PDA

View Full Version : Should extraordinary effort be made to include people of disabilities?



Dave S.
07-04-2007, 05:02 AM
Should deaf people be able to work any job? Should blind people be allowed to drive? Should mentally challanged children be integrated into mainstream classes? Should a man with prostetic legs be allowed to compete in the Olympics (not Special). The current trend in our society is for integration of people with disabilities, but we do come across road blocks.

If a deaf person wants to be a lifeguard at a pool, should they be allowed? The YMCA of USA says no. About 10 years ago they changed their policy to reflect this, and got sued by several deaf lifeguards. They settled those cases, and the terms aren't known. But as a lifeguard at a YMCA pool, I can assure you that hearing plays a large part in my job. Out of the five times I had to rescue a distressed swimmer, four times I heard the swimmer struggling before I saw them. A swimmer can go from normal to distressed to drowning in about 10-15 seconds. If a lifeguard is relying on vision alone, that's a very small window to notice them going under.

And what about in class rooms? If a child requires special attention, doesn't their presence take away from the learning experience of the other children in the class? Should the one child be included to boost his self-esteem, at the cost of 30 other children's education?

Add your thoughts.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-04-2007, 05:06 AM
If the disability hurts their ability to do the job and they can't compensate for it somehow, then they shouldn't be hired for said job.

AAlgar
07-04-2007, 05:09 AM
I would like to applaud this message board's efforts in this area, by allowing the mentally retarded post regularly. (Nobody in this thread... yet.)

Mylazycat
07-04-2007, 05:10 AM
This thread will not end well.

Not a joke comment. It just won't.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-04-2007, 05:10 AM
I would like to applaud this message board's efforts in this area, by allowing the mentally retarded post regularly. (Nobody in this thread... yet.)

Ha!

Dave S.
07-04-2007, 05:11 AM
This thread will not end well.

Not a joke comment. It just won't.

Haha, yeah. I realize that. But the McDonald's topic got me thinking about it.

ShortStack
07-04-2007, 05:13 AM
I would like to applaud this message board's efforts in this area, by allowing the mentally retarded post regularly. (Nobody in this thread... yet.)
:rofl:

I think simple things like putting wheelchair ramps on buildings and training people in various service industries how to accomadate the handicapped is a good idea, but as far as occupations go-if they can't compensate for it, then they aren't qualified. I want my lifeguard to be able to hear.

Dave S.
07-04-2007, 05:16 AM
:rofl:

I think simple things like putting wheelchair ramps on buildings and training people in various service industries how to accomadate the handicapped is a good idea, but as far as occupations go-if they can't compensate for it, then they aren't qualified. I want my lifeguard to be able to hear.

The YMCA I work at gets yelled at sometimes for not being wheelchair accessable. But the building was built in 1923. The cost of making it accessable would be more than the branch brings in in members fees, and it would be defacing a landmark. there are like 6 other YMCAs in the area (15-20 minute drive away) that are accessable.

Luke
07-04-2007, 05:28 AM
And what about in class rooms? If a child requires special attention, doesn't their presence take away from the learning experience of the other children in the class? Should the one child be included to boost his self-esteem, at the cost of 30 other children's education?

Add your thoughts.

I can understand your point about a lifeguard needing to be able to hear and that some buildings just aren't practical to be made wheelchair accessible when there are other places nearby where the same services can found.

My brother has down syndrome and he was in mainstream classes for most of his schooling and I don't think he would have had anywhere near the negative impact on his classmates education that the typical class clown and school bully types had. In fact I know for a fact that my brothers presence at his school had a huge influence on the tolerance and compassion of his classmates. To suggest that the only benefit of including kids with disabilities is to give them a confidence boost is ridiculous.

ClintP
07-04-2007, 05:30 AM
As far as work goes, I personally think that you should not attempt to do some job that you simply are not able to do. I mean, if you want to be a life guard, you have to be able to hear screams and have the ability to swim. People who have some disability should come to terms with it and not try to prove some point at other's expense.

On the other hand, I don't think they should be shunned and be forced to work in some mcdonalds or assembly line just because "that is all they can do". We as a society should not try to pigeon hole someone into another class. Some care and concern should be given and they deserve respect and a chance to prove themselves.

As far as school goes, I think people with disabilities should be allowed in class as long as their needs do not hinder others. At my wifes school, they will have aids in the class when there are more than a couple kids who have learning disabilities, or when they have work to do can do down to the area for more focused help.

Before anyone jumps my ass, I would like to say that my Aunt Nancy was born with severe hearing and visual problems. She has very low self-esteem and my mom and her two other sisters help her out as best they can. She has been working in the food industry for those lunch truck caterers for as long as I can remember. Recently she got tired of it and works in a local college cafeteria serving food. She is pretty independent and can drive, but only during the day. Her hearing is so bad that she has to have 2 hearing aids to hear or she can not hear at all. Her vision is just as bad.

I may not expressed my opinions completely,but you may get the gist of it. I think we should be careful in how we treat people who need more help because you never know how life will treat you or yours one day. But at the same time, people with disabilities or their families shouldn't delude themselves either.

