Login | Register

Why NOT obtaining Section 504 for your child is a DISSERVICE to your child...

509 replies [Last post]
By MommaBear on Tue, 07-11-06, 21:34

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]Where does Child Find fit into all of that? Can it be taken out of your hands with that facet of the ADA?

[/b]

My youngest was in "Early Childhood" for three years. They needed my permission to place him there. Bringing him to the district wide eval was [i]at my discretion[/i].

BTW, he attended "Full Day Kindergarten" with "regular education" peers this last school year. They have refused to re-evaluate him under IDEA. All my begging didn't change their minds. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img] It has, however, been suggested he is [i]gifted[/i]. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img] [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img] (ack, spit, [i]ptooey[/i])

But hey, my impressions (optional, discretionary, with my permission) could be wrong. Maybe it was just me. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Tue, 07-11-06, 21:37

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]I don't assume it. From what you have posted in the past, you of all people would be someone I would assume would have plenty of experience understanding people's ability to fu&* with you cause they could. You surprised me using the notion that it would be unlikely.[/b]

You're good at researching my posts so show me [i]where I ever gave you the impression that I used "the notion that it would be unlikely" people would &&&& with me.

Just because they might doesn't phase me. Maybe it's because it's been said I'm [i]a lightening rod for trouble[/i]. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]

And where did I say it would be highly unlikely school districts would &&&& with anyone?

HAVEN'T YOU READ MY "IEP VS. 504" THREAD OR THE THREADS RELATED TO IT, WOMAN???? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/wink.gif[/img]

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Tue, 07-11-06, 21:39

and, btw, gvmom, "Child Find" did a [i]full case study[/i] on my youngest.

Groups: None
By Corvallis Mom on Tue, 07-11-06, 21:39

Hey--from one beeyatch to another? I don't have a passive-aggressive bone in my body. (Boys like that. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img] )

But it doesn't mean that I don't have an advanced degree from [i]that[/i] school of hard knocks.

My family contains Zen masters of the genre. I tell ya.

SO I certainly recognize the tactic and can anticipate when those with such inclinations are likely to be unable to control the impulse.

Usually all I can do is brace myself and grit my teeth.... [i]"wait for it.... wait for it..." [/i]

But I have an innate willingness to go to the mat, myself. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] Comes in handy. As long as you can embrace your inner Beeyatch.

Groups: None
By Gail W on Tue, 07-11-06, 21:42

gvmom, I've been thinking about this:

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b]I understand MommaBear to be saying that it's unlikely a school would retaliate by placing a child who did not *need* "Special Ed" services in a "Special Ed" classroom . . [/b]

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]Key word is unlikely. Life can be made difficult. Again, maybe everyone here has had a walk in the park with all the administration they've dealt with, teachers their kids have had and parents of students. It must be great. For me, unlikely still indicates possibility. The same arguements could be thrown back as a reason to deny accommodations for FA's. It is unlikely that your child will have a reaction -- but many of us want the 504 because of the possibility. It is unlikely they'll try to make your life he!!, but it is a possibility. [/b]

My question is, are children who do [i]not [/i]have a Section 504 designation (or IDEA-OHI designation) entitled to the right to a "Least Restrictive Environment"?

No, I don't think so. All children are entitled to FAPE, but only those who are 'disabled' are entitled to LRE.

Groups: None
By Corvallis Mom on Tue, 07-11-06, 21:49

THANK YOU. This was what I was getting at.

Ineffectually.

Groups: None
By TeddyAlly on Tue, 07-11-06, 21:51

Just getting caught up and I too agree!

------------------
Helen
Mom to Alyssa (PA, age 6)
Mom to Theodore (age 3)

Groups: None
By Gail W on Tue, 07-11-06, 21:53

Quote:Originally posted by Corvallis Mom:
[b]Ineffectually.[/b]

No way. . .

Groups: None
By gvmom on Tue, 07-11-06, 22:01

[b][i]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by gvmom:
I don't assume it. From what you have posted in the past, you of all people would be someone I would assume would have plenty of experience understanding people's ability to fu&* with you cause they could. You surprised me using the notion that it would be unlikely.[/b][/i]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]You're good at researching my posts so show me where I ever gave you the impression that I used "the notion that it would be unlikely" people would &&&& with me. [/b]

I don't research your posts, remember that is your job. And would you please reread my statement. You clearly aren't getting what I'm saying.

[b]Just because they might doesn't phase me. Maybe it's because it's been said I'm [i]a lightening rod for trouble.[/b]

Has nothing to do with whether you would be phased or not, and everything to do with if they would.

[b]And where did I say it would be highly unlikely school districts would &&&& with anyone?

HAVEN'T YOU READ MY "IEP VS. 504" THREAD OR THE THREADS RELATED TO IT, WOMAN???? [/b]

DUH.

Groups: None
By Gail W on Tue, 07-11-06, 22:10

gvmom. . . [i]tapping you lightly on the shoulder. . .[/i]

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b]gvmom, I've been thinking about this:

My question is, are children who do [i]not [/i]have a Section 504 designation (or IDEA-OHI designation) entitled to the right to a "Least Restrictive Environment"?

