gymom, that just stinks. I am so sorry.
you may just show him the err of the doctors ways...so sorry you have to prove this to him.

Dear gymom,
I wanted to respond to the topic about not sending in safe treats. We are in the middle of an ugly battle and were told that the school didn't have to detail anything about birthdays and celebrations in my child's IHCP because my child has a "safe treat box", and that the districts policy states the child have a this. Our district is trying to use the "safe treat box" to get away with not having to contact me prior to parties. It is allowing them to exclude my child. I would like to send in a similar treat for my child on those party days, but since he has the "safe treat box" they don't feel it's necessary. So I do feel that this is a way out for at least my district. The question I have is why does my child have to eat, lets say a bag of pretzels when everyone else is enjoying that beautiful, decorated, over the top, frosting covered cupcake. This is not acceptable to me and I will do everything in my power to not let my child be treated this way. I will not stop advocating for the rights of my child to attend school as safely as other children and to be included in all areas of the day. My child deserves to be treated equaly and to date this has not happened. We are in a situation where my child will not be starting off the school year. I, as the parent, have the right and the duty to protect my child from any unsafe enviornment.
I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't send in the "safe treat box". I just wanted to share what is happening in our situation. Our district is using this against us.

[url="http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/000894.html"]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/000894.html[/url]

The moving nail walls.
Yup.
And I am soooo there on the back of the police cruiser grabbing a beverage in the bar drive thru.
Thank you!
~Eliz

Quote:Originally posted by The #l Mouser!:
[b]
ajasfolks, gvmom, please read this thread, (paying in particular attention to [b]The Cupcake Incident[/b], which involved a "circumvent the plan" strategy, much similiar to the one Z describes. Probably exactly the same.
[url="http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/001880.html"]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum7/HTML/001880.html[/url]
gvmom, I believe the 3 page interaction in that thread lay at the very heart of this thread. I'm noting with glee, once again, that I managed to get the premeditated violation of my child's IEP documented as [i]an incident report[/i] and placed on permanent file/record. Still remembering the teacher telling me in plain view/earshot [i]of the office staff and visitors[/i].: "I'd do it again."
U-huh. Yeah, sure you would. I bet.
And I'm no betting woman.[/b]
Interesting to re-read this thread after a few years. I remain in agreement w/Gail W that providing a substitute treat is comparable in the eyes of the law and not a violation.
Irrespective of that, though, as others have mentioned, [b]the crux of the issue here is that gvmom's 504 was violated and they were not held accountable.[/b] Plain and simple. It's clear that gvmom will be more direct in addressing violations head on to ensure accountability. No more learning curve...
gvmom - I'm sorry that the principal has turned out to be more of a lemon than a true gift, at least in terms of PA awareness and support. [i]Could a new principal, though, ultimately be a good thing?[/i]
I would recommend that rather than a full-court press on trying to re-educate her on PA best practices right now, you couch things under the premise that PA treatment/protocols are individualized, and everything re: your 504 and DS is based on medical advice from [b]your allergist[/b] treating the particulars of [b]your[/b] son's situation. That minimizes the risk of taking the focus off your child and his 504 to broader issues which could muddy the waters.

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
Keep your optimism. Cling to it ferociously. I have optimism too. But, don

Quote:Originally posted by ceross:
[b] This may a bit OT but I'll share this: We changed DD's allergist to Dr. Robert Wood and saw him for the first time this year. I brought up the issue of obtaining a 504 for DD because their had been a couple of issues last year. He essentially said that the 504 is not going to make them any more compliant and I read into his comments that day that he probably felt it not necessary.[/b]
That's because IMO schools violate the law not out of malicious intentions, but out of ignorance.
I would imagine that Dr. Wood is aware of his obligations under which he practices his profession. And that the thought that schools would be motivated by fear of litigation is abhorent to him.
Unfortunately, that is often not the case with schools. I mean, it was only when we finally had a 504 evalution that the light bulbs began to turn on and the school began to understand what its obligation was under the law.

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b] That's because IMO schools violate the law not out of malicious intentions, but out of ignorance. [/b]
yes, those were my first thoughts when I read that. it's also part of the reason I went the "incident report" route/chain of command years ago instead of proceeding directly to Due Process.
Quote:[b]I would imagine that Dr. Wood is aware of his obligations under which he practices his profession. And that the thought that schools would be motivated by fear of litigation is abhorent to him.[/b]
Can we say this fits me to a "T" as well? I'm just not used to the mentality that is so pervasive in the school districts. That they [i]mistakenly[/i] believe that there is safety in ignorance. I don't now how to put it.....that for instance, "If mom and dad aren't concerned, or refuse care, then I'm automatically homefree of that responsibility too."
Personally? I find it telling that [i]even as a parent who homeschooled[/i], I find the ginormous amount of "homework" that comes home in the book bag [i]shocking.[/i] Can't figure out why they need my children six hours a day, five days a week if that's what's comming home. I can only pity the children who's parents aren't prepared (financially, emotionally, physically, mentally) to deal with it.
Quote:[b]Unfortunately, that is often not the case with schools. I mean, it was only when we finally had a 504 evalution that the light bulbs began to turn on and the school began to understand what its obligation was under the law.
[/b]
Yes, after getting over my shock, hurt, loathing, anger, resentment, and self pity, I was able to deal effectively and [i]fairly[/i] with my school district. It certainly wasn't easy, and somehow, I managed to do it without anti-paranoia pills. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/wink.gif[/img]
I decided to be a mentor, not a menace. Pro-active, not re-active. There is satisfaction and a sense of peace in that.

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b]Unfortunately, that is often not the case with schools. I mean, it was only when we finally had a 504 evalution that the light bulbs began to turn on and the school began to understand what its obligation was under the law. [/b]
I would say that was likely the case for our school system which was sued by a diabetic child's family and had to put in place processes for dealing with children with medical issues. There are fairly uniform processes in place in our district but I still have to be vigilant.
I actually think for us the PTO is a big problem. Most of their events are actually allergy-aware but they sell Gertrude Hawk chocolates (I didn't let DD participate on that on the basis of the nut issue but I'm also opposed to using kids to schill products). As a reward for selling the most chocolate, the winning class got a chocolate fountain. That's unfair to kids with allergies or who might be diabetic or on a Feingold diet and it's risky. Thankfully, DD's class did not win last year but you can be certain I would have raised a stink if they had.
This is definitely OT to a degree but I'm a bit more concerned this year about a law that VA passed that requires day care workers to be trained by an RN/LPN in the Epi-Pen. First let me say that I think it's great to require training by a nurse in this. The problem is that there is a shortage of trainers/classes and not all caregivers can/will get trained in time. I'm curious to see how this shakes out with DD and aftercare; she has to ride the day care center bus to the center each day and that is one area where I could see the person would not likely be trained.