Ray G.
07-04-2007, 05:33 AM
Oh, for fuck's sake. DEAF LIFEGUARDS? :nonono2:

Pat Loika
07-04-2007, 05:37 AM
We've been accused of discriminating against the handicapped because our handicap-accessible hotel rooms only have a king bed.

P.

Bryan H
07-04-2007, 05:44 AM
We've been accused of discriminating against the handicapped because our handicap-accessible hotel rooms only have a king bed.

P.


"Stop assuming we want to sleep comfortably!"

Seriously though, how is this descriminating? Do some people prefer full/queen sized beds? Really?

dasNdanger
07-04-2007, 05:46 AM
Should deaf people be able to work any job? Should blind people be allowed to drive? Should mentally challanged children be integrated into mainstream classes? Should a man with prostetic legs be allowed to compete in the Olympics (not Special). The current trend in our society is for integration of people with disabilities, but we do come across road blocks.

If a deaf person wants to be a lifeguard at a pool, should they be allowed? The YMCA of USA says no. About 10 years ago they changed their policy to reflect this, and got sued by several deaf lifeguards. They settled those cases, and the terms aren't known. But as a lifeguard at a YMCA pool, I can assure you that hearing plays a large part in my job. Out of the five times I had to rescue a distressed swimmer, four times I heard the swimmer struggling before I saw them. A swimmer can go from normal to distressed to drowning in about 10-15 seconds. If a lifeguard is relying on vision alone, that's a very small window to notice them going under.

And what about in class rooms? If a child requires special attention, doesn't their presence take away from the learning experience of the other children in the class? Should the one child be included to boost his self-esteem, at the cost of 30 other children's education?

Add your thoughts.


Wow...this requires a multi-faceted answer, for there is no right or wrong way to handle all the various situations that could arise.

First, there should always be a REASONABLE effort made to accomodate any human being, with or without disabilities or physical challenges. For instance, to me it is reasonable to have a couple spaces in a movie theater for wheelchairs, or a couple seats to accomodate a very obese person. That is reasonable.

It is also reasonable to allow someone with a disability to compete in a top athletic contest IF that person can perform on the level of the other athletes - even those without disabilities must meet a standard in order to compete - so if a physically challenged person meets those same standards, they should have the right to compete, just like everyone else.

However...sometimes it is the disabled person who is unreasonable. Now, before you throw eggs at me, lemme 'splain.

Pride is a funny thing...sometimes it's good, and sometimes it's very ugly. Pride can inspire a disabled person to do the best they can do... but it can also make them want to do things that - reasonably - they should not. When pride clouds judgment, and causes a person to think only of themselves - the whole 'me first' attitude - then it's a bad thing. When a deaf person wants to be a lifeguard, for instance, he's thinking of himself. He wants to prove to the world that he can do this, and perhaps, he can. Perhaps he's a great swimmer, perhaps he has great eyes and can notice things others may not see. Perhaps, because of a lack of hearing, he isn't distracted by the noises around him, and can notice the instant a person goes down, or finds themselves in distress. That may all be true, but if he's desiring to be a lifeguard because it's a 'cool' job, or because he wants to prove to others that he CAN do it - without regard to the lives he's supposed to be protecting...well...then no, he shouldn't.

That said, because a deaf person isn't distracted by noises - and there usually is a lot of screaming and laughing and yelling around pools, especially when a lot of kids are present, then he might be VERY good at the job. He might be less apt to look away from the pool. However, he may also be easily distracted by what he sees - a girl in a bikini might steal his attention for a moment, and since he can't hear someone calling for help, that moment might cost someone their life.

So, if someone wants to do something just to prove that they can do it - without regard to the lives they might affect - then they are being selfish, and lack a humble acknowledgement of their limitations.

Now...school. School is a very difficult thing to handle, even for children who are not mentally or physically challenged. Two things have to be taken into consideration: the effect on the impaired student, and the effect on the other students. Will the others kids be deprived of attention? Will the other kids bully the impaired student? Will the impaired student feel accepted or rejected by the class? If he feels like MORE of an outsider since he's not with kids like himself, will this stunt not just his mental growth, but his emotional growth as well? Lots of things to consider, and no two situations are the same. In some cases it might work, and in others it might fail miserably.

Now, an example of how it CAN work. I worked at a school that a deaf kid attended. He had been at a school for the hearing impaired, but was transferred to our school because his mother worked there. He was in the special classes (with an interpreter), but he was also on the track team with all the 'normal' kids. He read lips well, but could not speak in an understandable fashion. Yet he got along just great with everyone - a really great kid. Students accepted him just fine, even though he was in special classes. We became buddies because I was one of the few staff members who made an effort to learn sign language. This kid could - and DID - do anything. I can't swim (lol, been surrounded by water all my life...and can't swim), but I actually went 'swimming' (more like clinging to a surfboard) with this kid in the back bays behind his house - me, him, another deaf girl and his brother...lol...in WAY over my head but had full trust in him, because he was so confident, so capable. He went on to teach surfing and wind-sailing in Hawaii and Australia, he worked for years for UPS (United Parcel Service), became a collector of antique cars, learned sign language in several languages (American sign is different from British sign, Chinese sign, Russian sign...it's not a strict international language), and is currently teaching blind & deaf children. This guy, I would TRUST with anything - even to be a lifeguard at a big city pool.

das

AAlgar
07-04-2007, 05:47 AM
We've been accused of discriminating against the handicapped because our handicap-accessible hotel rooms only have a king bed.

