Firstly, I hereby second lilpig's comment of "you need to stick around". (Hence my exile comment -- this PA community needs your contributions. Truly.)
Secondly, I think that possibly having the child's pediatrician &/or allergy doc include a brief statement within the health-needs-documentation letter to the effect of "additionally, for this child's _________ (name) emotional and psychological well-being, it is important that all events and activities be fully inclusive, and without ostracism, to include food-related activities, should those occur."
How's that?
Word-smith as you like & need.
I personally would want that stipulation and evaluation coming from our personal docs & NOT from the school-sponsored (& "controlled") doc or health rep. KWIM?
~Eliz

PS -- [b]ATM[/b], it is GREAT to have you posting & sharing your experiences with those who may not have been around here when you were going thru all of the earlier school years & battles. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
~Eliz

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]Is it legal for a teacher to knowingly allow exclusion of a child in their classroom..... at all? Is it legal for a school to sanction exclusion of it's students.... at all?
[/b]
One example I can think of is a "suspension". "Systematic exclusion contracts" actually plan for exclusion based on one or more reasons.
So, maybe, it hinges on the basis of the exclusion. IEP's have something called a "manifestation determination" in their behavioral discipline policies.
I know you're not referring to behavior policies or problems, but it's the whole idea of how exclusion is sometimes sanctioned (or guarded against).
You might want to look into what is often termed a "pattern of exclusion".
More importantly, something GailW pointed out once that (in so many words) "Least Restrictive Environment" is not something all students enjoy. Rather, it's a privilege granted to those who have the protection of let's say a 504 or an IEP.
I'm not sure "Least Restrictive Environment" actually guarantees a child with a disability will participate in the exact same way as a non-disabled peer, but just in the "Least Restrictive Environment".
Whether he knew it or not, my principal tried to negotiate a "systematic exclusion contract" based on my child's food allergy through email and over the phone and verbally. He'd also call several times during the week to suggest I manage my child's allergy by having me pick him up from school if certain foods were being served that day, in spite of his IEP dictating the contrary. Keeping him home was always the first option in the school's eyes, despite my child being protected under IDEA.
It was really rather underhanded, since my child was always made aware there was a possibility he could go home before the phone call came. He's a good student, but always rather stay home. Can't say I blame him.
On the subject of treat boxes. In the younger grades, I'd send one, but it was rarely remembered or utiized, so I'm not too sure not sending one would be much different than if you did. In fifth grade, I packed them with blockbuster gift cards, which made sure my child would remember for the teacher. He was always looking for a way to get me to the video store.
Our protection plans never allowed parents to send in treats that weren't safe (but they often showed up anyway) with a heavy influence on not sending food to begin with. Recently, some of the schools in our district adopted "no home baked/made", labels only, within the wellness guidelines policies. It virtually excludes most of the garbage parents like to send in anyway.
I spent the last several school years dealing with hot lunch moms, pto fundraisers, candy sale leaders, and treat day reps. I can totally see why a principal might nearly beg me to keep my child home (and safe) on certain days. (Or when the school nurse was absent and no sub could be found). Many times, I found what slid out of these parents' mouths completely intollerable, selfish dribble. So much so, I often couldn't stomach dealing with them directly, and needed an intermediary like the principal or my child's case worker. I can tell you one thing, it sure gave me more sympathy for my principal.

Ok....first...please know that *I* wasn't calling any of you bad moms! Not at all! I am humbled by your Goodmomness! he he [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
gvmom - I really strugle with what you are suggesting and I would so far agree with Lori Jo. Our kids have so much to handle aleady why make it worse - but I am not against being the pointy part of a stick myself and what you are saying does make sense to me.
What of the child whose religion does not celibrate birthdays? Are they not excluded at every celebration? Just a thought.
I think the really hard part of this is that the current labeling laws are not good enough to make this easy or even doable for other parents. If they were I think it would be a no-brainer.
I don't understand why birthdays need to be celebrated in school anyway? I would be all for no-food celebrations and no birthdays. (I'm the mean one! grrr)
My son is currently on a very restricted diet. I think the only packaged foods I can think of that would be ok for him are Enjoy Life Products, dum dums, smarties and Fritos. Perhaps some potato chips too. I don't let him eat fruit prepared by others either and unless those apples were labeled that they weren't processed in a facility with nuts they would be a no-go unless I called. I don't like calling on things that other people buy. It puts me in a weird position so I don't it.
I hope I am making sense....got up at 5am and just had a 3 hour nap...circulation is not at full capacity at the moment.

Oh, I forgot to mention, the "treat" boxes were not meant for what the parents sent in, (they were supposed to send in safe treats off an approved list--which always approved a non-food item) but were used for individual impromptu treats the related service personel (like speech therapy, OT, social work, etc....) would want to give him, especially when working with him one to one.
It was kept in his homeroom, and although not intended for use as a substitute for stuff that shouldn't have been there anyway, was frequently used as one.
It was really weird how we needed to remind the people who *should* have been using it to use it, and tell the people who shouldn't have to fix the problem.
[This message has been edited by The #l Mouser! (edited August 11, 2007).]

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
[b]But what about the idea of Duty of Care, or "Prudent Person Standard of Care" idea. Hope I can word this right..... low on sleep too.
If, you take it out of the Disability Law specific speak, and say that you've informed the school about the harm that will come to your child based on specific actions, ie exposure to Peanuts/Treenuts, and they knowingly expose your child to them, have they violated the standard of care?
[/b]
I've often fantasized about this too, unexpectedly arriving at the conclusion that if I'd risk leaving my child in that type of environment, then that's the defineable "Duty of Care", with all it's limitations.
Rhonda once pointed out the Tatro case. It might have been in the context of "Standard of Care". (Seems like it should have been)
I think a Standard of Care is dependent on more than just the Standard itself. Case in point. I worked two jobs once. One with a much less stringent Standard of Care and one with a very demanding one that required a lot of independent thinking. Even tho the Standard of Care was not as rigorous at the one job, and time did not permit many things I knew would be of benefit, I felt that somehow, if push came to shove, I would be held accountable for the higher Standard of Care, since I was skilled at it and it was routine for me. So I quit the job with the lesser standard of care. I just didn't feel that with my experience, I would ever be able to justify the lesser Standard of Care. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that while my physician may direct my school to do something, I'm not sure if they are obligated to follow it, unless somewhere in their chain of command, they have someone (or a team of people as the case may require), capable of delivering that Standard of care. I'm not sure if my physician can delegate to just anyone. This is where I think the Tatro case might be of value. I don't know if remember this right or not (or if LRE was even mentioned in the Tatro case), but if I do, the school was required to find a way (license, skilled personel, whatever) to provide the level of care a child needed to access school in the Least Restrictive Environment. I don't know, people might see this differently.

You may want to push for Non-food celebrations. My district just wrote a food allergy policy and in it is:
"No unplanned celebrations allowed. Non-food celebrations will be encouraged. Examples could be planning a fun activity for the class, reading a book, or donating a board game. Your teacher may have additional suggestions".
Now, the sticky part is that they CAN still bring in cupcakes/food, with notice. Even bakery stuff, which I am very uncomfortable with. I am advocating for packaged food treats such as pkgd Rice Krispie Treats or Popsicles. But the Admin and PTO presidents feel strongly that moms have a "right" to bring in cupcakes on their child's bday and we can only change the culture slowly, because it's an All-American tradition.
I am just hoping the teacher will *strongly* encourage the non-food celebrations. I think the policy is a good start.