Food Allergy Support

Discussion Boards => Schools and Food Allergies => Topic started by: ajasfolks2 on June 10, 2014, 07:08:13 PM

FAS has upgraded our forum security. Some members may need to log in again. If you are unable to remember your login information, please email food.allergy.supt@flash.net and we will help you get back in. Thanks for your patience!

Title: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 10, 2014, 07:08:13 PM
Anybody in CT or have some insight as to recent developments?  I know there were some (not too distant) challenges and head-beating-brick-wall excursions . . .

Am going to do FOIA request to OCR regional specific to CT to see if something recent we've missed or not been aware of . . .

PM (private message) me if you'd rather that than post.

If you are newbie with no PM privileges, we'll see if we can help you out if you need privacy / anonymity.

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 10, 2014, 07:19:52 PM
From a particular district in CT . . . for example:

(dated 2004 on their website, with note as to "revised" 2012)

Quote

EQUAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY      5546

Section 504 is a Civil Rights Statute that prohibits discrimination against persons with a disability in any program receiving Federal financial assistance.  The Statute defines a person with a disability as anyone who:

 has a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one (1) or more major life activities (major life activities include activities such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working);

 has a record of such impairment; or

 is regarded as having such impairment.

In order to fulfill its obligation under Section 504, the Fairfield Public School District recognizes a responsibility to avoid discrimination in policies and practices regarding its personnel and students.  No discrimination against any person with a disability will knowingly be permitted in any of the programs and practices in the school system.

The school district has specific responsibilities under the Act, which include the responsibility to identify, evaluate, and if the child is determined to be eligible under Section 504, to afford access to appropriate educational services.

If the parent or guardian disagrees with the determination made by the professional staff of the school district, he has a right to a hearing with an impartial hearing officer.




Those of us familiar with 504 law, process, and procedure can see some of what is missing from the info provided to parents there.

It's the intentional (IMO) omissions and potential inaction (ok, refusal) to even evaluate for 504 in some CT districts that is a potentially BIG problem for many LTFA families there . . .

And so I'm reminded of the "deliberate indifference" discussion here too.

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: hedgehog on June 10, 2014, 09:17:46 PM
I think you know I live in CT.  I am afraid I am not much help, though.  I have not concerned myself too much with what the law requires regarding schools, because I have been fortunate enough to live in a district where it has not been an issue.  The local schools have done a great job of keeping DS safe, and in general of inclusion (there were occasions when no one had thought of something that could exclude, but when it was brought up, they were happy to make necessary changes).

If you need any more specifics about our district, or anything else you think I might be able to help with, feel free to pm me.
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: lakeswimr on June 10, 2014, 09:27:21 PM
Maybe it is late but I'm not seeing what you are talking about.  The quote you posted says they will evaluate for 504.  What is wrong with that quote?  Why do you think it is indicative of a problem in the whole state of CT?

I think that back when the first version of the CT guidelines for schools came out, many districts may have interpreted the requirement for all students with food allergies to have an IHCP to mean that they did not or could not also have a 504 for food allergies.  Ours switched from routinely doing 504s to saying they did only IHCPs.  I got one after a while, though, by coming to the 504 meeting well prepared including having info about the 2008 amendment and about what happened in districts that refused 504s for FA students. 
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 11, 2014, 09:15:50 AM
Thanks, Hedge!

lakeswimr -- aren't you still the only or one of the very few with a 504 for LTFA in your area?  Is your particular school district truly proactive about child find and/or identifying for 504 for LTFA, diabetes, and other medical disabilities?  Or is the information kept nearly-secret from the families -- most of whom don't even know about 504s or their students' rights?

 

For the longest time CT was a lot like Fairfax Co, Virginia:  IHCPs still being offered in lieu of 504s on regular basis for LTFA students.  The IHCPs weren't even being done -- they weren't truly "individualized" as to the "I" in IHCP. 