P.

What's bigger than King sized? Emperor? Demigod?

bartleby
07-04-2007, 06:00 AM
I would like to applaud this message board's efforts in this area, by allowing the mentally retarded post regularly. (Nobody in this thread... yet.)

Well, at least not until you hit the 'Submit Reply' button.

GrimmBen
07-04-2007, 06:20 AM
"Stop assuming we want to sleep comfortably!"

Seriously though, how is this descriminating? Do some people prefer full/queen sized beds? Really?

I work for an architectural firm that's done some hotels. I can't remember if it's spelled out in the ADA code or not, but we've always made an accessible counterpart to every type of hotel room. And it goes beyond just the room types because in the accessible bathrooms, there's two options: a roll-in shower (this is an oversized shower that you can actually roll your wheelchair into) or an accessible bathtub (has a special seat where the wheelchair person can transfer to from their wheelchair). Again, not having the code with me, but you have to provide both types of bathrooms.

AAlgar
07-04-2007, 06:21 AM
Well, at least not until you hit the 'Submit Reply' button.

I'm suing! :x

ZombieSpeedball
07-04-2007, 06:29 AM
Come on, are we really going to put peoples' lives in danger just to spare the feelings of disabled people?

Bill Nolan
07-04-2007, 06:33 AM
"Stop assuming we want to sleep comfortably!"

Seriously though, how is this descriminating? Do some people prefer full/queen sized beds? Really?

The problem is that two dudes in wheelchairs can't split a room without the possibilty of their asses touching in their sleep, and they don't want to come of as looking "gay" to the other folks at the hotel...

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 06:33 AM
No. The rule is that reasonable accommodations must be made, not "extraordinary effort."

And some occupations can have what is known as a bona fide occupational qualification, which means that certain characteristics are required for the job. For example, if the job requires a person to be able to lift 100 pounds over their head to place things on a high shelf, there's no requirement to consider someone who can't lift 100 pounds, or is wheelchair-bound, for example.

Mr. E!
07-04-2007, 06:37 AM
This is one of those tricky issues. I've taught mainstreamed students for the last 10 years in my 10th grade English class.
Let me set the scene: in my x-level classes Iíll have between 15-20 kids. The majority will have IEPís (Individual Education Plans), which are specific accommodations for the student to help him be successful by addressing his specific needs. These can be anything from giving a written copy of the lecture notes or giving extra time on a test or homework assignment, to letting him use laptops for written assignments, or transcription for kids who canít physically write. The majority of the kids are working well below grade level. When I get these kids in 10th grade, theyíre reading at a 5th grade level, and I pretty much have to start writing instruction off at the sentence level. Lots of them have processing and retention difficulties. These are the kids who have ADHD, ADD, or are ED. (And believe me, you havenít had fun until youíve had more than three ED kids in the same room at the same time.) The kids in my class who donít have IEPs are either severely unmotivated, or are ESL students who donít receive services.
The class has a collaborative Special Education teacher who is supposed to co-teach the class, and keep track of all the IEPís to make sure each kid gets his/her accommodation, lest we get sued. So in a class of 15-20 kids, there are two teachers. In some cases, students will need an aide full time. I had one student this year who was borderline retarded, partially deaf, and had CP; he had a full time aide with him for every class. (He also worked harder than any of my kids, and was the student of the year for my 10th grade classes. Thomas was just amazing. He kicks so much ass it hurts. Heís gung-ho and relentlessly cheerful.) So in one class, there were three of us for 15 kids. And youíd say to yourself: wow! Those kids are getting a great education with all that individual attention. And youíd be wrong. So much of it is putting out fires (sometimes literally), getting their attention and keeping if for more than 3 minutes, keeping their interpersonal stuff from blowing up, and pacing things so that everyone can keep up.
The second largest department in my school is special ed. There are over 20 special ed teachers, and at least 10 aides. Then we have the special day program for kids who are severely, profoundly disabled, which is a separate department. These are the kids who break your heart because you know they have almost no quality of life, and things will never get any better for them. The program tries to teach them basic communication and physical skills. The county provides services for them until they are 21. There is also a separate building that holds the Intensive Day Program, which houses the kids with emotional disabilities so severe that we canít let them into the school itself .
The long and the short of this is that all of these resources cost an incredible amount of money. 30% of the funding for the entire school goes to providing the resources for the 10% of the students who receive services. The honors kids and the kids in the specialty magnet programs also pull in a disproportionate amount of funding (25% for the upper 10%). That leaves the middle level classes overcrowded, and the average students not getting the resources they need (45% of the funding for the middle 80%).
Just from a resources standpoint, it is not worth it. I know that sounds horrible, but it is true. But what else can we do? Can we deny them a chance at education? Of course not. I love my students, and I have seen some of them become successfulÖbut not nearly enough of them. The system needs an overhaul. But I honestly donít know where to start.

alexlannin
07-04-2007, 06:56 AM
People with disabilities are, first and foremost, PEOPLE. Of course no one can work ANY job (no Nba team's let me play...YET!). School I feel is a slightly different matter. I've seen the least-restrictive environment work wonders for the young children at my school. If they are in a general-education classroom and disruptive, there should be a plan for the event. If not, the behavior should be assessed and a plan implemented.


