396 posts / 0 new
Last post
Posted on: Sun, 08/19/2007 - 6:15am
gvmom's picture
Joined: 08/24/2005 - 09:00

[b]there is a much more polite way to "re-ask". It starts with acknowledging the person has already, or possiby multiple times, attempted an answer.[/b]
At a certain point though, standing on ceremony amongst all of us seems ridiculous. And, if the attempt to answer, given the question, can

Posted on: Sun, 08/19/2007 - 8:48am
Corvallis Mom's picture
Joined: 05/22/2001 - 09:00

I agree, gvmom....I'd go so far as to say
[i]Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.[/i]
So I think that my two terms are "stupidity and.... of people." well, the second one is S.....NESS. I suppose selfishness works there, too. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img] (For anyone who hasn't been to the Longshoreman's School of Ettiquette (TM) like me.)

Posted on: Sun, 08/19/2007 - 9:02am
ceross's picture
Joined: 01/27/2004 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by ajas_folks:
[b] Insisting on a a basic, inclusive, and CONSISTENT policy of [i] food if it's only completely safe for everyone [/i] is HARDLY asking for a protection that "serves no purpose"! We are talking about "special" celebrations and food in the classroom, NOT required meals and required daily nutrition. And if the BASIC purpose is to keep my son fundamentally ALIVE, then does that not serve a bonafide purpose??
I guess what I really want to know at this point is, when are WE as a food allergy community going to be willing to QUIT APOLOGIZING to EVERYBODY ELSE for INCONVENIENCING THEM with our OUR MEDICAL NEEDS?? W.H.E.N.???
I will take the resentment of 10,000,000 other families if it means my son comes home to me at the end of the school day ALIVE.
Please go back and reread my post. You have quoted me out of context. I said that in our situation asking the entire class to bring in safe treats would be moot because we would [b]never[\b] allow DD to eat them. That's our rule for her at her current age and I don't foresee that changing for a number of years. My only request is that the treat not include nuts, but if it includes eggs that's not a big deal because she's not going to eat it.
Please don't quote me out of context to make some point that had nothing to do with what I posted. Of course, we all have the same goal and that's to keep our children safe. I don't disagree with that. I'm also not going to say that you can't take your approach but I do think it might make accommodating children with MFAs less palatable to the parents of non-allergic children and could possibly exclude your child further (every child in his/her class is going to know that they can't have treats that other classes have because of your child).
I am fortunate to be in a school system, that while not perfect, does a lot of good things as standard practice. There are no peanut-free tables so there's no exclusion there: Children with allergies are seated with their class at one end of the table buffered from the kids who bring lunch by kids who get hot lunch (which has no peanut products). No nut products are served in the cafeteria. For birthday celebrations, parents can order Scribblers popsicles instead of bringing in cupcakes, but this is optional. Cupcakes (at least for kindergartners) were doled out at snack, which was served in the cafeteria. Signs are prominently displayed on each classroom with a peanut-allergic child to indicate that no nuts are allowed in the class. DD's teacher contacted me ahead of time about a lesson involving food (the were learning about the senses and sour, sweet, etc.) to let me know what they were using and I sent in safe items for DD. Also, DD's teacher last year allowed her to have her Epi in her backpack (in addition to the one in the office) so that one would be closer to the class and so that DD would have it for the bus to day care; this was allowed despite the fact that legally DD cannot carry it because her allergist has not signed off on her to self-administer. When we did have an issue both the teacher and principal were very responsive.
There were still hiccups (the candy cane) and instances of not always being informed about b-day celebrations beforehand (but that was often because parents just showed up with cupcakes without informing the teacher beforehand). However, the school year went well and I expect next year to be good as well. As I said, we're lucky. To me it's about balance. I'm more likely to drive hard on an issue like the teacher giving DD a candy cane than about birthday celebrations.
[This message has been edited by ceross (edited August 19, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by ceross (edited August 19, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by ceross (edited August 19, 2007).]

Posted on: Sun, 08/19/2007 - 9:54am
anonymous's picture
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

gvmom, no quotes, no nothing. If you think the district in an out of district placement handed us an IEP, think again.
Putting my child back in school, getting that designation, nearly tore the life out of me. It was around the same time my younger son's label was dropped and that whole train chugged to a stop.
And yes, in first grade, we began with requesting accommodation under [b]Section 504[/b]. Several months into it and many meetings where the district lawyer was present (who had a reputation of "handling" parents such as my husband and myself) -- we pulled our child (considering the principal had told us: You should homeschool your child.)
And no, we didn't have a lawyer, I couldn't find one who didn't laugh the idea of a 504 for a food allergy out of their office). That's not saying it's laughable, just saying how it was received. Not sure I would have been able to afford one either. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img] But necessity is the mother of invention, right?
Near the end of the first half of the year, I pulled my son, having not obtained a suitable 504 (or IEP), and soon afterwards the district lawyer threatened us in writing, 3 pages long, with State mediated action, and a full case study [i]not limited in scope[/i] if we ever dared enroll our child in district-wide programming again. Not sure what "district-wide" means. (I withdrew him that time instead of merely witholding his attendance.)
But to translate her words, insisting on the IEP process beginning in a hostile environment----don't think she was as interested in my child's well being as harrassing us----in the midst of the derailed 504 and an IEP that never got off the ground. I've been to both parties, at th same time, the IEP back in first grade happening after, but during the 504, and with the same child, so you can't say we entered into the IEP process [i]untainted[/i]. Fresh. Clean. We were tarnished. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img]
And I will say, when we arrived [i]two years later[/i] for the IEP meeting, the reception had a far more distinct air of professionalism than did that of the 504. Actually, the initial meeting involved the team deciding which would better address the health impairment, 504 or IEP. I'm trying to remember if it took more than one meeting to get past that point. I'm pretty sure it took several. Some not quite "official". A mistake I'll never make again. All I know is there was a question of whether overtime would be paid to those in attendance at the "official" meetings, and we always started early morning...
I'm not promoting anything. I'm just telling you where I've been. Trust me, I have the scars to prove it.
So, 504, can I post excerps from letters addressed to me, from lawyers? They are my posession, am I legally allowed to do that?

Posted on: Sun, 08/19/2007 - 11:59am
anonymous's picture
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

Quote:Originally posted by The #l Mouser!:
[b] If you think the district in an out of district placement handed us an IEP, think again.
adding: We had to digest and navigate three squirming systems at once. [b]Our[/b] district. The [b]"out of district placement"[/b] district. AND the [b]Joint Co-operative.[/b] All trying to dodge: "Why has this child ,who was identified as needing a case study [i]TWO YEARS AGO[/i], been out of school??? And everyone on the defensive. And a lawyer for *them* on the opposing side. Talk about mixing strategy and anticipating conflicts of interest. We had *three* conference tables connected. I'm so glad that's behind me.....
Did I mention that my younger son's educational needs were paralleling his older brother the whole time, (same home district and Co-op), and we had to split our efforts between them? The final outcome of my older son's plan held a double jeopardy for my family.
So, if you think I'm fervent about this, you're right. Can't help being elated whenever I get to add to these discussions. Call it promoting, I call it [i]celebrating[/i]. I feel like Abraham when he saw the ram.

Posted on: Sun, 08/19/2007 - 1:10pm
anonymous's picture
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

Quote:Originally posted by gvmom:
Fool me once, shame on you, food me twice, shame on me. I

Posted on: Sun, 08/19/2007 - 10:05pm
Gail W's picture
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by The #l Mouser!:
If they also fall under one of the 13 qualifying categories I don't feel 504 should be an option period.
That if they are addressed (and you know how I feel about the obligation to address certain "known" issues---[b]pretty dissapointed by a blip in a recent threads[/b]), and at that point, the IEP Process *IS* what is appropriate. [/B]
What 'blip'? a blip *I* made?

Posted on: Sun, 08/19/2007 - 10:40pm
Gail W's picture
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Okay. I think I know. . . You believe I made a reference to your cub's "known" "issues".
FYI, my 16 yo nephew (who happens to live in your state) has " 'known' issues" including ADHD and orthopedic impairment. For which he has an IEP. No slyness on my part, ever so or otherwise. I wasn't referring to you or yours. I was referring to me and mine. No need to be "disappointed". Again. <>

Posted on: Sun, 08/19/2007 - 11:23pm
anonymous's picture
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

Quote:Originally posted by Gail W:
[b]Okay. I think I know. . . You believe I made a reference to your cub's "known" "issues".
FYI, my 16 yo nephew (who happens to live in your state) has " 'known' issues" including ADHD and orthopedic impairment. For which he has an IEP. No slyness on my part, ever so or otherwise. I wasn't referring to you or yours. I was referring to me and mine. No need to be "disappointed". Again. <>[/b]
I did previously mention how I feel about reposting questions, but the blip I referenced isn't about [i]you[/i]. It's not about anyone, but rather circumstances and how much work there is to be done. Gvmom has indicated in so many words to me, it would be more helpful if certain discussions were abated. Let's not invent one that doesn't exist. The blip isn't about you.

Posted on: Mon, 08/20/2007 - 2:19am
McCobbre's picture
Joined: 04/16/2005 - 09:00

Oh, this is my first time back in this thread after days away, and I have nothing to add. But let me thank everyone for the book titles on page six. So glad I didn't have any tea in my hand (or throat) at that point.


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...