No, I don't think so. All children are entitled to FAPE, but only those who are 'disabled' are entitled to LRE.[/b]

I'm curious, What do you think about this?

Do you see it as a Catch 22?

Groups: None
By Momcat on Tue, 07-11-06, 22:25

I just want to point out that assigning PA kids to special ed classes based solely on their PA is not unprecedented:

[url="http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/001086.html"]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/001086.html[/url]

The following quote is from the thread above:
Quote:[b]The following input may not be useful but just wanted to comment on my recent experience with the public school. The district disability coordinator insisted that my dc go to a school that is predominately handicapped because it has a full-time nurse. She was also insistent that she not be put under Section 504 (because the district has to pay for everything..Wanted her in the IDEA program because the fed. gov. picks up the tab). She said she would be classified handicapped on paper but would receive the same education as non-handicapped students. The school test scores were terrible at all grade levels and it was considerable distance from our home. The school board did approve a rezone transfer to another school just 2 miles from my home (had great test scores) but only a part-time nurse. I thought everything was finally going to work out. The principal seemed willing to work with us but I could tell when I started mentioned what would have to be done at the school to keep my dc safe (like monitoring her in the cafeteria, teachers trained to use Epi-pen) that she seemed more reluctant. I found out a couple days later that the school receives funds for a cafeteria monitor but spends it on something else. The students are in charge of cleaning where they ate (Kind. - 6th grade). Also, there is a child who has brain seizures at the school and the teachers are not allowed to give the child a pill (a non invasive treatment) which stops the seizure. If the nurse isn't around, the parent is called and they drive to the school and give the med....while the student suffers. I was so appalled that the district would be more concerned about lawsuits than meeting the needs of this child that I walked away. I had been told numerous times by teachers at other schools that they are told not to get involved. I think the school might have attempted some of the easier preventative measures we were going to ask for..but my dh and I were concerned if she did go into shock (and the part-time nurse wasn't around) they would call 911 and just stand by and watch her die. We are beginning our 6th year of h.s.ing tomorrow. [/b]

Cathy

------------------
Mom to 7 yr old PA/TNA daughter and 3 1/2 yr old son who is allergic to eggs.

[This message has been edited by Momcat (edited July 11, 2006).]

Groups: None
By gvmom on Tue, 07-11-06, 22:37

[b]My question is, are children who do not have a Section 504 designation (or IDEA-OHI designation) entitled to the right to a "Least Restrictive Environment"?[/b]

Why not?

[b]No, I don't think so. All children are entitled to FAPE, but only those who are 'disabled' are entitled to LRE.[/b]

Yes, all children are entitled to FAPE. Is denying children who are not disabled LRE reverse discrimmination?

Also, nothing prohibits the administrators to jerk you around with LRE. Yes, the children entitled to LRE are supposed to start out in classrooms, not segregated. Who is to say though that some smart a$$ coordinator wouldn't say that there is no way within the confines of a regular classroom that the accommodations asked for with respect to FA's can't be made? I mean, they could go to the 'n'th degree on something like this, right? Yes, we agree completely nut free. But how do you control the residues that could be on children when they come to school? How do you control the environment enough? You want x,y,z --- well, let's add on a few because you get your designation, but we'll put your kid in a bubble. Them having a reaction could prove so disruptive to the other students......the only way to guarantee safety.......... sure.......

And yes, parents have to agree, you have rights as a parent -- but they have the ability to keep coming up with different ideas, with how long between meetings while your kid sits where they are at what stage. How many of us have heard 'reasonable accommodations'? I heard it. Heard it in such a way it made my stomach turn. Yes, there is a ruling on that. Litigate it. But at some point, fighting about every little thing -- for me -- isn't something or somewhere I was gonna go.

I think, so far, we've gotten it lucky. It doesn't mean I don't anticipate cr@p coming our way. It doesn't mean I feel free and clear. I know that I don't want to spend my time fighting, no matter how right I am. There is a line for me. There is a line for DH. There are issues that we worry about. There are facets of peoples behavior that we wish we never got to see --- but they exist. So far, we have been able to line up our 'reasonable accommodations' with the principals, and come up with something workable. It doesn't mean that when school starts that will remain the same. She could put the screws to us if the PTA stamps their feet, if other parents in the class that our son is in bitch and moan. To not recognize the possibilities associated with the processes you involve yourself in -- well, it isn't the way I like to do things. You can't unring a bell.

Groups: None
By Gail W on Tue, 07-11-06, 22:48

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]To not recognize the possibilities associated with the processes you involve yourself in -- well, it isn't the way I like to do things. [/b]

Nor I.

[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited July 11, 2006).]

Groups: None
By gvmom on Tue, 07-11-06, 22:53

[b]gvmom. . . tapping you lightly on the shoulder. . .

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gail W:
gvmom, I've been thinking about this:
My question is, are children who do not have a Section 504 designation (or IDEA-OHI designation) entitled to the right to a "Least Restrictive Environment"?

No, I don't think so. All children are entitled to FAPE, but only those who are 'disabled' are entitled to LRE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm curious, What do you think about this?

Do you see it as a Catch 22? [/b]

I have a 10 foot pole that is gathering dust if you'd like to borrow it....... thanks for being gentle (thought that was cute actually).

To me, there is an element of irony in all of these things. Yes, to get LRE for your child, an entitlement that basically discrimminates against others who you wish to have your child included with. Hmmmmm -- we wrestled with this type of notion while deciding about the 504 --- specifically with lunch.

I know I've written before, but for us eating on the ground was unthinkable. Forget the FA's or not. With FA's it was just mindblowing to think that it would even be 'on the table' (so to speak) as an option. To get a table for our child, because of a 504, gives him a benefit denied to the other students -- which we believe they have an inherent right to. So what do you do? Ethically we believe all students should have a proper place to eat -- not on the nasty, dirty blacktop. They all have the right to sit at a clean table, with dignity. They don't have recourse. We do. We can get our table with the 504. Reverse discrimmination? Our child is special, therefore gets a table? Set apart. His class will be separate and unequal, with greater benefits than their peers when the year starts. What should we have done? Does he get the same experience as his peers -- FAPE -- eat on the ground, or does he get special treatment which gives him FAPE with the effect of creating a safer environment with a smaller group of children, but completely different than what the majority of his peers experience?

I don't know if I've explained that right gotta go change the laundry. I'm confident anything I've missed will be pointed out to me...............................

BTW --- THANK YOU MOMCAT!

[This message has been edited by gvmom (edited July 11, 2006).]

Groups: None
By Momcat on Tue, 07-11-06, 22:54

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b] Is denying children who are not disabled LRE reverse discrimmination?[/b]

No. By definition, those who are not disabled are already in the least restrictive environment.

Cathy

------------------
Mom to 7 yr old PA/TNA daughter and 3 1/2 yr old son who is allergic to eggs.

Groups: None
By Gail W on Tue, 07-11-06, 22:56

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
My question is, are children who do not have a Section 504 designation (or IDEA-OHI designation) entitled to the right to a "Least Restrictive Environment"?[/]

[b]Why not?[/b]

Because 'Least Restrictive Environment' is applied to children who have been deemed eligible for protection under Section 504.

Groups: None
By gvmom on Tue, 07-11-06, 23:50

Couldn't some parents argue that their children are being discrimminated against by not receiving LRE? Why couldn't they argue that not having an individualized plan, that fostered the best learning environment for their child, was restrictive because it isn't available within the 'normal' classroom setting? Couldn't they argue that the ability of the disabled students to get the schools to cater to the special needs of a small group of students, discrimminated against their child since their individual needs wouldn't be met -- that they would be lumped in with the masses? An environment that doesn't allow for the blossoming of a child's intellectual, social and academic development could be considered restrictive, even if taken from the viewpoint of a non-disabled child, kept in a class that didn't progress at the same pace. Why couldn't someone then believe that the regular classroom was restrictive -- and then becomes discrimminatory if LRE only applies to those with a disability?

Groups: None
By erik on Tue, 07-11-06, 23:54

Quote:Originally posted by Corvallis Mom:
[b]The one battle you have to wage with yourself is to admit that your child is, in fact, "disabled."[/b]

I respectfully disagree. I have had PA all my life and have never once thought of myself as disabled. PA does not stop me from participating in any of life's activities. Being PA does not mean you are disabled, as I participate in all of life's activities.. travel to China, eat in restaurants, go to movies, I do everything.

Quote:Originally posted by Corvallis Mom:
[b]But you have to come to peace with that one, or you will never be able to successfully advocate for your child.[/b]

I disagree once more. My parents and myself have never considered myself to be disabled at all... and I would say we have handled PA very successfully.

[b]I am not disabled as there's nothing a non-PA person can do that I cannot do (with the exception of eating peanuts)[/b]

[This message has been edited by erik (edited July 11, 2006).]

Groups: None
By Momcat on Wed, 07-12-06, 00:42

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]Couldn't some parents argue that their children are being discrimminated against by not receiving LRE? Why couldn't they argue that not having an individualized plan, that fostered the best learning environment for their child, was restrictive because it isn't available within the 'normal' classroom setting? Couldn't they argue that the ability of the disabled students to get the schools to cater to the special needs of a small group of students, discrimminated against their child since their individual needs wouldn't be met -- that they would be lumped in with the masses? An environment that doesn't allow for the blossoming of a child's intellectual, social and academic development could be considered restrictive, even if taken from the viewpoint of a non-disabled child, kept in a class that didn't progress at the same pace. Why couldn't someone then believe that the regular classroom was restrictive -- and then becomes discrimminatory if LRE only applies to those with a disability?[/b]

Well, they could make that argument, but I would say that on the whole, public school special ed classes are not perfectly meeting the needs of the disabled any more than their regular ed classes are perfectly meeting the needs of everyone else. It seems to me that the intent of the law (which is by no means perfectly applied) is to provide an appropriate, but not necessarily ideal, environment to allow learning to take place. We all know that even with a 504 plan, the accommodations we end up with are often less than ideal! The same is true for children with other disabilities in the public school system.

Cathy

------------------
Mom to 7 yr old PA/TNA daughter and 3 1/2 yr old son who is allergic to eggs.

Groups: None
By Gail W on Wed, 07-12-06, 00:42

Hi Erik!!!

You know that I love your approach to life, and it is exactly what I hope to instill in Mariah. You're a great role model for us. I fully to expect Mariah to continue to travel, eat out at restaurants, go to movies, and everything else. At this very moment she's at overnight camp. (Have you checked out her adorable photo in Off Topic? [url="http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum22/HTML/003665.html"]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum22/HTML/003665.html[/url]

But I agree with the fact as stated by Corvallis Mom. . . that under the definition of the law (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), food allergies meet the definition of a 'disability' . I think that Mariah can do everything you've stated, Erik, *and* that she meets the definition of "disability" as defined by law.

Edited to shamelessly add the link. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/redface.gif[/img]

Now edited to try to fix link. arg.

[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited July 11, 2006).]

[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited July 11, 2006).]

Groups: None
By Gail W on Wed, 07-12-06, 01:06

Quote:Originally posted by Momcat:
[b] Well, they could make that argument, but I would say that on the whole, public school special ed classes are not perfectly meeting the needs of the disabled any more than their regular ed classes are perfectly meeting the needs of everyone else. It seems to me that the intent of the law (which is by no means perfectly applied) is to provide an appropriate, but not necessarily ideal, environment to allow learning to take place. We all know that even with a 504 plan, the accommodations we end up with are often less than ideal! The same is true for children with other disabilities in the public school system.

Cathy[/b]

I was going to try to post essentially the same thing. You stated this better than I could.

[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited July 11, 2006).]

Groups: None
By erik on Wed, 07-12-06, 01:07

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b]Hi Erik!!!

You know that I love your approach to life, and it is exactly what I hope to instill in Mariah. You're a great role model for us. I fully to expect Mariah to continue to travel, eat out at restaurants, go to movies, and everything else. At this very moment she's at overnight camp.

But I agree with the fact as stated by Corvallis Mom. . . that under the definition of the law (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), food allergies meet the definition of a 'disability' . I think that Mariah can do everything you've stated, Erik, *and* that she meets the definition of "disability" as defined by law.[/b]

Hi Gail [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

Yes, I can understand how individuals with PA could be defined as "disabled" based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (which I know nothing about since I am in Canada.. hehe).

I guess my point is that I don't feel that my PA restricts me from anything in life (well, except for the obvious like being unable to eat Thai food, etc). Although I know PA is much more of a concern for a child at school rather than an adult too.

But as you mention, I guess you could do the things I do but also be classified as having a disability under the law (due to risks such as being in school, etc)

Thanks Gail.. I'll go check out the photo of Mariah now [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

Groups: None
By Gail W on Wed, 07-12-06, 01:24

Quote:Originally posted by erik:
[b] I guess my point is that I don't feel that my PA restricts me from anything in life (well, except for the obvious like being unable to eat Thai food, etc). [/b]

Understood. I agree. Obtaining a Section 504 designation ("disability") is a tool parents use to advocate for their child's needs at school.

Groups: None
By gvmom on Wed, 07-12-06, 03:29

[b]Well, they could make that argument, but I would say that on the whole, public school special ed classes are not perfectly meeting the needs of the disabled any more than their regular ed classes are perfectly meeting the needs of everyone else. It seems to me that the intent of the law (which is by no means perfectly applied) is to provide an appropriate, but not necessarily ideal, environment to allow learning to take place. We all know that even with a 504 plan, the accommodations we end up with are often less than ideal! The same is true for children with other disabilities in the public school system.

Cathy[/b]

They could make that argument. One would hope they wouldn't. But truly, my real point -- because really I am on the side of those here -- is that many things can be done & said to derail you. The whole idea that the unlikely won't happen doesn't work for me. If I can come up with arguments to defeat or derail those that I actually support, the motivation for those against is just as great, and the will to succeed just as strong to defeat what you are trying to do.

There is no efficacy in arguing whether it is a punishment for so called 'normal' kids to be in classes with LD kids -- especially when we really are on the same side here (I think & hope). But for some of us who but for the Food Allergies, wouldn't be venturing into the realm of the ADA, we have a worry about what else may be used to twist our arms against advocating for Food Allergic Accommodations. It would appear to me that those with at least what others might deem valid reasons to turn to the ADA regulations, have at least one slight leg up. You would be going that route without the Food Allergy -- I wouldn't.

I can understand that it is emotional for those that have LD children to find it painful to have those of us without ask questions that might make you feel as though we are stigmatizing LD children -- at least to the extent that having a child that others view as different and 'not normal' (which I have two of, since around here we are abnormal having 2 Food Allergic children, which if they continue behaving the way they do, I will have no problem selling side show tickets to view). But really, isn't there a way to step back, and see that when asking if legally the school can place your child in 'special ed' when they get designated is really something that isn't something we are wondering about as though it were a horror movie -- but as concerned parents wondering what legally a school can throw at you in order to have leverage?

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 04:03

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]To me, there is an element of irony in all of these things. Yes, to get LRE for your child, an entitlement that basically discrimminates against others who you wish to have your child included with. Hmmmmm -- we wrestled with this type of notion while deciding about the 504 --- specifically with lunch.[/b]

didn't I *just* post that there probably was an opportunity to be discussing peanut free tables or what?? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]

Quote:[b]I know I've written before, but for us eating on the ground was unthinkable. Forget the FA's or not. With FA's it was just mindblowing to think that it would even be 'on the table' (so to speak) as an option. To get a table for our child, because of a 504, gives him a benefit denied to the other students -- which we believe they have an inherent right to. So what do you do? Ethically we believe all students should have a proper place to eat -- not on the nasty, dirty blacktop. They all have the right to sit at a clean table, with dignity. They don't have recourse. We do. We can get our table with the 504. Reverse discrimmination? Our child is special, therefore gets a table? Set apart. His class will be separate and unequal, with greater benefits than their peers when the year starts. What should we have done? Does he get the same experience as his peers -- FAPE -- eat on the ground, or does he get special treatment which gives him FAPE with the effect of creating a safer environment with a smaller group of children, but completely different than what the majority of his peers experience?[/b]

Like I *just* said previously wrt "special ed" accommodations afforded to children who qualify: "Every child should be so lucky."

Quote:[b]I don't know if I've explained that right gotta go change the laundry. I'm confident anything I've missed will be pointed out to me...............................[/b]

just adding: [i]glad we finally agree[/i]. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img]

Groups: None
By Corvallis Mom on Wed, 07-12-06, 04:13

Quote:Originally posted by erik:
[b] I disagree once more. My parents and myself have never considered myself to be disabled at all... and I would say we have handled PA very successfully.

[b]I am not disabled as there's nothing a non-PA person can do that I cannot do (with the exception of eating peanuts)[/b]

[This message has been edited by erik (edited July 11, 2006).][/b]

I am so glad you posted, Erik!

This is my point exactly-- I loathe using this term for my daughter. Because personally? I don't see her in that light. But legally? I have to go there mentally in order to do what is appropriate for her to be reasonably safe in a school environment.

This is why I used this term-- it is the one that schools and the law use. It is [i]not[/i] one that most of us here are inherently very comfortable applying to someone with FA. Then again, I have known diabetics who hated it just as much.

Hate the term, but use the law. That was my real point. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

I mean, really-- "disabled"? My daughter?? Don't make me laugh. She does pretty much what she wants to-- we just have to make adjustments for it to happen sometimes.

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 04:48

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]
I can understand that it is emotional for those that have LD children to find it painful to have those of us without ask questions that might make you feel as though we are stigmatizing LD children -- at least to the extent that having a child that others view as different and 'not normal' (which I have two of, since around here we are abnormal having 2 Food Allergic children, which if they continue behaving the way they do, I will have no problem selling side show tickets to view). But really, isn't there a way to step back, and see that when asking if legally the school can place your child in 'special ed' when they get designated is really something that isn't something we are wondering about as though it were a horror movie -- but as concerned parents wondering what legally a school can throw at you in order to have leverage?

[/b]

I can't step back. The notion that all, or even the majority of special ed "classrooms" are self contained would make me chuckle if I didn't find it ridiculous.

My child is in a "special ed" classroom. It's a "regular education classroom". It's a "gifted" classroom. [i]It's where-ever he is.[/i] I mean, some people just don't "get-it", do they?

[b]It's like his allergy.[/b] Modifications are made so that he can participate with his [i]non-disabled[/i] peers.

As it is possible to do that with his allergy, it is indeed possible to do it with a learning disablity. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] (Although just as some parents of non-food allergic children can't fathom a classroom that accommodates children of *any* food allergy, neither can some parents of "regular education" children fathom that *their* child's classroom houses "special education" children that participate, yea.........[i]compete[/i] alongside their own children (and do so in a [i]stellar[/i] fashion), [b]once barriers are removed.[/b]

Or at least they might not be aware of it. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/wink.gif[/img]

But hey, some-things you just have to live for yourself to understand.

Special education classrooms from a "horror movie" indeed.

I mean, I haven't seen one yet. I mean, nothing any more <<>> than rooms I've seen filled with "regular education students. Anyways, the idea that "special education" classrooms are *supposed* to stir up feelings of "horror movies" in the hearts of parents of "regular education" students I find.............sad.

I mean, does it strike folk as a "horror movie" that more than just a handful of "Special Education" students may be parked right next to their children in a "Regular" (or "Gifted") education "classroom"? Because, personally? I've found it more the "norm" than the [i]exception[/i].

That said, my child was in a "self-contained" classroom several years back. The same child who now [i]competes[/i] and even surpasses his "regular education" [i]peers[/i].

Go Figure. That's who was in *that* classroom.

Now, *that said*, many parents I met from *that* classroom had *insisted* their children (all of whom I found to be very [i]normal[/i], and some absolutely precious, personable, and..............humanitarian), again, *insisted* their children remain in such a classroom to [i]protect them[/i]. From what, I indeed can relate.

It was a HUGE step for me to expose MY child to *that* environment. To [i]mainstream[/i] him, I mean.

Fifth grade in a mainstream classroom, littered with "normal" peers terrifies me. Like a "horror movie" might.

[i]And I feel, from my personal experience, my fears are *totally* justified.[/i] Not based on assumptions, as I have seen both, and been on the receiving end of what some "normal", "regular education" peers in Middle School can dish out.

