Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Kim Hing
Recent Activity
-
Kim commented on the article |$64,500 a year. That's more money than most peoples yearly income. Stanford University is raising it's fees to $48,453 for next year. But if your income is less than $60,000 a year, you do not have to pay anything, not even room & board! Why does the Monarch School charge so much?
I don't know how much is spent on a public education in Ohio, but in California less than $6,000 a year is spent per child. $64,500 is more than 10x this. Where do the Winkelmanns expect a school district to get this kind of money? Assuming that they would want Jacob to attend this school for at least the next 10 years and that the tuition would increase yearly, how much would that cost?
Jacob needs special education you may say. Fine. But I agree with the court that he is not entitled to a private education at taxpayer expense. I'm certain all parents would like to send their children to private schools on the school district's tab. I know would if I had children. I know my parents would have wanted the same for my brother, sister, and me. My sister has severe learning disabilities and I'm an Aspie. But, there isn't enough money for that. There isn't enough money to do it for even one child, especially in today's economy.
Yeah, I know that at least that much money is spent per inmate in prison so you may feel that your child deserves as much. Don't feel you are singled out, however. The courts have also ruled that inmates must be given higher quality medical care than they have been receiving. So, inmates are required by law to receive high quality medical care for free, while the uninsured who have committed no crimes aren't entitled to any care. As my mother constantly tells me, life's not fair.
By all means, advocate for your child. The only way you will get anything is by asking. But just because you want it doesn't mean that you'll get it or are even entitled to it.
-
Kim commented on the article |I recently went to the local EEOC office because I have been experiencing harassment at work. The intake woman did not know what SSDI is or that to get onto SSDI you must have a disability that interferes with a major life function. So, she asked me various questions to determine if I "qualified" to file a complaint. (One of the determining factors in qualifying is if you have a disability that interferes with a major life function.) She decided that I qualify.
What I learned at the EEOC is that the EEOC cannot issue subpoenas during its investigation. Nor can it require your witnesses to speak. Nor are witnesses' statements taken under oath. This means that they can lie if they want.
While ADA explicitly says that retaliation is not allowed toward those filing a charge or participating in an investigation, if it does occur, you must be able to prove that it was a result of the charge being filed and investigated. Since witnesses understandably may feel at risk of retaliation or losing their jobs, they may elect not to make statements or they may not collaborate your story. I was told that if this happens, my case would be weakened.
Obviously there are incidents that occur without witnesses. It is easy to see how an investigation could become a matter of what you say vs what the harasser/discriminator or employer says. Who will be believed? The burden of proof is on the person who files the charge.
Additionally, even if your harasser has made statements referencing your disability as a reason for his/her behavior, you must prove that the harassment/discrimination is due to your disability. The statement is not enough. You must prove that the statement is in fact referencing your disability. While I thought it was obviously a direct reference to my disability, I learned that it could be interpreted differently.
ADA is nice in theory. But, I feel it was created just to appease those with disabilities. It clearly lacks teeth and does not truly offer any protection at all to a person with a disability who is being harassed/discriminated against.
-
Kim commented on the article |Unfortunately the Regional Centers in California are not standardized in the way that they determine who qualifies for services. Residents in Santa Clara County fall under the San Andreas Regional Center. An Aspie does not qualify for services at this center. Only those with a "classic" autism diagnosis are eligible for services here.
-
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits