MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W302008360

Chalk Talks- Autism, Schools, and Service Animals: What Must and Should Be Done

2010· article· en· W302008360 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Danny Schoenbaechler

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Law of Education · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal Issues in Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésStatuteAutismService (business)PsychologySpecial educationDenialSection (typography)LawMedical educationPolitical sciencePedagogyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyBusiness
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,038
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,075

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,007
Communication savante0,0060,007
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0090,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0170,003

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,379
Écart entre enseignants0,335 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Law of EducationMême sujetLegal Issues in EducationTravaux en français237 207