But hey, no advice, just me, lightening rod, blah blah blah.

[This message has been edited by MommaBear (edited July 12, 2006).]

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 04:56

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b] Because 'Least Restrictive Environment' is applied to children who have been deemed eligible for protection under Section 504. [/b]

You know, Gail, each and everytime you point this out, I am floored by insight you have. Time and time again.

Wonderful point. Understood. Magnificent deduction. I slap myself everytime I miss something like that when it is right in front of my face. Ouch. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] It's one of those things that bite me right in the.....before I realize: "Wow! how did I miss that???"

Again, [i]magnificent[/i] point.

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 05:18

oh, and "IDEA" too. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 05:56

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[B But really, isn't there a way to step back, and see that when asking if legally the school can place your child in 'special ed' when they get designated [/B]

Isn't that what getting [i]designated[/i] is? Under section 504.

Section 504 34 C.F.R. 104.33 b:

"(b) Appropriate education. (1) For the purpose of this subpart, the provision of an appropriate education is the provision of regular or [b]special education[/b] and related aids and services that (i) are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of nonhandicapped persons are met and (ii) are based upon adherence to procedures that satisfy the requirements of 104.34, 104.35, and 104.36."

and gvmom, this might be of interest to you:

[url="http://www.uiowa.edu/infotech/Section504.htm"]http://www.uiowa.edu/infotech/Section504.htm[/url]

to quote:

[i]"A school must place a child in the regular educational environment unless the school demonstrates that the education of the child in the regular environment with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. See 34 C.F.R.

Groups: None
By gvmom on Wed, 07-12-06, 07:45

Here is the point at which sometimes I am not sure whether you read a post, whether you just want to make your own special point, or you just want to stir up shi+.

Are you missing my point? Are you ignoring my point -- or are you just trying to twist it all up for the fun of it? I don't think this is the thread to do it in.

Great your kid is in a regular classroom. Competing with all the other kids. Clapping for you. Whatever. I don't have a problem with it. Hey, your kids are just as good as mine, or better even. Yes, that's it -- truly superior. Happy? Is that what you are looking for? Seriously, if there were special ed kids in my son's class I wouldn't care. Great. Point is, one question was asked about children who are in regular classrooms to begin with -- not designated, not even thought of to be designated by any evaluation by parents, administrators or educators, but for the fact that a parent discovers the ability to get Food Allergies deemed a disability, and hopefully force the school to put in place accommodations to keep their kid alive while at school. Are those kids then going to be put in special ed classes? Not are those kids going to be put in special ed classes said with an 'oh my god, because that would be fate worse than death' or 'Lord help me because maybe they'll catch a learning disability' -- but because of other worries that have nothing to do with the sensitivity that you have with respect to your child and the perception that people have attached a stigma to their own particular, individual, highly specialized situation.

The question really speaks to unforseen, unanticipated results of the designation. The ways a school -- administrators & educators -- can twist what you have fought for against you. You don't like the characterization that you think is implied with the 'special ed' part of the question -- well, what else is new. For pete's sake. Sit with it for a minute, then work on the answer to the question, or leave it be. Remember, this isn't an indictment on special ed, it is more a commentary on our lack of ability to really trust those we have to work with to keep our children safe. Recognize that it isn't all hand holding and Kum Ba Ya. You know that. Really, what are the percentages in favor of politics over education when you are talking with the people at the school?

Groups: None
By TeddyAlly on Wed, 07-12-06, 13:41

THANK YOU GVMOM! My question keeps getting lost in here. Thank you for keeping it risen and expressing it better than I do [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

------------------
Helen
Mom to Alyssa (PA, age 6)
Mom to Theodore (age 3)

Groups: None
By gvmom on Wed, 07-12-06, 14:23

Morning TeddyAlly. No problem. It is also something that crossed my mind too, so remembering the question at hand is a bit easier. Sometimes it is easy to be derailed around here.

Groups: None
By Gail W on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:03

Good morning.

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b] Are you missing my point? . . . Are those kids then going to be put in special ed classes? [/b]

gvmom, I might need to borrow your pole now . . .

I understood this point to have already been validated. School administrators try all kinds of abhorrent tactics, by intent or ignorance. The link posted by Momcat is a perfect case in point.

The regulations regarding placement are pretty clear, as quoted my MommaBear. If this type of misplacement occurred (placing your FA child in a Special Ed classroom), the regulations would be clear cut ammunition to fight back.

I don't mean to refute the possibility that an administrator might attempt to misplace your child , just trying to point to how the law has clearly addressed this possibility. (That administrator wouldn't have a leg to stand on. . . )

Groups: None
By gvmom on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:27

Here Gail -- handing over the pole.

But do you see that TeddyAlly's question wasn't first answered with a validation with the example Momcat put, and then with the explanation of regulations that would give one recourse. It was answered as though she were indicting Special Education and those that are receiving those services.

I mean, how many pages did it take to basically get to, 'yes, they could, but you would have legal recourse'? And btw, just because a person wouldn't have a leg to stand on, doesn't mean they wouldn't try it if they feel they could pull it off.