Should deaf people be able to work any job?

Should blind people be allowed to drive? Should mentally challanged children be integrated into mainstream classes? Should a man with prostetic legs be allowed to compete in the Olympics (not Special). The current trend in our society is for integration of people with disabilities, but we do come across road blocks.

If a deaf person wants to be a lifeguard at a pool, should they be allowed? The YMCA of USA says no. About 10 years ago they changed their policy to reflect this, and got sued by several deaf lifeguards. They settled those cases, and the terms aren't known. But as a lifeguard at a YMCA pool, I can assure you that hearing plays a large part in my job. Out of the five times I had to rescue a distressed swimmer, four times I heard the swimmer struggling before I saw them. A swimmer can go from normal to distressed to drowning in about 10-15 seconds. If a lifeguard is relying on vision alone, that's a very small window to notice them going under.

And what about in class rooms? If a child requires special attention, doesn't their presence take away from the learning experience of the other children in the class? Should the one child be included to boost his self-esteem, at the cost of 30 other children's education?

Add your thoughts.

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 08:09 AM
If your disability makes you unable to perform a job, you shouldn't be allowed to do it, nor should companies be forced to hire you. At best, it makes things less efficient. At worst, it makes things more dangerous (ie- deaf lifeguards.)

Given the cost of making places handicapped accessible, I don't see think every place has to be that way, although the ones that are should be clearly marked.
For example- I don't think every university in the country should be handicapped accessible. Seems smarter to spend the resources making a random selection of 1 in 4 accessible to the handicapped.

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 08:35 AM
If your disability makes you unable to perform a job, you shouldn't be allowed to do it, nor should companies be forced to hire you. At best, it makes things less efficient. At worst, it makes things more dangerous (ie- deaf lifeguards.)

Given the cost of making places handicapped accessible, I don't see think every place has to be that way, although the ones that are should be clearly marked.
For example- I don't think every university in the country should be handicapped accessible. Seems smarter to spend the resources making a random selection of 1 in 4 accessible to the handicapped.

So a handicapped person should only have one fourth the choices that everyone else has?

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 09:13 AM
So a handicapped person should only have one fourth the choices that everyone else has?
Yea.

As it just seems too costly to do otherwise. And this leaves them with a good amount of access.

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 09:21 AM
Yea.

As it just seems too costly to do otherwise. And this leaves them with a good amount of access.

Wow.

Andrew
07-04-2007, 09:33 AM
I'm surprised that nobody's commented on the idea of a blind person driving. I mean, there's just no conceivable way that it could work.

Master Jack Rabbitt
07-04-2007, 09:34 AM
We've been accused of discriminating against the handicapped because our handicap-accessible hotel rooms only have a king bed.

P.

:crazy:

Dave S.
07-04-2007, 09:41 AM
The long and the short of this is that all of these resources cost an incredible amount of money. 30% of the funding for the entire school goes to providing the resources for the 10% of the students who receive services. The honors kids and the kids in the specialty magnet programs also pull in a disproportionate amount of funding (25% for the upper 10%). That leaves the middle level classes overcrowded, and the average students not getting the resources they need (45% of the funding for the middle 80%).
Just from a resources standpoint, it is not worth it.

And this is a big issue for me. Should we be spending a disproportionately large amount of money on the severely mentally disabled? It may make me a bad person, but I say no. That money would be much better spent on the 80% of kids who aren't receiving a decent education because of lack of resources. I don't carry that statement over to the physically disabled however. I don't mind paying money to make a public school wheelchair accessible. I do mind paying more money to educate a child who will never read past a 5th grade level or be able to hold down a job outside of 'bag boy' at the local supermarket.

Dave S.
07-04-2007, 09:42 AM
I'm surprised that nobody's commented on the idea of a blind person driving. I mean, there's just no conceivable way that it could work.

It could if they were driving KITT!

xyzzy
07-04-2007, 09:59 AM
I'm surprised that nobody's commented on the idea of a blind person driving. I mean, there's just no conceivable way that it could work.

Assuming that some sort of technology were implemented that allowed a blind person to pass the same driving test that everybody else does, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 10:05 AM
Wow.
If we had unlimited money & resources, I wouldn't mind if every place in the United States were accessible to the handicapped. But we don't have unlimited resources, and I believe that money could be spent on better things (or just returned to the taxpayers/ customers).

lonesomefool
07-04-2007, 10:07 AM
No in certain cases. For instance, what the hell is a disabled person going to be able to do on a construction site? They would be a risk to others and themselves more than any good they could do, I know this because I have worked construction and the owner's son was mentally disabled, but insisted on helping. He caused more worry and fear for our and his saftey than any good he did.

alexlannin
07-04-2007, 10:11 AM
And this is a big issue for me. Should we be spending a disproportionately large amount of money on the severely mentally disabled? It may make me a bad person, but I say no. That money would be much better spent on the 80% of kids who aren't receiving a decent education because of lack of resources. I don't carry that statement over to the physically disabled however. I don't mind paying money to make a public school wheelchair accessible. I do mind paying more money to educate a child who will never read past a 5th grade level or be able to hold down a job outside of 'bag boy' at the local supermarket.
You're paying to help that child learn to be more than a bag boy, or if that's what he and his parents want, you're paying him to be a good bag boy. His "curriculum" would be focused on life skills, and he would learn that other jobs, as well as being socialized. Just because someone can't read well doesn't mean they can't contribute and have a high value in society.

