UPDATE:  2/27/07 – U.S. District Judge Arthur Spatt rules against the Cave family and determines that the district has been serving their son well by providing a sign language interpreter, a student note-taker, an FM listening system, a teacher of the deaf and extra time on tests. Read the Newsday article here. Unfortunately, the article does not address the issue of the child’s safety needs. None of the accommodations mentioned by the judge will help the student in the event of an emergency whereas that is exactly what the hearing service dog has been trained to do. The family plans to appeal Judge Spatt’s decision.

~~~~~

ORIGINAL ARTICLE posted 2/15/07

It seems everyone is weighing in on a Long Island School district’s decision not to allow a deaf student to bring his new hearing service dog to school. The district says the boy does fine without it and the dog will be distracted by other students. They also note that some students are allergic to animals. The family says their 9th grade student, who has two cochlear implants, needs to be with the dog 24/7 for bonding/training purposes and that the dog will ensure the safety of their son. The case has been filed in federal court and the Cave family is seeking $150 million in damages from the district. Get the details here.

Now, the NYS Division of Human Rights has gotten in on the act and says the East Meadow School District may be guilty of “unlawful, discriminatory practices” and “wasn’t open to settlement” on this issue. See the article in today’s Newsday here.

As a law school graduate, I’ve been trained to see both sides of every issue. The school district’s arguments to deny the dog access have been very weak. The district’s attorney argued that other students in the high school might use spitballs or high-pitched whistles to distract the Labrador retriever. Ludicrous!It’s the school’s responsibility to educate their students about proper behavior in the classrooms. If a student needed crutches to walk would they argue that other kids might be mean and try to trip the student or steal their crutches?

Their argument about allergies is slightly stronger. Yes, some students and teachers may have allergies or asthma. But since the dog is a service dog, it is not a pet and thus is not to be touched by anyone other than its owner. The school can change the student’s schedule to minimize his exposure to those who are specifically allergic to dog hair. Also, rooms can have better air circulation or devices to reduce allergens in the air. This will benefit all students. While the practicality of this is not clear, they are options.

I certainly agree that the student and his dog are not doing the proper amount of bonding or training. This can impact the dog’s effectiveness in doing its job. Where are the dog’s trainers in this case? Shouldn’t they be weighing in as experts in court?

An audiologist testified that the boy misses 20 to 30 percent of sounds with his cochlear implants. Chances are he could miss the fire alarm in an emergency. Does the school have visual flashing lights in every classroom, bathroom and activity room? Is it in his IEP that an aide or a designated staff member must find this student in the event of an emergency? How is the district planning to secure the boy’s safety?

Why did the family wait so long to get a hearing dog if they feel it is imperative that their son needs one? Did their elementary and middle schools provide other accomodations to assuage their worries about his safety that the high school hasn’t?

All arguments aside, my gut feeling says that the family would have a better case if the student was in 12th grade and they argued that he and the dog needed sufficient training time in advance of leaving for college. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Stay tuned and please post your comments. We want to “hear” from you!

Tweet This Post

Popularity: 3% [?]