Groups: None
By TeddyAlly on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:28

Good morning to you both as well [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

Thank you for answering my question Gail and for backing the issue. I just dont want to have to fight with anyone in the SD anymore than I already have to.

------------------
Helen
Mom to Alyssa (PA, age 6)
Mom to Theodore (age 3)

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:37

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b]The regulations regarding placement are pretty clear, as quoted my MommaBear. If this type of misplacement occurred (placing your FA child in a Special Ed classroom), the regulations would be clear cut ammunition to fight back.

[/b]

Thank you Gail. I'm thinking she's not reading [i]my[/i] posts. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/wink.gif[/img]

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:41

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]Here is the point at which sometimes I am not sure whether you read a post, whether you just want to make your own special point, or you just want to stir up shi+.

Are you missing my point? Are you ignoring my point -- or are you just trying to twist it all up for the fun of it? I don't think this is the thread to do it in.

Great your kid is in a regular classroom. Competing with all the other kids. Clapping for you. Whatever. I don't have a problem with it. Hey, your kids are just as good as mine, or better even. Yes, that's it -- truly superior. Happy? Is that what you are looking for? Seriously, if there were special ed kids in my son's class I wouldn't care. Great. Point is, one question was asked about children who are in regular classrooms to begin with -- not designated, not even thought of to be designated by any evaluation by parents, administrators or educators, but for the fact that a parent discovers the ability to get Food Allergies deemed a disability, and hopefully force the school to put in place accommodations to keep their kid alive while at school. Are those kids then going to be put in special ed classes? Not are those kids going to be put in special ed classes said with an 'oh my god, because that would be fate worse than death' or 'Lord help me because maybe they'll catch a learning disability' -- but because of other worries that have nothing to do with the sensitivity that you have with respect to your child and the perception that people have attached a stigma to their own particular, individual, highly specialized situation.

The question really speaks to unforseen, unanticipated results of the designation. The ways a school -- administrators & educators -- can twist what you have fought for against you. You don't like the characterization that you think is implied with the 'special ed' part of the question -- well, what else is new. For pete's sake. Sit with it for a minute, then work on the answer to the question, or leave it be. Remember, this isn't an indictment on special ed, it is more a commentary on our lack of ability to really trust those we have to work with to keep our children safe. Recognize that it isn't all hand holding and Kum Ba Ya. You know that. Really, what are the percentages in favor of politics over education when you are talking with the people at the school?

[/b]

a lot more if one is not informed. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img]

anywhoo. How many pages to get to this? probably a lot less if the [i]personal attack[/i] had been omitted. (Golf Clap for the poster instigating that. You must be proud.)

Step back? Ha. You try stepping back from your position of advocate for *your* child and *then* come talk to me. Talk about BS.

Groups: None
By Corvallis Mom on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:43

And, just as succinctly,

if you need any accomodations at all for your child, you're still better off having legal recourse for retaliation. Should it occur.
Because if you domodifications "informally" that can backfire and leave you [i]no recourse[/i] legally to deal with unsavory ways of "dealing with you" that the SD sees as perfectly reasonable. Like placing your child in a "problem kids" classroom where the teacher-student ratio is higher, but where aggregate test scores might be a grade level below the other class. KWIM?

And without a 504, one rotten apple can spoil all your efforts and everyone else's, too. Even if that rotten apple is a volunteer or parent in your child's classroom.

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:44

Remember folks, school districts would rather fill the [i]limited[/i] number of positions available for Special Education Students with those who [i]actually qualify[/i] for funding. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img] At least that's my impression, I could be wrong.

All children should be so lucky.

Groups: None
By gvmom on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:48

But don't you get that nobody was attacking your child here by asking the question TeddyAlly did? Noone is saying you shouldn't advocate for your child. We all are advocates for our children. We all should be. We all have to be. But really, can't you discern when someone asks a question -- innocently, without the intent to indict special ed & those receiving it -- and those that are making a personal attack on your children (which by the way nobody did).

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:50

Quote:Originally posted by Corvallis Mom:
[b]And, just as succinctly,

if you need any accomodations at all for your child, you're still better off having legal recourse for retaliation. Should it occur.
Because if you domodifications "informally" that can backfire and leave you [i]no recourse[/i] legally to deal with unsavory ways of "dealing with you" that the SD sees as perfectly reasonable. Like placing your child in a "problem kids" classroom where the teacher-student ratio is higher, but where aggregate test scores might be a grade level below the other class. KWIM?

[/b]

Maybe this is a [i]California/Oregon[/i] thing. I don't know. Just guessing.

But My School District doesn't have "behavior classrooms". If "behavior" proves to be disruptive, unmanageable, there are [i]Therapeutic Day Schools[/i]. These children *are* [i]segregated[/i] out of the population. They do not even attend at the same school. There are [i]procedural safeguards[/i] in place that dictate how such incidences are handled. It's not "oh, we're sending you there." It's a [i]process[/i]. A Due Process, in many instances.

