What are ya gonna do.. BLEED on me???

I love that scene. He's so persistant! Hilarious.

[b]"A Clockwork Danish"[/b]
[img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]
I sure know that all those treats give [i]me[/i] the impulse to listen to a little of the old Ludwig von myself. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/wink.gif[/img]
Do you think that we could interest either Gene Wilder or Johnny Depp in our production? They both have [i]just[/i] the sinister aspect that I think is called for in my vision for the Clockwork Danish, which opens with a scene quite similar to the Nut Room in Dahl's chocolate factory... with the cupcake-weilding 'queen' ending up down the chute, followed by the oh-so-concerned teacher. Heheheh. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]
[i]"No wait stop don't."[/i] (All with Wilder's bored monotone.)
I have another vision in which a giant cupcake is released from the bomb bay's double doors with Jack Nicholson screaming madly and popping out of the top wearing pasties as it drops into the landscape below.... [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] Just can't rework the title....
[i]"Stealing our Precious...... cupcakes!"[/i]
[b]The Neverending Party[/b]
BIG {{{hugs}} gvmom-- my thoughts are with you and your family.

This is what bothers me. It is okay to serve our children competitive foods if there is a profit attached to it. I [b]knew[/b] that it had to be about profit. Here is a quote from an article from an USDA document.
"Competitive foods are those food items that are sold in competition with the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs to children in food service areas during meal periods. These food items do not include foods of minimal nutritional value, which are excluded from sale in the food service area during meal times. They do, however,include food items offered for sale in the serving line, a la carte, vending machines, or other areas in the cafeteria. Such items may include snack products, candy, dessert items, ice cream products, and beverages. [b]The sale of competitive foods may be allowed only if all income from the sale of such foods accrues to the benefit of the nonprofit school food service or the school or student organizations approved by the
school.[/b]"
This particular document does not say anything about food brought from home, but it does specify foods *sold*.
I know this is a little off-topic, but it just makes me crazy knowing that it is okay to stuff our children with foods with high fat content as long as it is for profit. What other motivation would there be?
I am not sure how this will ultimately relate to food allergies, or even if it ever will, but I just think that if the food allergy community can focus on *wellness* a secondary benefit would be to get some of the allergens out of the school to begin with. Less food equals less food to worry about.
[This message has been edited by notnutty (edited August 17, 2007).]

Quote:Originally posted by notnutty:
[b]This is what bothers me. It is okay to serve our children competitive foods if there is a profit attached to it. I [b]knew[/b] that it had to be about profit. Here is a quote from an article from an USDA document.
"Competitive foods are those food items that are sold in competition with the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs to children in food service areas during meal periods. These food items do not include foods of minimal nutritional value, which are excluded from sale in the food service area during meal times. They do, however,include food items offered for sale in the serving line, a la carte, vending machines, or other areas in the cafeteria. Such items may include snack products, candy, dessert items, ice cream products, and beverages. [b]The sale of competitive foods may be allowed only if all income from the sale of such foods accrues to the benefit of the nonprofit school food service or the school or student organizations approved by the
school.[/b]"
This particular document does not say anything about food brought from home, but it does specify foods *sold*.
I know this is a little off-topic, but it just makes me crazy knowing that it is okay to stuff our children with foods with high fat content as long as it is for profit. What other motivation would there be?
[/b]
well it doesn't come as a shock to me, since there just may be a lot of people getting 504's (translate: no federal dollars) and requiring accommodations when they could be getting an IEP and bringing the bucks in. It's got to be made up somewhere....the school nurse and one to one aides, for instance, don't pay for themselves.

