« Hurricane update: School boards reaching out | Main | Hurricane lesson: Let school boards set calendars »
September 7, 2004
Kentucky superintendent hounded over service dogAnother minor media and public furor has centered on another lucky school district. To The Great Nashville Honor Roll Ban Scandal of 2004 and The Great Kenowa Hills Military Reservist Teacher Persecution Scandal of 2004, BoardBuzz readers now can add The Great Rockcastle Epilepsy Insensitivity Scandal of 2004.
The incident
As the Lexington Herald-Leader reported, seven-year-old Cheyenne Gilliam started her new school year in Mount Vernon, Kentucky, in the company of a 55-pound Weimaraner dog. Despite medication, Cheyenne experiences frequent epileptic seizures. Mikki the dog is trained to sense when she is about to have a seizure and warn her so she can lie or sit down in time. On the first day of school, Cheyenne's principal explained all this to her classmates. But later that morning Rockcastle County Schools Superintendent Larry Hammond informed Cheyenne's mother that the dog would have to stay out of the school until he could check on some safety and liability concerns. Ms. Gilliam took both Cheyenne and Mikki home.
Hammond said he had a responsibility for the safety and well being of all, including children and staff who might be afraid of or allergic to dogs. Cheyenne had not used a service dog at her previous school, and he at least wanted to look into whether Cheyenne's needs could be met by a trained instructional assistant. "I've never dealt with a situation quite like that," he said. "I regret the inconvenience to the parent and the child." Ms. Gilliam expressed frustration, indicating she had been working with the district for two months to arrange matters. Aaron McCullough of the Disability Law Resource Project told the Herald-Leader that, assuming Cheyenne truly has a disability and Mikki truly is a service dog, "[u]nless this dog is menacing to other children, that superintendent doesn't have a leg to stand on."
The situation was resolved after Ms. Gilliam's pediatrician provided medical documentation of Cheyenne's condition and need for the dog, and after Mr. Hammond checked in with the school board's attorney and insurance carrier. As a postscript, the Kentucky state Board of Education subsequently has granted Rockcastle a special waiver from the state regulation prohibiting animals on school buses, so that Mikki can accompany Cheyenne on field trips.
The response
Unfortunately, the resolution did not come fast enough to forestall the indignant uproar. The Associated Press picked up on the story, so it was widely reported. Let's face it: sympathetic child (and she is, very), cute doggie, and seemingly unyielding authority figure—all the elements necessary to excite the news media and rouse public passions. Terms like "punishment," "suspension," "insensitive," and "zero tolerance" poured forth.
Robert Tierney, who, the Herald-Leader dutifully related, says he is recognized by the U.S. Department of Justice as a specialist on accessibility for the disabled, contended that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not require people who use service animals to show proof of their disability, their need for the animal, or the animal's training. Mr. Hammond was "clearly out of bounds" when he required medical documentation before allowing the dog in school, Mr. Tierney asserted.
"What could the superintendent and others be thinking? Would they not allow a child with a broken leg to bring crutches to school?" asked a dog trainer in this letter to the editor of the Springfield, Missouri News-Leader. "This one is a bit more infuriating than usual," huffed Zerointelligence.net, a website devoted to railing against the "school board inanity" of zero tolerance policies, or at least what it conceives as such. A blog on testing and education reform called Number 2 Pencil accused school officials of "tossing out comments about dog allergies," as it tossed out comments about "the bureaucrats" and their "misunderstanding."
"The school is more interested in making sure that a few kids don't have an allergic reaction to the dog than making sure that the little girl can actually safely attend school," sniffed one response to the posting of the story on this online forum; the person who initially posted the story, incidentally, shared the helpful information, "Current mood: angry." And another online forum commenced its discussion with the reflective subject heading, "Jerk of the year award."
The story ventured even more widely across the Web than most school fumings: websites about service dogs, about animal advocacy, and even about "Dog News" got in on the act. "Give that man an F," howled the animal advocates. Some sites invited their readers to impart their wisdom on the matter by e-mailing Mr. Hammond. Some people apparently did so.
To be fair, not every chat room participant jumped on the bandwagon or weighed in with edifying hate mail. Here's one response to an e-tirade:
That sounds plausible and reasonable until you remember the special legal considerations that schools endure. If a 55 pound Weimaraner were in one of my child's classes, I would certainly expect the school to be able to provide me an explanation for it being there.... The school would be negligent in not asking some basic questions. They have an obligation to all the students and their parents as well.Here's another:
I would also be interested in knowing who you believe is liable should the dog attack another student? Regardless of whatever you think, it is the school system and the county government. What would your reaction be if this news story read, "Local Student Attacked by Other Child's Service Dog?"And many people who have experience with allergies, especially parents, hastened to point out that this is no trivial concern.
Posted September 7, 2004 12:00 AM
BoardBuzz Feed
