Chalk Talks- Autism, Schools, and Service Animals: What Must and Should Be Done
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I. INTRODUCTION Kaleb Drew looks like other blonde 6-year-old child in central Illinois. However, when it comes communicating, Kaleb is not like other 6-year-olds. Kaleb has autism. When the Drews sought have a service dog accompany Kaleb at school, his school refused. The school administrators argued that service animals do not properly assist autistic students and that the school must protect the other students from Kaleb 's Labrador Retriever.1 Kaleb's family took the issue court and won. Kaleb entered first grade accompanied by his dog, Chewey.2 This Note advises school administrators of the issues and laws surrounding a student's service animal request as well as the specific issues presented by a student who has an autism spectrum disorder. Section II explains three federal statutes that govern the treatment of individuals with Section III addresses the problems associated with autism and explains the ways that service animals can assist students. Section IV explains the factors that can allow a school forbid a student from bringing a service animal school. These factors include both the broad issues and the autism-specific reasons for a legal denial of service animal use. Lastly, Section V provides a solution which allows school administrators better serve current and future students who make service animal requests. II. LAWS APPLICABLE TO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES, SERVICE ANIMALS, AND SCHOOLS Part of the problem of dealing with students with disabilities is that there are multiple laws addressing the issues surrounding individuals with disabilities bringing service animals into schools. Service animals are defined as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.3 Although some states have enacted laws which address a student's right attend school with a service animal,4 three primary federal statutes that apply schools and how they must accommodate requests by students with disabilities bring service animals into schools will discussed here. These statutes are the Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, both of which impose a duty not discriminate against the disabled,5 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which imposes a duty provide a free appropriate public education the disabled.6 A. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act The Rehabilitation Act, passed in 1973, provides that no qualified individual with a disability be excluded from the participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected by program receiving federal financial assistance.7 It established that recipients of federal financial assistance (Section 504) should not discriminate against otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities.8 Accordingly, Section 504 bars schools, as entities which receive federal funding, from discriminating against disabled individuals.9 If a reasonable accommodation (see discussion below in Section B) allows a disabled student more mobile, communicate better, learn more, care for himself, or perform other manual tasks, then a school should allow that accommodation. In many cases, a service animal can help an autistic student with these major life activities. If the service animal has been individually trained and ameliorates the unique problems of the disabled student, then the school generally should not ban the animal. Under Section 504, the service animal's presence and assistance need only necessary allow the disabled student participate in or receive the benefits of activity that is afforded other students.10 B. Americans with Disabilities Act Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) with the goal of further prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Congress enacted the ADA to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle