Chalk Talks- Autism, Schools, and Service Animals: What Must and Should Be Done
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".