Is the information for parents so far as 504, process to request, and details readily and obviously available at school / district websites?  Or is there a very basic 504 statement with nothing linked or truly helpful for the parents as to "what next" . . . leaving the parents to ask the principal or other admin about 504 and then being verbally told "an IHCP will do" and shrugged off . . .

 
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: lakeswimr on June 11, 2014, 04:07:10 PM
I don't know the answers to all that but when I compare the accommodations my child has to those others here and at KWFA say their children have, I think our accommodation plan, which is pretty standard in our district, is one of the best I have seen. 

Our district may not be perfect but it is better than many.

I have the sense that our state is far better than most.  At least we have state guidelines for the management of LTFAs and other diseases.  Many states (I'd guess most) do not have this yet.  The latest guidelines talk about 504s.

Our district gives us paperwork about our rights if we request a 504 meeting.  I'm not sure how that paperwork compares to that in other districts.

I'm curious where in this country do you find schools who do all the things you asked about in your post.  My guess is those school districts are few and far between.

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 11, 2014, 09:20:45 PM
Quickly -- those districts taken to task by OCR seem to be much more open as to getting 504 eligibility information to the parents . . .  ;D  Typically the district's office of monitoring and compliance (under Sped, often) makes recommendations to district to make changes to the "information flow" to parents about 504, IDEA and students' and parents' rights.  Then the district personnel in SPED implement -- usually with better info via the website:  not so buried and even up front about 504 and food allergies.



Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 11, 2014, 09:40:46 PM
There seem to be some serious disconnects in some CT school districts, based on past member history and posts we've had and some more recent private discussions I've had with CT residents (not members here, to my knowledge).

This is one passage from the CT Food Allergy Guidelines that has me troubled and is possibly a window into some of the issues:

Quote
Certain federal laws may also be relevant to school districts’ responsibilities for
meeting the needs of students with severe food allergies and glycogen storage
disease. Additionally, Connecticut has created an entitlement to an
individualized health care plan for a child with life-threatening food allergies and
glycogen storage disease, without reference to a child’s status as disabled
under either Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) or
IDEA. It is important to note, however, that there is considerable variation in
interpretation of these laws with respect to students with severe food allergies,
as there is variability among the practices of school districts in addressing the
needs of these students in school.


I'd like to know how there can be variation in interpreting the law according to the practices of the districts in addressing the needs when the requirement of 504 is to identify and evaluate and determine eligibility based on the qualifying condition -- NOT on how they (district) mitigate or "handle" the food allergy. 



Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: daisy madness on June 12, 2014, 02:48:24 PM
I agree Ajasfolks.  That wording is very slimy.
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: lakeswimr on June 12, 2014, 03:13:55 PM
Ajas, is that from the older or more recent version of the CT guidelines?  The first version was not supportive of 504s. 
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 12, 2014, 03:35:33 PM
I believe that is from most recent version . . .

It says this is revised version, 2012 in opening paragraph on page 3

Link:

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/publications/food_allergies/food_allergies.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 12, 2014, 03:37:40 PM
My quote above is from page 13, if the .pdf page relates to the actual doc page correctly.

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 12, 2014, 03:40:00 PM
Oh.Wow.

Just read this on page 32:

Quote
determination of the type of plan appropriate for students (such as IHCP or
Section 504 plan). If the team determines that a student does not meet
the eligibility requirements for Section 504, the IHCP may be considered
one and the same as the Section 504 plan;


Bingo.  This would make for all sorts of confusion at the distirct level and at individual schools, yes?

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 12, 2014, 03:44:11 PM
Now, that makes me curious about the 2006 version and I'd sure love to look at them side-by-side to read and compare.

