A bit of a vent- unexpected expense. Update

[undertheradar]

.

You can start educating me by telling me in what dictionary the incident described by the OP constitutes an accident. You can explain to me how a discussion regarding school funding for home schoolers, libraries etc. has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

I think a discussion regarding how much funds should be spent in those areas has some merit. I don't see how it's a topic for this thread. I don't see how we could have an intelligent discussion in a different place. There is such a difference in education in different parts of the country as to make such a discussion questionable. Posts based on incorrect assumptions of facts. Assuming the situation in your district is applicable to another. I don't think posters on a general internet board would provide enough facts and numbers for a meaningful discussion.




This claim is real easy. A 1:1 didn't do his/her job. The district is liable. No point answering your hypothetical situations. Under some circumstances the district would be liable for the stolen instrument. Under some circumstances the district might be liable for a child injured on property.

Glasses can break as the result of an accident. I don't know what kind of prescription the OPs kid has. A person who needs glasses 100% of the time should have an emergency set of glasses. Maybe an old pair, different script, but one which works somewhat. Maybe a pair of prescription sunglasses.

Are you saying that the high autism student "intended" to cause harm?

 

[undertheradar]

Well here in nj - you know that state on the east coast with the highest or second highest property taxes in the nation. Where I pay 12k in taxes for a three bedroom ranch on 1/3 acre, we can't even get $150k for full day kindergarten but the football team is getting a 5 million dollar football stadium. We don't have buses so kids walk or parents drive them including special needs kids.
Funding of education sucks for lack of better word but to say it's all due to ieps is misguided and just plain wrong. I personally would rather we spend more money in school so kids with disabilities can learn the skills needed to get jobs and pay taxes. Twenty years ago a kid with dyslexia would be called stupid, Placed in a separate classroom and at 18 released from school, if he made it that long. Now the school is responsible for teaching him to read, just like any other kid, so he can actually graduate and get a job or go to college. Kids with Down syndrome would be institutionalized and forgotten about, given no education. Now the school teaches them to be the best they can be and some graduate college and other get jobs so they can be productive members of society.
A schools primary responsibility is educating students. Everything else, extra curricular etc is extra and shouldn't be at the expense of any child's education. I played two sports, did concert and marching band and was involved in plays, but all that cost money and was extra.

Get this, you cannot force anyone to pay extra- according to the ACLU! You may ask for contributions, but you cannot require it under California state law!

 

[MSLRAC]

Are you saying that the high autism student "intended" to cause harm?

My DS has high functioning Autism. Most people don't even know that there is anything 'wrong' with him. Everyone says he's so sweet and kind and helpful and that he has a heart of gold. Yet, I have seen him do stuff to cause harm just to see a reaction. He did not understand the concept of pain and hurting others or breaking stuff. It took us a very long time to get him to understand to be kind and gentle and he's high functioning. So, this child, who is obviously much further on the spectrum, might very well have done this to cause harm and see a reaction. I don't know that that is the case but it is a possibility.

OP, I am sorry that this happened and I would do everything in my power to make sure that my child was protected if I were in your shoes. I do think that the para dropped the ball here. Their one job is to protect your child on the bus and given the last incident, there should have been no looking out the window during boarding and unboarding because that is when your DD needs them most. So taxpaying dollars or not, I would be on the school to help pay for the new glasses.

I would also stay on the school to provide info for the other child's parents has they also should bare some responsibility. I would be totally mortified if DS ever did anything like this to a classmate and there would be no question that DH and I would be helping cover the replacement costs. They honestly may not realize that you are facing this expense.

 

[Gracie09]

My challenge would be for you to prove that you have never looked away from your child while she was within your care! I highly doubt that you could prove it!

Wow you really don't understand.
1) dd punched by student on bus
2) iep, a legally binding contract, modified to include protections for dd including 1:1 aid to prevent such attacks. Aid is only for dd and is to stand between dd and other students on bus
3) aid is hired and agrees to terms of the assignment
4) aid does not do job as required
5) dd is assaulted again this time with personal property damage
6) aid admits to not doing her job and there is a video that purportedly shows the same thing
7) aid is removed for not doing job
8) school district and/or transportation company is responsible for conduct of it's employees while they are on duty
9) school district or transportation company is responsible for damage caused by aids admitted nonperformance of duties as assigned

What the parent does in her own home or when the child is under their care is immaterial. If the child was injured or property damaged while child is under the care of the parent they are responsible. Here they are under the care of the school district and therefore the school district is responsible because it's employee violated the iep.

