Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 583

In this case, there is a mystery condition that includes skin rashes, and the doctor is the quack who decided it is wifi. The symptoms are probably not psychosomatic at all, and are unlikely to go away in the short term. The goal is to come up with responses for the school that will accommodate real conditions and not spend too much money on fake conditions, without the school having to try to second-guess a student's doctor. So if their doctor says it is something that is a known psychosomatic condition, then the school should take reasonable steps to minimize triggering the student. The same way that if they have an agoraphobia diagnosis, which in the past was controversial, you can take reasoned steps to minimize the situations that would be most problematic, and adopt special considerations for the student to be excused if having an attack. And a student with severe allergies might require that all the teachers for their classes get special training from the school district in administering emergency medication. In this case, it is not a controversial condition, but a known and well-understood one: Quackdoctoritis.

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 583

I don't believe in alien or government mind control stuff that can be blocked by foil, but it being impervious to visible light is well known to night workers trying to sleep during the day.

And pot growers, trying to hide their crop at night. "No, no, that's to keep the aliens out. heh heh"

Comment Re:Really!? (Score 1) 583

I like your open-minded quest for more reasoned reasons than advertised.

I suspect the goals are even simpler; social contacts seen as being important people explained the dangers of wifi, and now they're stuck in a corner; if they don't put up the appearance of fighting to the death over it, they won't be cool.

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 583

So the question is: Can the parents prove - via a medically recognized procedure - that their child is actually allergic to WiFi? If so, not only will they win the right to ban all WiFi in the school

Nope. They would not get to ban wifi. They would get a few rooms in some district owned facility turned into a new school that is wifi-free to accommodate the affected students. They would probably only need 1 teacher. They could do it like an old farm school, with one teacher for all the grades.

Banning nuts isn't just based on the seriousness of the allergy. It is the combination of that, and the fact that nuts are not required for education and so banning them has no effect on education at all, and only a small effect on other students because they're not a staple food, and not something that any major religion requires followers to eat with lunch. If one of the major religions required followers to carry bags of nuts around, those allergic students would be in a different building than the regular students, and nuts wouldn't be banned in normal schools.

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 583

Somehow I doubt you got the full story on that one... lol

If you understood the Social Security Disability process you'd realize how insane the implications of your claim are. Even if you roll in in a wheelchair, you will get denied and it will take years of legal process to eventually get into the program. Almost everybody is denied. If somebody is on Social Security Disability and they were diagnosed as an adult, you can know already they were denied and had to "win" their status with a lawyer using the appeals process.

Also, guess what, when people tell you stories about their personal life or disabilities, you aren't usually getting the complete story. For example, if your neighbor has brain damage from having her head smashed in by some freak, she might not phrase it that way; she might use language more sympathetic to her current condition, and just give the relevant parts; that she can't hold a job, and that it is because of a bad relationship. You not respecting her situation doesn't change it any. And her giving her insensitive asshole neighbor her medical details wouldn't likely make him much better a neighbor.

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 583

It doesn't have to be in the curriculum; it is enough if they have promoted wifi access as being something that assists in students' education. Then you can't just deny other students access to it in order to accommodate one student.

OTOH, if it is just for the teacher to do (whatever school-related thing) then that most likely can be replaced with ethernet.

The real accommodation is just hiding the wifi devices. It is effective, and doesn't impact other students. It is a minor headache for school maintenance staff, but shouldn't actually cost anything directly.

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 583

Sure, but imagine a kid as agoraphobia and can't stand being in the open air. Is it reasonable for the parents to expect the school to put the football field inside of a building so the kid can be on the team?

Accommodation is for required basic education, not for any elective activity. They're required to provide equal access to all the services provided; it doesn't mean they have to modify each service so that it would benefit each student. A student with agoraphobia would be expected to have access to sports, and to counseling services. The sort of accommodation they would be expected to receive would to be excused without penalty to go sit in the locker room (or nurse's office) if they started freaking out. And to have access to indoor sports, since there are lots of those that are commonly also offered. They might have to, for example, make room for that student in the "table tennis" class, even though enrollment had filled up. If the activity permits, such as table tennis, they might even need to roll one of the tables into a small adjacent room. Most of these things can and are worked out by the school nurse working together with the head of physical education. But moving the ping-pong table is based on it being an easy and reasonable thing to do. That is what makes it something they might "have" to do.

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 583

in law, public schools are required to do whatever is necessary

Gonna call bullshit right at the start, sorry. This is a common layperson's misunderstanding of law and administration. It seems to mostly come from AM radio, and the idea that because hippies like schools, and school boards often have a majority of Democrats, that therefore any rules relating to schools must be insane and irrational and follow the right-wing-AM-radio prescription for what libraals must think.

Public schools are required to... provide reasonable access to a basic education. And follow other laws, generally the same ones as everybody else.

Being required to "provide reasonable accommodation" is not at all the same thing as being required to do "whatever is necessary." (necessary what is left undefined) They have to provide the amount of accommodation that is required for the student to have access to basic education; that is all. They do not have to, and do not, guarantee results, which is implied by "whatever is necessary." It may be that little Johnny is just going to sit there and drool, and cannot be accommodated in a way that will provide the same education as little Jill, who only needed a ramp installed to get into the room. They're not required to do "whatever is necessary" for little Johnny. They're only required to do what is reasonable in order to give him the opportunity to sit there and try. (or drool)

Just dump the word "necessary" off the side of the ship, and anywhere you wanted to use it, say "reasonable" instead.

They are not, for example, required to build a school inside a bubble for bubble-boy to have the same quality of experience as other children. They may only provide written materials, and access to an internet-based tutor. Or maybe the student is too sensitive to (whatever) to use electronics. It won't mean the end of the world, just one step lower on how much access will be "reasonable."

I'll give you another hint: the school board generally offers vastly more accommodation than is required by law, because it is demanded by local voters.

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 583

It seems to me that covering up the LEDs is a rather easy, reasonable, and affordable accommodation. What is actually gained by not offering them this treatment? Do students making use of wifi actually need to see the LED to know it is on, or can they can just consult the wifi interface on their device?

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 1) 583

Funny that you conflate using low quality anti-bacterial agents, and... anti-vaxers.

Killing bacteria around you for no reason will decrease the quality of your immune response and can cause illness. Mystery symptoms are more likely caused by persistent lack of suitable bacteria levels in the home, rather than a lack of disinfectant. The things you want to clean up to prevent respiratory irritation are the particulates, like mold spores and insect feces. Killing bacteria is generally counter-productive. You seem very confused on these issues. You would never be less immune to common illnesses because of killing bacteria. Yet you equate lack of vaccination to lack of anti-bacterials. You're moving in both directions at once. If it is this hard for people on slashdot to understand this stuff, how can the anti-vaxxers be expected to understand?

Comment Re:What does Science have to say about this? (Score 2) 583

When I was in preschool, I got a "cold" and had to stay home so I didn't make the other kids sick. That part was explained to me at the time. But they didn't also explain that my runny nose and sore throat were themselves the "cold." So those symptoms went away, and I had no idea that I no longer had a "cold." They asked if I wanted to go back to preschool, I said "no." I mean, I didn't like it for other reasons and back then in the stone age "preschool" was daycare with no education at all, and no concept of appropriate supervision either. So it was no loss. But they just respected my wishes, and it was many years later when they found out the reason I said "no" was that I didn't want to make the other kids get a "cold," whatever that was. It sure sounded bad by the tone of voice adults used when they said I had it.

It is the natural trajectory for making decisions from ignorance.

There are three kinds of people: men, women, and unix.