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 10:12 AM
If we had unlimited money & resources, I wouldn't mind if every place in the United States were accessible to the handicapped. But we don't have unlimited resources, and I believe that money could be spent on better things (or just returned to the taxpayers/ customers).

So if a handicapped person wants to go to a college, just like anyone else, but it's not in the 75% that ISN'T handicapped accessible, they're just fucked? They don't get to go there?

Know what that sounds like? Separate but equal.

edwardmblake
07-04-2007, 10:12 AM
As a former lifeguard and lifeguard instructor, being deaf would rarely ever come into play in performing a rescue. Given the fact that any safe situation would have more than one lifeguard anyway, the chance of having an all deaf lifeguard squad would be unlikely.

Vision is a basic minimum requirement for being a lifeguard. Do you really think you can hear someone yell 'help' 200 feet away in the ocean on a crowded day? Try doing while watching a crowded city pool filled with one hundred kids. There is a reason while beach lifeguards are issued binoculars. Someone in your crew will see the problem before they hear it, if at all.

You don't need to be able to hear to reach, throw, row, go, or provide CPR or mouth to mouth.

People should read the Americans with Disabilities Act that was pass under George H.W. Bush. It provides that we must make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, no one has to go bankrupt.

alexlannin
07-04-2007, 10:13 AM
No in certain cases. For instance, what the hell is a disabled person going to be able to do on a construction site? They would be a risk to others and themselves more than any good they could do, I know this because I have worked construction and the owner's son was mentally disabled, but insisted on helping. He caused more worry and fear for our and his saftey than any good he did.
The owner needed to take responsibility of training his son to help in a safe way. I can't believe there's not simple, safe jobs on a construction site as well as the dangerous ones.

alexlannin
07-04-2007, 10:14 AM
As a former lifeguard and lifeguard instructor, being deaf would rarely ever come into play in performing a rescue. Given the fact that any safe situation would have more than one lifeguard anyway, the chance of having an all deaf lifeguard squad would be unlikely.

Vision is a basic minimum requirement for being a lifeguard. Do you really think you can hear someone yell 'help' 200 feet away in the ocean on a crowded day? Try doing while watching a crowded city pool filled with one hundred kids. There is a reason while beach lifeguards are issued binoculars. Someone in your crew will see the problem before they hear it, if at all.

You don't need to be able to hear to reach, throw, row, go, or provide CPR or mouth to mouth.

People should read the Americans with Disabilities Act that was pass under George H.W. Bush. It provides that we must make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, no one has to go bankrupt.
Thank you.
Places that can't afford to make a building accessible can qualify for grants under ADA.

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 10:17 AM
So if a handicapped person wants to go to a college, just like anyone else, but it's not in the 75% that ISN'T handicapped accessible, they're just fucked? They don't get to go there?

Know what that sounds like? Separate but equal.
1. You'd rather colleges spend the money required (building renovations, hiring aides, creating programs/ departments, etc) to make sure they can take in people with disabilities, given their money isn't finite?

2. I honestly don't think there's a big difference between the 15th & 16th highest (or the 112th & 113th) ranked school in the state, and it would mean that the 25% of schools are better equipped to handle them.

3. It would be separate but equal if I wanted the 25% of schools to only take in handicapped students, which wouldn't be the case.

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 10:22 AM
1. You'd rather colleges spend the money required (building renovations, hiring aides, creating programs/ departments, etc) to make sure they can take in people with disabilities, given their money isn't finite?

2. I honestly don't think there's a big difference between the 15th & 16th highest (or the 112th & 113th) ranked school in the state, and it would mean that the 25% of schools are better equipped to handle them.

3. It would be separate but equal if I wanted the 25% of schools to only take in handicapped students, which wouldn't be the case.

1. Yes, yes I do. A hell of a lot of schools are state funded, and those that aren't would probably receive a grant to make them accessible.

2. 25%. When you were looking at schools, would you have wanted to be limited to a QUARTER of the schools available to you? How many teens do you know that would? What if they have a very specific major that wouldn't be supported by the universities that are in the 25%?

3. You're limiting their choices based on something beyond their control. If their grades are good enough to get them into a school, why should they be limited because of a disability?

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 10:28 AM
Thank you.
Places that can't afford to make a building accessible can qualify for grants under ADA.
But the ADA money comes from somewhere, either raising taxes or cuts in other funding.


1. Yes, yes I do. A hell of a lot of schools are state funded, and those that aren't would probably receive a grant to make them accessible.

2. 25%. When you were looking at schools, would you have wanted to be limited to a QUARTER of the schools available to you? How many teens do you know that would? What if they have a very specific major that wouldn't be supported by the universities that are in the 25%?