 

[Gracie09]

Get this, you cannot force anyone to pay extra- according to the ACLU! You may ask for contributions, but you cannot require it under California state law!

My friend is a high school football coach in California. His kids all pay to play so you are mistaken about that. They also have a booster club that provides scholarships to those that can't afford it.

 

[mrsklamc]

My challenge would be for you to prove that you have never looked away from your child while she was within your care! I highly doubt that you could prove it!

It doesn't matter if she has. The point is that the 1:1 was being paid not to look away. This has already been covered.

 

[undertheradar]

Wow you really don't understand.
1) dd punched by student on bus
2) iep, a legally binding contract, modified to include protections for dd including 1:1 aid to prevent such attacks. Aid is only for dd and is to stand between dd and other students on bus
3) aid is hired and agrees to terms of the assignment
4) aid does not do job as required
5) dd is assaulted again this time with personal property damage
6) aid admits to not doing her job and there is a video that purportedly shows the same thing
7) aid is removed for not doing job
8) school district and/or transportation company is responsible for conduct of it's employees while they are on duty
9) school district or transportation company is responsible for damage caused by aids admitted nonperformance of duties as assigned

What the parent does in her own home or when the child is under their care is immaterial. If the child was injured or property damaged while child is under the care of the parent they are responsible. Here they are under the care of the school district and therefore the school district is responsible because it's employee violated the iep.

Wow, I do understand. I'm human so I know I'm not perfect. Not so sure about some of the posters on this board. I still see it as an accident, no intent to harm or allow harm to be caused. Key word: intent. We'll have to accept that we don't see this the same way.

 

[mrsklamc]

Wow, I do understand. I'm human so I know I'm not perfect. Not so sure about some of the posters on this board. I still see it as an accident, no intent to harm or allow harm to be caused. Key word: intent. We'll have to accept that we don't see this the same way.

No one said they were perfect, just that the district still maintains responsibility for what occurred. You can have a car accident, without meaning to, but it's still your fault/the responsibility of your insurance company. Intent is not necessary.

 

[undertheradar]

No one said they were perfect, just that the district still maintains responsibility for what occurred. You can have a car accident, without meaning to, but it's still your fault/the responsibility of your insurance company. Intent is not necessary.

I see it as an accident, others on this thread do not.

 

[mrsklamc]

I see it as an accident, others on this thread do not.

But the thing is, it does not matter if it was an accident, the district still bears the responsibility.

 

[undertheradar]

But the thing is, it does not matter if it was an accident, the district still bears the responsibility.

If the district has the money, go for it.

I have been challenged on this thread if the fees in California are allowed or not and I, even though I lived there, don't appear to know what took place in my dks schools. Another challenged that programs I stated were not offered by my own dks' elementary school, were indeed offered. How that poster knows which specific elementary school within that school district is an even better joke. Another fun day on the Dis!

 

[mrsklamc]

If the district has the money, go for it.

I don't know anything about the rest of your post, but the thing is, the district is responsible and HAS to come up with the money, whether they 'have' it or not.

You keep saying things like 'OP can't watch her kid every moment at home' or 'no one is perfect,' or 'taxes are too high' and it's not that you are wrong, it's just that it simply does not matter.

 

[daughtersrus]

My challenge would be for you to prove that you have never looked away from your child while she was within your care! I highly doubt that you could prove it!

If I looked away from my DD and someone punched her or took the glasses off of her face and broke them, then I would be responsible. As her parent I can assure you that I would be paying extra attention to her if I knew that she was in a potentially dangerous position.

Again, I'm not sure why it matters what I would do. The point you seem to have difficulty understanding is that the 1:1 is being paid to do a job that is specifically outlined in a legally binding contract.

Wow, I do understand. I'm human so I know I'm not perfect. Not so sure about some of the posters on this board. I still see it as an accident, no intent to harm or allow harm to be caused. Key word: intent. We'll have to accept that we don't see this the same way.

Since you continue to say this was an accident without intent does that mean if I hit your car because I failed to stop at a red light I'm not financially responsible because I didn't intend to hit you?

