Difference between IHCP and 504 ?

Posted on: Fri, 12/22/2006 - 12:50pm
TwokidsNJ's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2005 - 09:00

I am in the process of convincing my principal that my DS needs an IHCP (they have not been open to the 504 - yet). He thinks we have an IHCP but all we have is a Food Allergy Action Plan (emergency plan) on the FAAN form.

I have educated him on what an IHCP would include (prevention, communication, risk reduction, plan for field trips, subs, class parties etc).

But I am curious -- how much further does a 504 go? And why has my principal never heard of an IHCP? Wouldn't they be used for something like Diabetes as well? SHouldn't the district have a process for this?

Thanks!!

Posted on: Fri, 12/22/2006 - 3:48pm
NicoleinNH's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/21/2003 - 09:00

Edit
[This message has been edited by NicoleinNH (edited March 05, 2007).]

Posted on: Wed, 12/27/2006 - 2:28am
Ohio's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/23/2005 - 09:00

We have a 504 plan, that includes an IHCP written by the nurse. How detailed the plan becomes depends on the 504 team members involved and probably the school's experience with 504s.
To get things started, I would request, in writing, a 504 eligibility meeting. Each district is required to have a 504 Coodinator.
Here are some reasons why we chose to pursue the 504 plan:
1. Allergy is considered a hidden disability and therefore qualifies for a 504.
2. All concerned parties involved in creating a formal, documented plan to address concerns/issues.
3. Plan follows the student through school, can be updated yearly.
4. A 504 includes non-academic services and third parties (sports, clubs, field trips).
5. Providing accommodations without a 504 plan is a violation.
6. Refusing to give 504 determination may be a violation.
7. School employees are legally responsible to implement designated accommodations/strategies in a 504 plan.
8. A 504 has grievance procedures, evaluation and placement standards, and procedural safeguards in place.
9. District administration cannot overrule 504 or special education evaluation and placement decisions.
10. With a 504, cost cannot be used as a determining factor in deciding special services. This does not apply to an IHCP. Also, the "reasonable accomodations" wording in the law does not apply to the education setting.(Source: OCR Letter to Zirkel).
11. Social aspects (bullying/teasing) can be appropriately addressed in the context of discrimination through a 504.
12. A 504 protects my child from inadvertent discrimination, even if it was well intentioned.

Posted on: Sat, 12/30/2006 - 1:49pm
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

Ohio,
From your post above:
"...5. Providing accommodations without a 504 plan is a violation. ..."
A violation of what--Federal law? This was found...where? I find this very interesting because there are lots of members here at pa.com that stress over how a school was not accommodating their food-allergic child in X way when there was no 504 to begin with.
That seems like there would be far-reaching consequences because of that (not having a 504), and that reason alone is probably a huge reason why all students with food allergies *must* have a 504.
Members (having kids with no 504) will point out, "...but my child could die if they eat or come in contact with X (the offending allergen)...," to which others respond, "This is not right...it is against the law...your child could die from this..." etc. So what you have posted in no. 5 is really quite an important issue IMO. So I'm curious as to where you found that information.
[This message has been edited by ryan's mom (edited December 30, 2006).]

Posted on: Mon, 01/01/2007 - 3:03pm
Ohio's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/23/2005 - 09:00

Sorry I did not source everything...I was pulling together the list from notes we took to our 504 meeting.
#5 is from [url="http://www.504idea.org/procedures.html"]http://www.504idea.org/procedures.html[/url]
Question 1: If we do the modifications for the student, do we have to go through the procedural hassle of 504?
Yes. If the student qualifies for 504, doing the modifications without providing the procedural protections is a violation. That was the case where a school district provided a student who had undergone hip surgery with appropriate modifications, but failed to have procedures in place to document the deliberation of, or provision of accommodations, or to inform parents of the procedure to follow should their student become disabled. Temple (TX) ISD, 25 IDELR 232 (OCR 1996). There can be few results as unpalatable as one where the district provides sufficient modifications to a qualified disabled student, but nevertheless is found in violation for not jumping through the procedural hoops.