I have an inclination to invite "Myth Busters" to this thread. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img]

But hey, Oregon and California may indeed, be [i]different[/i]. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/wink.gif[/img]

Groups: None
By TeddyAlly on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:51

Ok, Personal Attack...I felt as though I was being attacked for mentioning the word 'Special Education', MB and at least someone was there to stick up for me and explain that my consern in my original post was not about 'Special Education being a Bad Word' just unfair to place a child that doesnt have a learning disability just because of a food allergy. I am thankful that someone was here to help me out with my wording in making my consern clear to stop the attack about 'Special Education'

------------------
Helen
Mom to Alyssa (PA, age 6)
Mom to Theodore (age 3)

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:52

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]But don't you get that nobody was attacking your child here by asking the question TeddyAlly did? Noone is saying you shouldn't advocate for your child. We all are advocates for our children. We all should be. We all have to be. But really, can't you discern when someone asks a question -- innocently, without the intent to indict special ed & those receiving it -- and those that are making a personal attack on your children (which by the way nobody did). [/b]

You come tell me that when they call your child the "Food Allergy Kid", or the "Peanut Boy", or yourself: "Overprotective".

Or don't want to be in "that" classroom, due to the presence of a Food Allergic Child. I mean, [i]do you get it[/i]?

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:53

Quote:Originally posted by TeddyAlly:
[b]I am thankful that someone was here to help me out with my wording in making my consern clear to stop the attack about 'Special Education'

[/b]

so was I. [i]Thank you Gail.[/i]

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:55

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]But don't you get that nobody was attacking your child here by asking the question TeddyAlly did? [/b]

personal attack?:

Quote:Originally posted by shoshana18:
[b]teddyally,
it was very clear where you were coming from.

unfortunately, you are right -- some people on these boards make it their sport to try and stick it to people. there are some rather mean-spirited individuals here who love to come across as "oh-so-innocent".

[/b]

Groups: None
By Gail W on Wed, 07-12-06, 15:59

I've put the pole down now.

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]But do you see that TeddyAlly's question wasn't first answered with a validation with the example Momcat put, and then with the explanation of regulations that would give one recourse. It was answered as though she were indicting Special Education and those that are receiving those services.[/b]

No, I don't, actually. I guess maybe that's because I never thought TeddyAlly had any issue/problem with "Special Ed" itself. . . just misplacement.

I absolutely do see her/the point. It is a point that I experienced personally first hand, a point that I wanted to validate by sharing my own experience.

But. . . whatever. <> I think there are lots of possibilities that can happen during the 504 process, and it's helpful to sort through and weigh them. Personally, of all the worries and possible downsides to obtaining a 504, misplacement would be very far down on my list. Not to discount this concern, just my perspective.

If anyone would ever like to explore some of the downsides of a 504, I'd be willing and interested to do that. But I'm not sure if that's what anyone wants. . . and I don't want to derail anyone's process here.

Groups: None
By TeddyAlly on Wed, 07-12-06, 16:00

Quote:Originally posted by MommaBear:
[b] i'm going to have to come back to this. I mean, I'm supposed to have another "biggest fear"??

I'll start by asking: Is "Special Education" necessarily "Special Education Classes"?

and so what if it is?

[/b]

Just dont understand why you had to be so rude to begin with and so it goes on....

------------------
Helen
Mom to Alyssa (PA, age 6)
Mom to Theodore (age 3)

Groups: None
By MommaBear on Wed, 07-12-06, 16:01

Quote:Originally posted by MommaBear:
[b] Isn't that what getting [i]designated[/i] is? Under section 504.

Section 504 34 C.F.R. 104.33 b:

"(b) Appropriate education. (1) For the purpose of this subpart, the provision of an appropriate education is the provision of regular or [b]special education[/b] and related aids and services that (i) are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of nonhandicapped persons are met and (ii) are based upon adherence to procedures that satisfy the requirements of 104.34, 104.35, and 104.36."

and gvmom, this might be of interest to you:

[url="http://www.uiowa.edu/infotech/Section504.htm"]http://www.uiowa.edu/infotech/Section504.htm[/url]

to quote:

[i]"A school must place a child in the regular educational environment unless the school demonstrates that the education of the child in the regular environment with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. See 34 C.F.R.

Groups: None
By Momcat on Wed, 07-12-06, 16:02

Quote:Originally posted by MommaBear:
[b] Special education classrooms from a "horror movie" indeed.

I mean, I haven't seen one yet. I mean, nothing any more <<>> than rooms I've seen filled with "regular" education students. [/b]

Things are not rosy all over. Here, our education budgets have been slashed to the bone. Children with severe behavioral problems are being warehoused in "special day classes" in the name of mainstreaming. Not a day goes by at DD's school where the principal or vice principal has to drop everything and rush over to one of these classrooms because one of these kids has become violent or attempted to run off. These are kids who need someone to work with them one-on-one, but the resources are not available! These classes are a three-ring circus where very little learning is taking place. They are indeed "special ed classes from a horror movie."

Cathy

------------------
Mom to 7 yr old PA/TNA daughter and 3 1/2 yr old son who is allergic to eggs.

Groups: None

Peanut Free and Nut Free Directory

Our directory is highlights our favorite products for people with peanut and nut allergies.

Close x

Sign up for our newsletter and receive a free peanut-free snack guide.

Stay on top of your allergy with recipes, lifestyle tips and more.

Email