3. You're limiting their choices based on something beyond their control. If their grades are good enough to get them into a school, why should they be limited because of a disability?
3. Because of the cost to the school, which means that either students pay more, taxpayers pay more, or reductions are made to other areas in the school's budget.

alexlannin
07-04-2007, 10:37 AM
But the ADA money comes from somewhere, either raising taxes or cuts in other funding.


3. Because of the cost to the school, which means that either students pay more, taxpayers pay more, or reductions are made to other areas in the school's budget.

People with disabilities, and/or their parents and guardians, pay taxes too. As well as me, who wants to see these people serviced with dignity.

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 10:38 AM
3. Because of the cost to the school, which means that either students pay more, taxpayers pay more, or reductions are made to other areas in the school's budget.

It's not like this is an ongoing thing. Accessibility upgrades are made once, and perhaps there would have to be maintenance done on it every few years like on everything else.

Perhaps instead of putting in yet ANOTHER vanity building, a school can put in a simple ramp. Really not that much money.

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 10:45 AM
It's not like this is an ongoing thing. Accessibility upgrades are made once, and perhaps there would have to be maintenance done on it every few years like on everything else.

Perhaps instead of putting in yet ANOTHER vanity building, a school can put in a simple ramp. Really not that much money.
It's not just the ramp. You'll need to make doors in every building automatic (as you can't expect someone in a wheelchair to be able to physically open a door), which requires more constant maintenance with the electronics involved.

Then, you have to teach & pay the aides, and pay the various people in the program (physical therapists, supervisors, etc.) The school would also have to provide more maintenance during the weather, as handicapped students will not be able to cross the campus when there's a foot of snow.

Many of these costs could be consolidated if one school in four was handicapped accessible.



People with disabilities, and/or their parents and guardians, pay taxes too. As well as me, who wants to see these people serviced with dignity.
And should a disproportionate amount of said taxes go to providing these people services with dignity at every University in the country?

alexlannin
07-04-2007, 10:53 AM
It's not just the ramp. You'll need to make doors in every building automatic (as you can't expect someone in a wheelchair to be able to physically open a door), which requires more constant maintenance with the electronics involved.

Then, you have to teach & pay the aides, and pay the various people in the program (physical therapists, supervisors, etc.) The school would also have to provide more maintenance during the weather, as handicapped students will not be able to cross the campus when there's a foot of snow.

Many of these costs could be consolidated if one school in four was handicapped accessible.



And should a disproportionate amount of said taxes go to providing these people services with dignity at every University in the country?

If the University receives federal funds, yes.

alexlannin
07-04-2007, 10:54 AM
It's not just the ramp. You'll need to make doors in every building automatic (as you can't expect someone in a wheelchair to be able to physically open a door), which requires more constant maintenance with the electronics involved.

Then, you have to teach & pay the aides, and pay the various people in the program (physical therapists, supervisors, etc.) The school would also have to provide more maintenance during the weather, as handicapped students will not be able to cross the campus when there's a foot of snow.

Many of these costs could be consolidated if one school in four was handicapped accessible.



And should a disproportionate amount of said taxes go to providing these people services with dignity at every University in the country?
It doesn't have to be every door, it only has to have one by law.

sto110
07-04-2007, 10:57 AM
my favorite thing i ever saw was at the gym. the cardio equipment was upstairs but there were 3 pieces downstairs marked for the handicapped. one was a stair climber............


to answer the question, accessibility and the ability to do a job need to be different. buildings need to be wheelchair accessable somehow (not necessarily in the usual ways) but the ability to do a job should be weighed differently.

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 10:58 AM
It's not just the ramp. You'll need to make doors in every building automatic (as you can't expect someone in a wheelchair to be able to physically open a door), which requires more constant maintenance with the electronics involved.

Then, you have to teach & pay the aides, and pay the various people in the program (physical therapists, supervisors, etc.) The school would also have to provide more maintenance during the weather, as handicapped students will not be able to cross the campus when there's a foot of snow.

Many of these costs could be consolidated if one school in four was handicapped accessible.

Ramps and automatic doors also make deliveries easier. Among other special circumstances. Or what happens if someone breaks a leg and needs to be in a wheelchair for a few months? "Sorry, you're fucked. You don't get to come here anymore." Or they'd have to transfer to another school if they had some sort of accident where they were no longer able to walk?

Most aides in that sort of situation are paid for by the family, not the school. Same with physical therapists. And maintenance...snow should be cleared at all times ANYWAY. It would be a liability if someone fell. And sued. Plus there's the laws that say businesses and public areas need to have snow removed anyway.

alexlannin
07-04-2007, 11:00 AM
my favorite thing i ever saw was at the gym. the cardio equipment was upstairs but there were 3 pieces downstairs marked for the handicapped. one was a stair climber............


to answer the question, accessibility and the ability to do a job need to be different. buildings need to be wheelchair accessable somehow (not necessarily in the usual ways) but the ability to do a job should be weighed differently.
A stair climber can actually be set very low and could be really helpful in a rehabilitation sense.
But that is kind of funny :).

sto110
07-04-2007, 11:16 AM
A stair climber can actually be set very low and could be really helpful in a rehabilitation sense.
But that is kind of funny :).

LOL yeah i know what you mean, i guess you could set the stair climber so low that it is set the same as ACTUAL STAIRS!