Wow you really don't understand.
1) dd punched by student on bus
2) iep, a legally binding contract, modified to include protections for dd including 1:1 aid to prevent such attacks. Aid is only for dd and is to stand between dd and other students on bus
3) aid is hired and agrees to terms of the assignment
4) aid does not do job as required
5) dd is assaulted again this time with personal property damage
6) aid admits to not doing her job and there is a video that purportedly shows the same thing
7) aid is removed for not doing job
8) school district and/or transportation company is responsible for conduct of it's employees while they are on duty
9) school district or transportation company is responsible for damage caused by aids admitted nonperformance of duties as assigned

What the parent does in her own home or when the child is under their care is immaterial. If the child was injured or property damaged while child is under the care of the parent they are responsible. Here they are under the care of the school district and therefore the school district is responsible because it's employee violated the iep.

 

[fortwildernessishome]

I just want to say that I am so sorry that your daughters glasses were broken. I believe the district should pay for them and I hope that happens soon!

I usually stay away from these threads, because they are just too frustrating for me!

I cringe when I read that people with non disabled kids are so troubled that "tax payer" money is used to fund programs for the disabled.

In my experience, it is the very people who complain the loudest are the ones who, if they had a handicapped child would fight the hardest to make sure that programs were provided if they had a handicapped child who needed it.

I have just seen this happen three times in the 20 years that I have been a parent. Three different people who made rude comments about too much money being spent on handicapped students. Who then, themselves went on to have a child who was handicapped. Their opinion totally changed at that point. They could "see" the other side. They of course then wanted their child to receive the type of schooling that fitted their needs.

Good luck to your daughter. I hope her aide has learned a lesson so something like this never happens again. The school failed your daughter, they didn't keep her safe, they are responsible, I hope this is resolved soon!

 

[djmeredith]

Wow, I do understand. I'm human so I know I'm not perfect. Not so sure about some of the posters on this board. I still see it as an accident, no intent to harm or allow harm to be caused. Key word: intent. We'll have to accept that we don't see this the same way.

Are you an attorney? I am, but not licensed in OP's state which is why I didn't give her any legal advice. You are correct that in some situations "intent" plays an important role in determining legal liability. However, not in this scenario. The "key term" in this situation is actually negligence. Sometimes "accidents" occur because a third party intervenes between the original actor and the injured party. If the third party had a duty to protect the injured party and the third party breached that duty, then the third party is responsible for the damages.

The legal issue is whether the school district and/or the employee had a duty to protect OP's daughter, and whether the employee or the school district was negligent. The fact that the school was aware of previous safety issues on the bus is an important factor. The fact that OP's daughter had an IEP that called for an employee to do very specific things will be a significant factor in determining whether the employee's actions were negligent or not. The fact that the employee was not looking at the student when this happened will be another significant factor in determining whether the employee was negligent. If the employee was determined to be negligent according to the laws of OP's state, then the employee and/or her employer could bear legal responsibility for the damages in this situation.

 

[manning]

Are you an attorney? I am, but not licensed in OP's state which is why I didn't give her any legal advice. You are correct that in some situations "intent" plays an important role in determining legal liability. However, not in this scenario. The "key term" in this situation is actually negligence. Sometimes "accidents" occur because a third party intervenes between the original actor and the injured party. If the third party had a duty to protect the injured party and the third party breached that duty, then the third party is responsible for the damages.

The legal issue is whether the school district and/or the employee had a duty to protect OP's daughter, and whether the employee or the school district was negligent. The fact that the school was aware of previous safety issues on the bus is an important factor. The fact that OP's daughter had an IEP that called for an employee to do very specific things will be a significant factor in determining whether the employee's actions were negligent or not. The fact that the employee was not looking at the student when this happened will be another significant factor in determining whether the employee was negligent. If the employee was determined to be negligent according to the laws of OP's state, then the employee and/or her employer could bear legal responsibility for the damages in this situation.

WOW, I'm not an attorney and I understood that.

 

[Fjobe]

OP, without addressing any of the other issues, I am surprised that your DD's glasses do not come with any type of warranty. I have purchased glasses from 3 different optic centers for my DS, and all 3 have replaced eyeglasses for free for one year if they were damaged.