Posted on: Mon, 01/01/2007 - 3:27pm
Nutternomore's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2002 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by ryan's mom:
[b]Ohio,
From your post above:
"...5. Providing accommodations without a 504 plan is a violation. ..."
A violation of what--Federal law? This was found...where? I find this very interesting because there are lots of members here at pa.com that stress over how a school was not accommodating their food-allergic child in X way when there was no 504 to begin with.
That seems like there would be far-reaching consequences because of that (not having a 504), and that reason alone is probably a huge reason why all students with food allergies *must* have a 504.
Members (having kids with no 504) will point out, "...but my child could die if they eat or come in contact with X (the offending allergen)...," to which others respond, "This is not right...it is against the law...your child could die from this..." etc. So what you have posted in no. 5 is really quite an important issue IMO. So I'm curious as to where you found that information.
[This message has been edited by ryan's mom (edited December 30, 2006).][/b]
ryan's mom,
Good question. After reading this information again, here's how I interpret it. The citation referenced above is making the assumption that [i]504 eligibility has [b]already[/b] been determined.[/i] This is the key to making sense of it all.
In some of the cases we've discussed here, you are correct that parents don't have a strong legal defense if a school doesn't follow the IHP (aka IHCP), because it wasn't included as part of a broader 504 plan - therefore no legal protection under Section 504 Federal law.
What I think the statement is saying is that [i]once 504 eligibility has been established[/i], then if the school were to just go ahead and make some accommodations without going through the hoops of properly documenting the accommodations (in the form of a 504 plan), supporting procedural safeguards like providing a formal appeals process, etc., then that would constitute a violation.
This makes sense to me, based on what I've read in the past...

Posted on: Mon, 01/01/2007 - 10:48pm
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

Thanks Ohio and Nutternomore!
Being that we're not lawyers (right?), I think this phrase might be open to even more interpretation. That's what really bothers me. A little phrase like that could be used legally against thousands of kids with food allergies who qualify, but whose parents chose not to obtain a 504 due to simple ignorance that this option exists or because they don't want to "rock the boat".

Posted on: Tue, 01/02/2007 - 4:53am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Nutternomore:
The citation referenced above is making the assumption that [i]504 eligibility has [b]already[/b] been determined.[/i] This is the key to making sense of it all. . . .
What I think the statement is saying is that [i]once 504 eligibility has been established[/i], then if the school were to just go ahead and make some accommodations without going through the hoops of properly documenting the accommodations (in the form of a 504 plan), supporting procedural safeguards like providing a formal appeals process, etc., then that would constitute a violation.
I'm not so sure.
I think the link is saying is that if the school district creates accommodations (i.e. an IHP) it is acknowledging the child requires accommodations to access the school environment [i]and[/i] that by providing such accommodations (an IHP) without a 504 evaluation is a procedural violation.
What do you think?

Posted on: Tue, 01/02/2007 - 5:22am
Ohio's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/23/2005 - 09:00

First, let me say that my intention was to give some "talking points" that we used to prepare for our 504 meetings. I am not an attorney.
I don't think we ever mentioned the word "violation" in any discussion with the school. The word "rights" was another one where we treaded lightly.
But this remains somewhat of a "gray area" for us. We stumbled upon another interesting issue: Our district has provided a 504 for our PA child. If the school doesn't seek out other allergic students to see if they are 504 eligible, isn't that a violation too?

Posted on: Tue, 01/02/2007 - 6:33am
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

Ohio, perhaps that is not only a legal issue, but a ethical issue. If we replace the word allergy and substitute diabetes, asthma, etc., perhaps parents who did not disclose these medical conditions would be considered negligent???
This might sound harsh, but if a parent didn't disclose the fact that a child was diabetic to a school district, I would consider that parent negligent in his/her responsibility to care for their child. So how is a life-threatening food allergy any different? Could it be because child X is "not as severe" as *your/my* child? (That raises another issue that I always want to ask--How do you know?") How does one know when a "mild" food allergy will turn into a life-threatening one. The problem is, we don't.
Not any answers, just more questions I guess.

Posted on: Tue, 01/02/2007 - 6:38am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Ohio:
[b]We stumbled upon another interesting issue: Our district has provided a 504 for our PA child. If the school doesn't seek out other allergic students to see if they are 504 eligible, isn't that a violation too?[/b]
I agree 100%. ryan's mom and I raised this exact same question on the last page here: [url="http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/001854.html"]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/001854.html[/url]
Many of us are the school district's 'first' for a 504 plan for nut allergies. Once the district qualifies our child, it's a logical next step that the district would be obligated to evaluate other children with allergies who have a doctor's prescription for epi. Afterall, if our child qualifes then other children with LTFAs do as well.

Pages

Peanut Free Store

More Articles

You already know that if you or your child has a peanut allergy you need to avoid peanut butter. Some...

There are many reasons why you may want to substitute almond flour for wheat flour in recipes. Of course, if you have a...

Are you looking for peanut-free candies as a special treat for a child with...

Do you have a child with peanut allergies and an upcoming birthday? Perhaps you'd like to bake a...

Most nut butters provide all the same benefits: an easy sandwich spread, a great dip for veggies, a fun addition to a smoothie. But not...