want their daughter subject to evaluation — that is part of the process. The parents are under no obligation to follow the recommendations of the evaluation and can appeal any IEP committee’s decision. So what is the harm?
I still don’t think this dog should be allowed in the classroom without an IEP. 2nd grade is not full of mature adults who would know to leave the dog alone if it was protecting the girl. What assurance does the school have that the dog will not injure another student? While I’m sure the parents believe in the dog’s training, I don’t have enough information about this dog and its usefulness to make a judgement and I think the district deserves that consideration. This dog is NOT the same as a seeing-eye dog. It is trained to “protect” its master. What does that mean? If it means attacking anyone who approaches his master when she is having a seizure, I doubt this dog should be in the classroom. I wouldn’t want my 2nd grader in that class until I was sure it was safe.
I am a firm believer in full inclusion, but, to be honest, there are times where full inclusion of a handicapped student in regular classes is counterproductive. I wonder if this is one of those times. The dog will help the student, but perhaps disrupt the class. The seizures, if they happen often, will have a huge effect on the classroom learning environment. Classmates will be very disturbed. Not a good, learning-supportive thing to happen. If the dog growls and barks at students near the girl, they will become scared and upset. Again, that will not help the learning environment.
Perhaps I am an old curmudgeon — 33 years of teaching in the public schools and retired. Having had most of the special education students my department taught (For some reason the special educaiton department picked me for the kids) I have fond memories of their success. I would like to think that my flexibility and caring helped.
However, this situation causes other problems. I don’t know enough to say “sure… let the dog in”. An IEP conference would help me, if I was a teacher in this girl’s class, to become more familiar with the situation. It cannot be a disadvantage to know more about a student — isn’t educaiton about learning as much as you can — not about keeping information you need private?
There is an interesting document here from the Kentucky Department of Education that may help decipher some of the issues. At a cursory reading, I did not see anything that required a mental evaluation; rather, the document lists several items for the benefit of the parents to be an advocate for their child.
While the document lists something about the IEP cannot attempt to shoehorn the student into an existing education setting for the “convenience of the administration”, it does not say that a student absolutely must be in a separate learning environment. I wonder if, assuming you can get around the mental evaluation, it would be better for the parents to file one of these IEPs that basically states that Cheyenne has epilepsy bit does not require anything special. That may be the long way around, and I did not study everything deeply enough to make this assertion with any confidence. I was just curious if there was a way to make everyone happy, even though I think the superintendent is a stooge.
Sorry… forgot to include the URL…
http://www.katsnet.org/fact4.html
3. The dog must show social behavior skills of no aggression, no inappropriate barking, no biting, no snapping/growling, no inappropriate jumping on strangers, no begging and no sniffing of people. Dogs must be unobtrusive and have good household skills.
These dogs are supremely well trained. The protection that Mikki offers Cheyenne is from damaging herself. He’s trained to protect her, not to defend her.
A dog in a classroom is going to be a distraction to 2nd graders…for a while. Anybody with animals and kids can testify that the animals become part of the furniture in relatively short order. Mikki is specifically trained to be unobtrusive.
From reading the article it seems like the parents did everything that is required for an IEP except allow mental evaluation. They worked with the principal and other faculty to prepare them for the dog and worked out how the dog and Cheyenne would be handled. If no specific special education is desired or warranted, what need is there for an IEP?
Barry, your suggestion that the dog not be allowed in the classroom without a prior IEP consultation holds no weight. You suggest that not enough is known about the dog and that it may be unsafe to the other students. How would having an IEP filed make that dog any safer to the other students?
If the dog is truely unsafe as you seem to claim,
… I doubt this dog should be in the classroom. I wouldn’t want my 2nd grader in that class until I was sure it was safe.
under no circumstances should it be allowed in the classroom IEP or not.
As a service dog, it is trained to be the safest of any domesticated animal and I cannot see how anyone can refuse its being allowed to accompany the girl to school.
Everyone is dancing around the central issue, I think.
If the IEP is no big deal and not binding, why not just do it?
Simple. It may very well haunt Cheyenne for her entire life. Taking these exams gives officals a chance to slap a label on her, fairly or not. That’s a label that will, if you’ll excuse the pun, dog her for the rest of her academic career.
Although it may seems like a stretch, and I don’t beleive it is, one false step (or mis-labeling now) may mean the difference between a graduation with honors and a graduation from the special-ed department.
‘It doesn’t work that way’ doesn’t really cut it, especially when dealing with a young lady’s future. If the dog is _really_ that much of a problem, the parents should just sign a contact making them liable for the dog’s actions so the school isn’t, and if the dog is a constant distraction after say, 4 weeks, then take some kind of appropriate action.
Common sense wins the day again.
I think the School and certain people here are confusing whatever special instructions are requied for having service dogs in school with testing for whether this girl’s epilepsy might render her education needs special. I have no information as to whether her needs actually ARE special, but I find it suspicious that the student needs the IEP only to bring the dog to school. If she truly had special needs, the IEP would be a threshold requirement for her to be in school at all, not to have a dog with her while there.
As a teacher in the Kentucky school system, I find this unbelievable! First of all, Cheyenne needs a 504 plan, not an IEP. The 504 plan is to accommodate disabilities, especially those that do not limit or place few limits on learning ability, such as physical disabilities (these may include things like dyslexia, which does place learning ability unless accommodated effectively). The tests that Cheyenne’s mother is concerned about are NOT required for a 504 plan; only documentation of the child’s ADA eligible condition is needed for this plan.
The idea that epileptics have mental disabilities is archaic. I don’t blame Cheyenne’s mother for being angry about subjecting her daughter to tests of her mental ability in order to accommodate a physical disability. Sounds like Rockcastle County needs some profesional development in special needs categories!
Sorry — got ahead of myself and didn’t make any sense there! What I meant to say was:
As a teacher in the Kentucky school system, I find this unbelievable! First of all, Cheyenne needs a 504 plan, not an IEP. The 504 plan is to accommodate disabilities, especially those that do not limit or place few limits on learning ability, such as physical disabilities (these may include things like dyslexia, which can affect learning ability unless accommodated effectively). The tests that Cheyenne’s mother is concerned about are NOT required for a 504 plan; only documentation of the child’s ADA eligible condition is needed for this plan.
The idea that epileptics have mental disabilities is archaic. I don’t blame Cheyenne’s mother for being angry about subjecting her daughter to tests of her mental ability in order to accommodate a physical disability. Sounds like Rockcastle County needs some profesional development in special needs categories!
My wife (a trained vet tech) has never heard of an epileptic support dog being trained to attack someone as part of defending their person; she states that the training revolves around knowing when the person is having a seizure and stopping them from, say, walking off a cliff or otherwise injuring themselves.
It is likewise unfortunate, but relevant, that American society has developed a tendency to medicalize every aspect of human behavior, particularly in the terms of “mental illness” and “learning disabiliies”. I concur with those posters who have pointed out that epilepsy is a physical dysfunction, and in no way indicative of underlying mental or emotional difficulty.
But the real underlying root problem is that every child is compelled by threat of force (law) to “attend”, and every adult likewise compelled to pay. Remove those compulsions, and every parent will have the freedom to decide whether the presence of an animal in such an environment constitutes a sufficient risk to avoid exposing their child to it. (I find the very nature of the environment itself wholly opposed to the development of independent, rational thought, so any child of mine would not be placed there; hopefully, not even if a gun were held to my head.)
Sounds to me like folks need to lose administrative certification.
As pointed out above, this is a 504 case, and the dog is clearly a safe animal given the training it receives. Would this man refuse to allow a seeing eye dog in the school simply because the child hadn’t jumped through all the hoops.
I think the roblem here is not the dog, but the disease. The principal seems afraid of the epilepsy, and assumes that the presence of a seizure disorder brings with it a host of psychological problems and learning disabilities. That merely puts him half a century behind the times in understanding the disease.
Since no special placement or special education services are being sought there is no need for an IEP. The IEP is the way to get placement in a separate special education class, speech therapy, occupational therapy, etc. All that is needed for this medical condition is a Section 504 plan from the Americans with Disability Act. There is no need for any academic or emotional testing. An IEP can do it too, but the risk of the school system doing something sneaky is high. What I would fear if I was the parent is that the school system would try to use the IEP as a method to force the child into a separate special education school or classroom to isolate her and the dog from the regular classroom. Then you can get into the situation of due process hearings.
What the parents need to do in this case is to file a complaint with the US Department of Education�s Office of Civil Rights at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html
Seems like the school system got some legal advice. The girl can go to school now. See http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/9342638.htm
When my daughter was getting her IEP for her speech delay so that she could receive services, I don’t recall any testing of her mental status. If you read the article carefully, what Cheyenne’s mother is objecting to is NOT testing of her child’s intellectual capabilities, but testing for “mental and emotional health”.
Now maybe her mother is just misunderstanding what the school system wants, but it sounds like the school is afraid the child is mentally unstable, and I can fully understand her mother refusing that sort of testing. I had no problems with the initial testing of my child when she was 2 1/2 to make sure that the speech problem was not associated with any mental retardation, but if they ever decide that she can’t have her speech therapy without her mental health being tested…
Our oldest son also had “delayed speech” as a toddler and received “early intervention” (as New York calls it) when he was around 3. We, too, wanted to make sure that he got as much as he could prior to starting kindergarten, as everything prior to that is “off the record”. We knew he had no learning problems, and that is was strictly “expressive language” that was a problem. (In other words, he had no problems learning anything, and _understood_ speech just fine. In fact, while at 3 years old he rated less than 2 years in spoken language, he ranked ahead of the curve on everything else.)
I can certainly understand the parents not wanting a “mental evaluation” done.
Question: Since the school’s only objection was to the dog, what would they have done if the parents decided to send her to school without the dog? Their whole argument goes out the window. Not IEP needed. No 504 needed. Just another little girl.
What a great discussion! I have been out of town, so I missed most of it, but reading the history has been great!
