Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason floaties are so dangerous is because parents will drop their 3 year old on the pool with just floaties and then not pay attention. They are perfectly fine for an older child/adult with physical disabilities who needs a bit of extra support.
Have you ever tried to swim with a lifejacket on? You can't really swim when your WHOLE upper body is bobbing in the water. You have a lot more flexibility with water wings (and even more with a pool noodle or boogie board). If the local pool pulled this stunt on my friend, I would be on the news too - and I stand to get NO money. It's shameful.
Having safety rules apply equally for everyone is not prejudice.
Are you claiming that someone with physical handicaps can hang onto a "floatie" better than a person who has no handicap? A floatie is a toy -- it's more prejudice to allow only certain kids to have toys in the pool but forbid other kids from having them.
Either someone can swim or they cannot, an appropriate life jacket would be for safety. The pool did not forbid life jackets.
Otherwise maybe all those who want special treatment for themselves, should be required to bring a letter from a doctor spelling it out, because you cannot expect a typical lifeguard to know if this or that should be allowed, the minute they get it wrong, there will be a lawsuit.
The ADA allows for accommodations depending on the situation. Was the parent standing with the child the entire time, and the floatie was to help her balance as she took a few steps independently? The whole purpose of the law is to clearly say that sometimes one rule doesn't fit all. A disabled kid with mobility issues ALONE in a pool is a completely different situation than a disabled kid with the parent beside them the entire time. I would have never put floaties on any kid alone in a pool, let alone one with mobility issues, if I planned on leaving them alone in the water. Who would leave a special needs child alone in the water to begin with?
A teenaged life guard shouldn't be the one making the judgement call on compliance with a federal law to begin with--that's when you pull in the pool management to talk with the mother. It sounds like this was a VERY POORLY trained and poorly managed pool.
Having safety rules apply equally for everyone is not prejudice.
Are you claiming that someone with physical handicaps can hang onto a "floatie" better than a person who has no handicap? A floatie is a toy -- it's more prejudice to allow only certain kids to have toys in the pool but forbid other kids from having them.
Either someone can swim or they cannot, an appropriate life jacket would be for safety. The pool did not forbid life jackets.
Otherwise maybe all those who want special treatment for themselves, should be required to bring a letter from a doctor spelling it out, because you cannot expect a typical lifeguard to know if this or that should be allowed, the minute they get it wrong, there will be a lawsuit.
People with physical handicaps have a wide range of abilities and disabilities, and things that work for them or don't work for them. A floatie is a toy for an able-bodied person, but can be used as a mitigating device for a disability. Sometimes people wear sunglasses just for fun, but I wear them for medical reasons.
A disabled child is not the same as an able-bodied child. What works for an able-bodied child does not necessarily work for a disabled child. What works for one disabled child does not necessarily work for another disabled child. Accommodating disabilities requires thinking outside the box, and thinking in terms of the individual person's needs. For example, you may not need a wheelchair or a cane to get around. Another disabled person may need a wheelchair. Yet another may need a support cane. I need a long white cane. Does that make it unfair for you because you don't get to use a wheelchair/cane to get around?
You have to understand that when it comes to disability, the solution to what is equal has to be found by figuring out what is equivalent, not what is the same. For this particular disabled child, a floatie might be an equivalent that gives him equal access to the pool. People who have the same abilities, in order to have equal access, need to be accommodated equally. For a disabled person with different needs and abilities, treating them equally has to be found through finding an equivalent. Making someone with CP struggle 100x to walk or swim without any disability aid or other mitigating device is not equal treatment. Giving them a wheelchair/cane/flotation device is an equivalent that gives them more equal access to navigating on ground or in a pool. Giving a totally blind person print to read is not equal to giving as sighted person print. Giving them audio or braille is different, but it's an equivalent, and is therefore equal treatment.
In short, "equal" and "same" have the same meaning in the able-bodied world. In the disability world, "same" and "equal" do not mean the same thing. "Equal" means "equivalent," which often ends up meaning "different".
I already suggested bringing a note from a doctor or physical therapist so you and I are already on the same page on that one.
And who is going to pay for years of legal courses for the teenage lifeguard so he or she will know what is a "reasonable accommodation".
When there is a safety rule like "no floaties" but life jackets are allowed, who would guess that floaties in a less physical capable individual is a reasonable accomodation? That goes against common sense because a disabled just like a physically able person can lose their grip with a floatie and drown.
That's why teenage life guards shouldn't be making the call--that's what an adult pool manager is for, who, along with other city/town staff who are responsible for public facilities, receive ongoing training on the ADA. Any town that doesn't train their staff is leaving them open to a lawsuit. Most towns already do it. It's not a difficult concept, and it can be covered in less than an afternoon staff training.
That's why teenage life guards shouldn't be making the call--that's what an adult pool manager is for, who, along with other city/town staff who are responsible for public facilities, receive ongoing training on the ADA. Any town that doesn't train their staff is leaving them open to a lawsuit. Most towns already do it. It's not a difficult concept, and it can be covered in less than an afternoon staff training.
When I volunteered for the Red Cross as a CPR instructor, we were trained on how to deal with disabled students in one sentence. If the student had a way of achieving the same result, despite doing it a different way, then we were to let them take the exam and have the chance to pass/fail. In other words, if someone couldn't do chest compressions in the same way as most people, but was able to meet the number and time requirements to pass the test, we had to pass them--even if they used a slightly different technique. It really doesn't take much to grasp that concept. And if they can save someone's life, even using a slightly different way to do it, all the more power to them. By the way, as instructors we were just volunteers who had gone through a week of training on how to instruct CPR, and we never once had to go to our boss to figure out how to "handle" a disabled student. Many of the instructors were teens (though I was 20 at the time). If an issue came up that we did need to consult with our boss, it really wouldn't have been that big of a deal anyway.
At any rate the mother in this case was foolish for expecting the lifeguards to know all the many possible rules. Why did she get into it with the lifeguards when she should have known to discuss it and work it out with the pool manager and bring a letter from the physician?
I don't think any one really expects low paid lifeguards to know all these rules. Or she just wanted a little drama.
At any rate the mother in this case was foolish for expecting the lifeguards to know all the many possible rules. Why did she get into it with the lifeguards when she should have known to discuss it and work it out with the pool manager and bring a letter from the physician?
I don't think any one really expects low paid lifeguards to know all these rules. Or she just wanted a little drama.
Or she wanted her kid to be able to swim in a way that any reasonable person would allow.
If we are so down on the teenage lifeguard's judgment abilities, why allow a teenager to be a lifeguard in the first place? Sounds like they're pretty useless.
When I volunteered for the Red Cross as a CPR instructor, we were trained on how to deal with disabled students in one sentence. If the student had a way of achieving the same result, despite doing it a different way, then we were to let them take the exam and have the chance to pass/fail. In other words, if someone couldn't do chest compressions in the same way as most people, but was able to meet the number and time requirements to pass the test, we had to pass them--even if they used a slightly different technique. It really doesn't take much to grasp that concept. And if they can save someone's life, even using a slightly different way to do it, all the more power to them. By the way, as instructors we were just volunteers who had gone through a week of training on how to instruct CPR, and we never once had to go to our boss to figure out how to "handle" a disabled student. Many of the instructors were teens (though I was 20 at the time). If an issue came up that we did, it really wouldn't have been that big of a deal anyway.
Two of my kids work as lifeguards at our local pool. They have the teenage lifeguards refer the request for accommodations to the adult pool manager (who is ALWAYS onsite) because they don't want to put the kids in the situation of making judgement calls on that issue--the city wants them to handle it that way for liability purposes. They also want the kids watching the pool vs. having a lengthy discussion with a visitor. I think the concern is that if someone doesn't look like they have a disability, a teenager might get a little too rigid about the rules without asking reasonable questions. Referring visitors to the adult pool manager to approve accommodations is a "cover your backside from a lawsuit" policy.
I think you need to learn to advocate a little more strongly for your child. What kind of parent of a special need child complains about "special treatment?" The purpose of the ADA--a federal law that takes priority over any stupid "rules"-- is to make sure that your child has the same opportunity to participate as other kids, even if that requires that they bend the rules to accommodate your child's disability. You're right--talking to the staff in advance helps, but if they refuse to accommodate, you can sue. The purpose of suing isn't to make money--it's to make sure that the organization understands that there's a consequence for not following the law. People do really STUPID things in the name of rules that make zero sense, but they don't have the right to set rules that make it difficult or impossible for your child to participate. The circumstances for special needs kids will never improve if parents aren't willing to step up and advocate for their child--that's your JOB as a parent.
In this case the mother was wrong.
This has nothing to do with advocacy. If it had been me I would have known the rules beforehand. And if floaties are not allowed than having her child wear them is not having him participate the same as other kids; its making an exception for her child. Floaties are not toys. If the child had been using a life jacket, a noodle or even a swim ring I could see the mother having a case here but she didn't. She wanted to use what she wanted to use period.
And as far as what kind of parent complains; I complain A LOT because I encounter way too many parents who don't want to be accommodated but want their own special set of rules. That is not advocacy.
Last edited by nat_at772; 07-23-2012 at 08:13 AM..
Or she wanted her kid to be able to swim in a way that any reasonable person would allow.
If we are so down on the teenage lifeguard's judgment abilities, why allow a teenager to be a lifeguard in the first place? Sounds like they're pretty useless.
That was uncalled for. The kids are there to make sure everyone is safe, to make sure that people follow safety rules, and to jump in to rescue someone who's drowning if need be. They need to watch the pool constantly without distraction, and they aren't allowed to have discussions of more than a word or two with visitors while they're on duty. Again, the concern is that the kids will make snap judgements without questions. I'm not sure why it's a problem to have the individual requesting an accommodation to check in with the pool manager.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