LOL

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 12:00 PM
It doesn't have to be every door, it only has to have one by law.
I said "doors in every building" not "every door."


It doesn't have to be every door, it only has to have one by law.
Not arguing the point. I honestly think the law's wrong in this regard.

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 12:09 PM
I said "doors in every building" not "every door."


Not arguing the point. I honestly think the law's wrong in this regard.

Wow, I hope you never lose the ability to walk.

Albert
07-04-2007, 12:22 PM
I think most people in this thread have never really known a disabled person.

Dave S.
07-04-2007, 12:26 PM
You're paying to help that child learn to be more than a bag boy, or if that's what he and his parents want, you're paying him to be a good bag boy. His "curriculum" would be focused on life skills, and he would learn that other jobs, as well as being socialized. Just because someone can't read well doesn't mean they can't contribute and have a high value in society.

I'm fine with paying for that, as long as I'm paying the same amount as I am for any other student. Should the education of the many suffer, to help the education of the few. More of my tax money is going to give little timmy with autism an aide so he can be in a mainstream classroom, while little Tina isn't getting new text books. And I'm sure little Timmy's parents are happy more of their tax money is going to help their son, but I wonder if little Tina's parents are happy that Timmy is sucking up the tax money they are spending and less is going to Tina.

When people like to cite why city school districts are failing they are always pointing out that more money won't help, that each student is already getting 'X' amount of money spent on them. Except that's the average. And it's the high costs of special education that is driving up the average.

Dave S.
07-04-2007, 12:30 PM
I think most people in this thread have never really known a disabled person.

Because knowing a disabled person automatically makes you want to spend lots of money on them?

I've had autistic and deaf children in my swimming lessons, in the preschool classroom I used to work in. I babysit for a child with CP. Not to mention all the ADHD and Asberger's kids I've worked with in my 10 years of working with children.

Albert
07-04-2007, 12:32 PM
1. You'd rather colleges spend the money required (building renovations, hiring aides, creating programs/ departments, etc) to make sure they can take in people with disabilities, given their money isn't finite?

2. I honestly don't think there's a big difference between the 15th & 16th highest (or the 112th & 113th) ranked school in the state, and it would mean that the 25% of schools are better equipped to handle them.

3. It would be separate but equal if I wanted the 25% of schools to only take in handicapped students, which wouldn't be the case.

Is there any other sect of the population that you think should only have 25% of the choices everyone else does, or do you make a special case for the disabled?

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 12:50 PM
I think most people in this thread have never really known a disabled person.
I had a suitemate who was disabled last year.

He was kind of a dick, though.
Reinforced my opinions on ADA reform.

One of his aides was amazingly hot, though. I loved drinking with her. Just an aside.


Ramps and automatic doors also make deliveries easier. Among other special circumstances. Or what happens if someone breaks a leg and needs to be in a wheelchair for a few months? "Sorry, you're fucked. You don't get to come here anymore." Or they'd have to transfer to another school if they had some sort of accident where they were no longer able to walk?

Most aides in that sort of situation are paid for by the family, not the school. Same with physical therapists. And maintenance...snow should be cleared at all times ANYWAY. It would be a liability if someone fell. And sued. Plus there's the laws that say businesses and public areas need to have snow removed anyway.
If you can prove that my 1/4 solution saves no money, it becomes pointless and immoral, but I don't think that's the case at the moment. Otherwise, I think a student who is in a wheelchair for a few months will have to take the semester off (and be allowed to return the next semester.)

The aides I was familiar with got paid by the school. The physical therapy programs were part of the school (one of my suitemates took a few physical therapy classes.)

Snow gets cleared eventually, but usually not quickly enough for disabled students. I remember my suitemate wanted me to go around with a video camera after a particularly bad snow day, and record the numerous trouble spots for him (and cleaning up the trouble spots that bother a small percentage of students is a drain on school resources.)

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 12:51 PM
Wow, I hope you never lose the ability to walk.
I hope no one here suffers in such a way, or ever has children or grandchildren who do so.

But that has nothing to do with the question of how much financial aide these people should receive, whether cost-saving techniques (ie- my 1/4 solution) will be moral, and where the money should come from.


Is there any other sect of the population that you think should only have 25% of the choices everyone else does, or do you make a special case for the disabled?
The only reason the disabled are a special case is that it costs a disproportionate amount of money to teach & house them, and some of that money could be saved if 3/4 of schools don't have to worry about those expenses.

Albert
07-04-2007, 01:00 PM
The only reason the disabled are a special case is that it costs a disproportionate amount of money to teach & house them, and some of that money could be saved if 3/4 of schools don't have to worry about those expenses.

So if it cost a disproportionate amount of money to teach and house an ethnic minority, you would be OK with excluding them from 3/4 of schools, too?

lonesomefool
07-04-2007, 01:01 PM
The owner needed to take responsibility of training his son to help in a safe way. I can't believe there's not simple, safe jobs on a construction site as well as the dangerous ones.

He did have a safe job, he was essentially a "parts" runner, all he had to do was grab more nails if people needed it, etc. The problem is that he was always kinda in the way and made repeated mistakes in terms of grabbing tools, etc. slowing the job down.