A 504 plan is a great idea! This is specifically for students who are not special education students. Include the dog in that plan and everyone is protected. It even answers the problem about “labeling” a student. Good suggestion.
But remember — the school has more control of a 504 plan than an IEP.
Finally….. the administrator was an idiot they way he handled this issue. First yes — then no…. It is amazing how an administrator often finds the way to make the greatest number of people angry!
barry
You have got to be kidding. IEP=Individual Education Plan. Why does she need to be singled out and individually educated? She was doing just fine in a classroom environment, getting the same instruction as the other students, with no other special instruction BEFORE she introduced the Service Dog into the equation. Why, after expressing her need for the Service Dog would she suddenly need a shift in the way she was being educated?
One reason for a Service Dog is to try to live life as self sufficiently as possible. Sure, the girl and her parents could just as easily have informed the school that she was epileptic and prone to seizures, and instructed the adults that would be involved with her how to react when she had a seizure and how to “protect” her from injury. But why should they have to do that? She has a Service Dog to perform those tasks for her.
Just as a blind individual could just as easily inform the school that they were blind and will need someone to guide them around to their classes and to the bus every day. Why would they be forced to do that when they can have a Service Dog perform those tasks for them?
These dogs are with their person 24/7 and are acutely aware of exactly what their person needs immediately, at the time that they need it. A human is not going to detect an oncoming seizure 15 minutes before it happens, and is not going to react to it as fast as that girl’s dog will. If they’re even in a close enough proximity to react at all.
Why not just make the parapalegic leave their wheelchair at the door because those darn things are pretty hefty and imagine the injuries it could cause the other children if the disabled individual were to accidently roll over a child’s foot or run into their shin or something?
Isn’t it feasible to just have an adult carry the child from class to class?
Get a grip, people! That is what the very term “Service Dog” means. A dog which is used to perform a service. These dogs are highly trained and bad behavior and agression is the first thing that is evaluated, and if any is shown, either at initial evaluation, or any time during the training the dog is NOT a candidate for SD work! It is most important to have a calm, well trained Service Dog that will react to your instructions immediately and will hardly be noticed in public.
I was going to quote a few of Barry’s comments, but then thought better of it. There’s just too much ignorance to ferret through and all I can say is, I’m glad he’s retired from teaching children in the special education environment with his attitude toward and knowledge of people with disabilities.
And for those who say “Why not get the evaluation? What are they trying to hide?” Think about civil rights issues. Then try to put yourself in their shoes. Would you subject yourself to just any old test that someone asked you to take just because they thought it “best”?
-A drug screening because you applied for state aid, because you MIGHT be using drugs since you are low income?
-A breathalizer because you were stopped for a minor traffic violation that has nothing to do with weaving or driving erratically, because, well, since we stopped you anyway…?
-A credit history because you wanted to browse a car lot. You’re not really thinking about buying a car, but you’re looking at the new models… Hey, what have you got to hide?
Because it’s NOBODY’S business and it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand! The girl doesn’t need special services, she needs a trained Service Dog by her side to be there to alert her to an impending seizure so she can prepare herself by finding a safe place to sit, or, if it’s too late, and there’s no place to sit, she can grab the dog, he helps her safely lower herself to the floor, rather than fall. The dog will be there to lay on top of her to keep her thrashing to a minimum so that when she comes to consciousness, she’s got as few bruises and scrapes and lumps on her head and body as possible. (That’s what they mean by “protecting” her)
Or, would you rather she doesn’t have the dog, slams herself against a few chairlegs or a wall or two, just to keep the classroom distraction to a minimum? After 2 weeks, those kids won’t even notice that dog is there.
The administrator did do the right thing for the whole classroom. So just anybody can bring their dog in if they say they need it? Please. Everybody would be attempting to bring their dogs to school. The little girl’s family does need a 504 for a medical issue. They should have been a little more organized and planned ahead. In the end, everything worked out.
There are a variety of issues here the most important, as listed by others, is an IEP goal rates a child with a learning disabilty even if the child does not have any learning deficit.
Second, word travels fast in a school, particulerly among children. The young women already has to contend with other children seeing her as different. Why make it more complex and harder on her emotionally by adding a learning disability that she does not have? We also have an issue of medical coverage. It is fairly difficult to gain medical insurace for a child who is epileptic. The cost is quite high. The difficulty only rises if you place a learning disability on record as well. Finely, as to the effectiveness of the IEP goals, Goals that are listed in the IEP are often to broad to actually measure any progress. Whether the goals are to broad because of a lack of knowledge on the school systems part or as a way to protect the school against legal action is unclear..but in most cases more work needs to be put into their development for the children in question So…again one may ask..why put the child under IEP goals when she has no learning disability and when the school could do the child a much needed service without half the amount of work IEP goals would mandate by allowing the dog into the classroom? O! As to my credintials… I am licensed professional councelor who specializes in the treatment of autism and family therapy.
Should have his licence revoked; if this man is not happy with dispensing legal drugs because of his beliefs perhaps he should try other employment, or does his income come before his beliefs? WBR LeoP
Yap, is that true?