This news story about an autistic boy whose dog isn't allowed to come to school with him has me wondering: Is there something the school district isn't, or can't say?
Seems like a no-brainer; if having the dog makes the kid learn better, and it's documented, why not allow the dog? Is the dog not nice, is the principal's kid (or the principal or the teacher) just afraid of dogs? Does the dog make a mess? Is it disruptive? Does he have bad breath? Did the family refuse to join the PTA?
The school district is hiding behind legalese -- that the dog is not officially a "guide dog" -- rather than giving a real reason. Something's not working, or ... someone's just being all by-the-book.
The argument that really got me was that it's equivalent to telling a blind person they can't use their cane beucase they do alright without it. He's being punished for being higher-functioning.
If having a dog with him would help DuckyBoy better suffer through music class, I'd be all over it. If, in kindergarten, a dog would have helped him with meltdowns, with hitting, would have helped control disruptive outbursts, I'd be all ove rit.
The boy in this story, Scooter, "tries to hit" his 3rd-grade classmates every day. Wouldn't the classmates --and classmates' parents -- find the dog preferable to that?
I hope so.