I'm not blaming him, he was just trying to be helpful, I just dont think a construction site is a good place for someone mentally challenged or disabled. There are plenty of other jobs that are better fits for them, such as working at a grocery store, mall, etc. Those jobs are usually safer, simpler, and the working enviroment is much more "disabled" friendly.

Albert
07-04-2007, 01:02 PM
Are that many universities at this point really not ADA compliant? I have no idea about the statistics, I just know that the universities around here are.

lonesomefool
07-04-2007, 01:07 PM
Are that many universities at this point really not ADA compliant? I have no idea about the statistics, I just know that the universities around here are.

The High School I went to became totally ADA compliant my freshmen year. The college I went to was totally ADA compliant. All the colleges I visited my senior year of High School looked ADA compliant. I think at this point only a handful of High Schools and Colleges are not ADA compliant.

Andrew
07-04-2007, 01:38 PM
Assuming that some sort of technology were implemented that allowed a blind person to pass the same driving test that everybody else does, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to drive.

I agree, actually.

Just keep in mind that the most important part of driving is being able to see your surroundings, so that you don't hit anything or, more importantly, anyone. A blind person would, unfortunately, be a danger behind the wheel of a car because there's no way of them knowing where the car is going or if they're gonna hit someone, and just imagine all the lawsuits and legal ramifications that could come out of that.

But like you say, if there's technology that could help them pass a driver's test, that's great. But that technology would basically have to be something that allows them to see (a cure for blindness, in a sense) and thus they wouldn't really be blind then. Visual impairment of any kind, whether major or minor, can be a hazard for someone driving, so basically the only way for a blind person to drive is if there is, through technology, a way for them to see in some way.

Unless you have a better solution, but I've thought about this and really can't even come up with any other ideas. Not even a computerized vehicle with voice technology would work, because the person inside still won't be able to see where they're going and if there's anyone around.

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 01:41 PM
So if it cost a disproportionate amount of money to teach and house an ethnic minority, you would be OK with excluding them from 3/4 of schools, too?
Yes, although this would assume that there is an ethnic minority that is either obviously physically and/or mentally inferior (in such a way that schools can't just take in the superior applicants who aren't significantly below average) or physically and/or mentally superior (taking a disproportionate amount of slots in advanced classes/ sports.) I don't see the latter as a problem.

The only time ethnic minorities require a disproportionate amount of funding in schools is when they have to take English as a Second Language classes, although that usually takes an year, and the benefits (the ability to speak the language in this country for the rest of their lives) are disproportionately good.

alexlannin
07-04-2007, 02:24 PM
Yes, although this would assume that there is an ethnic minority that is either obviously physically and/or mentally inferior (in such a way that schools can't just take in the superior applicants who aren't significantly below average) or physically and/or mentally superior (taking a disproportionate amount of slots in advanced classes/ sports.) I don't see the latter as a problem.

The only time ethnic minorities require a disproportionate amount of funding in schools is when they have to take English as a Second Language classes, although that usually takes an year, and the benefits (the ability to speak the language in this country for the rest of their lives) are disproportionately good.

In what school system is a child given one year of ESL and then considered bilingual?

Queen of the Ban Age
07-04-2007, 02:30 PM
The only reason the disabled are a special case is that it costs a disproportionate amount of money to teach & house them, and some of that money could be saved if 3/4 of schools don't have to worry about those expenses.

Funny, I work as a supervisor in a group home for retarded people, and all of their housing is paid for by THEM. It was the same way at the last company I worked for as well. If you like, I can get you a copy of their rent agreement.

Mister Mets
07-04-2007, 02:30 PM
In what school system is a child given one year of ESL and then considered bilingual?
I'm going by my own experiences. I started first grade not really speaking English. I started second grade as fluent as any second grader (and able to write/ read English.)


Funny, I work as a supervisor in a group home for retarded people, and all of their housing is paid for by THEM. It was the same way at the last company I worked for as well. If you like, I can get you a copy of their rent agreement.
My 1/4 argument only applies if the money's coming from the government/ other students.

I have no objection to the disabled using their own money to pay for better resources.

alexlannin
07-04-2007, 02:36 PM
I'm going by my own experiences. I started first grade not really speaking English. I started second grade as fluent as any second grader (and able to write, too.)


My 1/4 argument only applies if the money's coming from the government/ other students.

I have no objection to the disabled using their own money to pay for better resources.

You're missing something with regards to the schools. They improve their buildings, they get more students. The student's tuition MORE than pays for the services, and over the long run benefits EVERYONE. I see MANY more of the professors in my masters program using the ramps and elevators. Most have carts full of handouts, a computer, a projector, etc.
And you learned ALL your language skills in first grade?

Albert
07-04-2007, 10:35 PM
You're missing something with regards to the schools. They improve their buildings, they get more students. The student's tuition MORE than pays for the services, and over the long run benefits EVERYONE. I see MANY more of the professors in my masters program using the ramps and elevators. Most have carts full of handouts, a computer, a projector, etc.
And you learned ALL your language skills in first grade?

You hit on a very good point - that there are many professors et al. out there are disabled. If a university closes themselves off to disabled people, they're not just preventing them from gaining students, but also some incredibly valuable staff members. To say that disabled people are just financial liabilities is, of course, completely shortsighted.