In one case, DS's glasses were bent, and I tried using a wrench to bend them back in place. I ended up breaking the entire side of the glasses off (whoops). When I took them to the eye doctor to order a new pair, they told me they were covered for a year and would be replaced for free despite the fact that I had caused the damage. That particular pair of glasses we had to have replaced a second time (for free under warranty) due to the lenses popping out because DS had gotten them so bent out of shape from falling asleep with them on.

That was the only pair we have had to use the warranty, and we are currently on pair number 5, but all 3 places we have bought his glasses from cover kids' glasses for a year. Maybe that is something that is unique to our area, but you may want to check around and consider taking your daughter's prescription to another trusted optic center in order to have extra protection.

 

[lisalis]

Wow, what a thread! I hope you get the resolution you need. I'm surprised the school did not agree to pay for the glasses, since the aide clearly did not follow through on her duty. I also wonder why the other child's aide also did not prevent the incident, or maybe I misunderstood that he had one.

I was also surprised that if there was such a need for protection on the bus, that hiring an aide as a body guard was the solution? As a parent, I would be scared of that solution. I'd want a separate transportation option.

On a side note- I work in our elementary here as a substitute teacher. I will not sub as an aide because I am fearful of mishandling some of the behaviors I see. I taught special education years ago and realize the legal implications. I also notice that it can be very difficult to get good quality personnel for the special education associate jobs. There is high turn over. There are some really great ones though!

 

[undertheradar]

Are you an attorney? I am, but not licensed in OP's state which is why I didn't give her any legal advice. You are correct that in some situations "intent" plays an important role in determining legal liability. However, not in this scenario. The "key term" in this situation is actually negligence. Sometimes "accidents" occur because a third party intervenes between the original actor and the injured party. If the third party had a duty to protect the injured party and the third party breached that duty, then the third party is responsible for the damages.

The legal issue is whether the school district and/or the employee had a duty to protect OP's daughter, and whether the employee or the school district was negligent. The fact that the school was aware of previous safety issues on the bus is an important factor. The fact that OP's daughter had an IEP that called for an employee to do very specific things will be a significant factor in determining whether the employee's actions were negligent or not. The fact that the employee was not looking at the student when this happened will be another significant factor in determining whether the employee was negligent. If the employee was determined to be negligent according to the laws of OP's state, then the employee and/or her employer could bear legal responsibility for the damages in this situation.

Nice post. Not an attorney, don't believe that this situation calls for one. My frustration is that when the position that the employer should pay, we are the employer. It isn't that we shouldn't assist, the issue is that we have an ever shrinking group of contributors with an ever growing group needing assistance. It is unfortunate, but true, we do not have an endless supply of money to fund everything.

 

[averysmom]

OP, without addressing any of the other issues, I am surprised that your DD's glasses do not come with any type of warranty. I have purchased glasses from 3 different optic centers for my DS, and all 3 have replaced eyeglasses for free for one year if they were damaged. In one case, DS's glasses were bent, and I tried using a wrench to bend them back in place. I ended up breaking the entire side of the glasses off (whoops). When I took them to the eye doctor to order a new pair, they told me they were covered for a year and would be replaced for free despite the fact that I had caused the damage. That particular pair of glasses we had to have replaced a second time (for free under warranty) due to the lenses popping out because DS had gotten them so bent out of shape from falling asleep with them on. That was the only pair we have had to use the warranty, and we are currently on pair number 5, but all 3 places we have bought his glasses from cover kids' glasses for a year. Maybe that is something that is unique to our area, but you may want to check around and consider taking your daughter's prescription to another trusted optic center in order to have extra protection.

And if you paid with them with a credit card, there is a good chance that the warranty is doubled through them. So few ppl ever use their free purchase protection that comes with most cards.

OP, I believe that the student who broke your dd's glasses should be responsible for buying new ones. The aid was negligent, but not responsible... That was the other student. Everyone has given analogies... Here's mine. A security guard allows a precious work of art to be stolen by being negligent on the job- looking away when he wasn't supposed to. Who is responsible? The thief or the guard? The thief. The guard might be fired (and the aid was removed from the position, and was probably disciplined), but it's the thief who is going to jail.

I am a teacher and I have taught many students with exceptional needs and who are on spectrum and in my professional opinion, in this situation can be held responsible for the financial liability here.