Quote:Originally posted by The #l Mouser!:
[b] well it doesn't come as a shock to me, since there just may be a lot of people getting 504's (translate: no federal dollars) and requiring accommodations when they could be getting an IEP and bringing the bucks in. It's got to be made up somewhere....the school nurse and one to one aides, for instance, don't pay for themselves.
[/b]
Yes, people are not getting IEPs [b]because [/b] the administration will not qualify them for IEP. I have been trying. If only the administration was knowledgeable enough to realize that federal dollars are available to help with accommodations. I know my son does not have a 1:1 aid or an RN in the school at all times. I find it hard to believe that the profit from the sale of competitive foods is going to help children with disabilities...at least in our school. It would be interesting to find out exactly where these dollars are spent.
If the administration would only do as much homework on food allergies and IEPs as they do on circumventing the USDA standards and the local wellness policies...maybe we all would not be in these situations.
It seems to be all about priorities. FA children get the short end of the stick (in my mind).
[This message has been edited by notnutty (edited August 17, 2007).]

Touche.
This is why it eludes me why an OHI designation is so much more difficult to obtain for extremely severe/sensitive FA.
Many school districts (and even parents) see the need to provide those children with such [i]services[/i] [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/wink.gif[/img] but why do that under the aegis of 504 and not IDEA???
I mean, if the [i]need[/i] is there, and the accommodations needed come with [i]associated costs[/i] for implemenation..... [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/confused.gif[/img] What am I missing?
So in our case, OHI really isn't needed-- because the only modifications necessary are cost-free to the school. Yes, they provide un-used materials. Which the vendor already [i]has warehoused.[/i] Most kids get a mix-- from what I've seen, about 20% previously used materials, on average....They just make sure that those never get into our box.
But in a B+M school, a 1:1 aide isn't that out of line with what might be considered an 'appropriate accommodation.'
So here's my question, Mouser-- is my child appropriately designated as 504-eligible in the ONE instance, but OHI in the other? That confuses me, since the child is, in fact, no different. Just the environment is. Or is she more properly considered OHI in [i]both[/i]-- even though in the one environment, she doesn't need any 'associated services' at all?
Is it clear what I am asking here?
(Recognizing that this is off on a bit of a tangent relative to the cupcake queens being lashed by oompa-loompas weilding giant, though entirely fat-free, licorice ropes in my Burton-esque shared fantasy.)

Quote:Originally posted by notnutty:
Yes, people are not getting IEPs [b]because [/b] the administration will not qualify them for IEP.
not entirely true. My superintendent [i]offerred it to us[/i]. edit to add, I shouldn't say "offerred", since that year, we were in an "out of district" placement. (to get a full time school nurse, next year, they got in step with LRE). He just strongly suggested I might be able to get it, even though we weren't going to be in *his* district. LOLOL. Howz that for leverage? One district held accountable to the other for the care of their charge, and the top dog strongly suggesting it might be a possibility. Probably didn't hurt that my district had to pay $$ to the other district for my son, and the fed dollars probably went in place of many of those.
It was a very complicated dance...
Quote:[b] I have been trying. [/b]
I know that. I wasn't wagging my finger at you. There are plenty of people who describe their children's LTFA in terms that scream "special needs/special education" but shrink at the idea of actually owning the label. Ironic thing is, in my possibly flawed opinion, I think that's exactly what a 504 is. Special Education.
Quote:[b]If only the administration was knowledgeable enough to realize that federal dollars are available to help with accommodations. I know my son does not have a 1:1 aid or an RN in the school at all times. I find it hard to believe that the profit from the sale of competitive foods is going to help children with disabilities...at least in our school. It would be interesting to find out exactly where these dollars are spent.[/b]
I've used this example before, but even if my child was the only child who [i]required[/i] a full time school nurse, they'd have to provide it, by the way his IEP is worded. But he surely isn't the only child benefitting from her presence. I believe the [b]entire student body[/i] does, special needs or not. I don't care how the funds are allocated. Keeping that in mind, can you imagine how much easier her salary would be to pay if every child who qualified for OHI and the services of a full time school nurse was documented as such? I also truly believe a full time school nurse, each day, all day, every day, in the building is a necessity for ALL children. "Special Needs" or not. Unfortunately this is not the condition in many, many, schools. [i]There, that's *my* public service for today.[/i] [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by The #l Mouser! (edited August 17, 2007).]