Anyone have saved .pdf of the old version?  I do not on this particular computer . . . would be on my dead Dell, darn it!  I'm sure I have a paper copy in the mountain of office file boxes still not opened after the 3 moves in past 6 years.   :hiding:

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: lakeswimr on June 12, 2014, 06:26:22 PM
I still think CT students in general tend to have better FA accommodation plans that many students in other states from what I have seen.  We have lots of FA related legislation in this state, too, more than most other states. 
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: maeve on June 12, 2014, 06:47:52 PM
It doesn't matter if they have better plans. The state is incorrect in stating that a 504 and an IHCP are one and the same. They are not. There are no legal protections with an IHCP. If the state is stating they're the same, they could be misleading parents who don't know better and thereby getting parents to in essence give up legal protections while letting the school off the hook.
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 12, 2014, 07:56:08 PM
Interview from 2008 with a Dr. Rosen, now retired, from CT about food allergy and schools:

http://www.cpbn.org/files/audio/Where%20We%20Live%2005-19-2008.mp3

I'm sure I listened to this when it first came out, but it's been awhile.  We likely even discussed it at our old boards.

Is this Dr. Rosen advising School boards and districts in CT these days?

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: lakeswimr on June 12, 2014, 08:12:42 PM
Dr. Rosen is retired.  He was not a supporter of 504s.  He was a very good allergist, though.  Being a medical expert doesn't make a person an expert on all things related to living with that illness.

I care if we have good plans here.  Yes, everyone with FAs should have a good 504.  Not everyone does.  Every child is CT with FAs HAS to have an IHCP.  They can also have a 504.  Thankfully FARE is now supporting 504s so I think/hope the word will get out more and more that FAs can qualify for 504s.  The 2008 Amendment to the ADA makes this very clear. 

It sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  If you read the entire state guidelines they are a good thing overall.  State's that don't have such guidelines seem to tend to accommodate FA students less.

I'm not saying things are perfect.  I'm saying I think our state is one of the best in the country for FAs.  If you think there is a place that is better please let me know the state.  I'm seriously interested.  In CT things vary district to district but overall I think we have more and better accommodations than you find elsewhere.
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: lakeswimr on June 12, 2014, 08:15:52 PM
It doesn't matter if they have better plans.

It matters to me and it matters to my child.  His plan, which used to only be an IHCP, enabled him to go to school safely.  It kept allergens completely out of his classroom.  It made sure all people who watched him knew what to do if he had a reaction.  It was a very good thing for our family.  When it changed to a 504 didn't change how it was implemented at all.  It only changed his legal status, which was important to me.

But as for day to day-the contents of the plan were more important than whether we had the 504 or not.  The district does not treat IHCP accommodations less seriously than it does 504 accommodations.  I understand the importance of a 504 and I wanted one and I got one for my child.  A good plan certainly matters a lot. 

That doesn't mean a 504 doesn't also matter.
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: lakeswimr on June 12, 2014, 08:27:21 PM
Interview from 2008 with a Dr. Rosen, now retired, from CT about food allergy and schools:

[url]http://www.cpbn.org/files/audio/Where%20We%20Live%2005-19-2008.mp3[/url]

I'm sure I listened to this when it first came out, but it's been awhile.  We likely even discussed it at our old boards.

Is this Dr. Rosen advising School boards and districts in CT these days?


My child had ana to contact ingestion and he insisted my child must have eaten something and lied to me about it.  My child doesn't lie and he had indeed had contact ingestion ana.  That's one thing in which Dr. Rosen did not believe.  He is very much of the mindset that everything must be proven by science.  Overall I think that's very important.   We should not be afraid of things that can't cause reactions.  However, contact ingestion can cause reactions.  It is rare but it can happen.  Dr. Rosen did tell me that if my child touched his allergen and then touched eyes, nose, or mouth he could have a reaction.  I do not think he felt it was a serious risk for most FA people, though.

You can hear in the audio a woman talking about getting the legislation passed--the first in the country that passed guidelines for managing FAs in schools.   I liked what she said about the fact that sample plans in the original guidelines should have been more detailed. 

I had not heard this audio before but so far listening to it nothing surprises me.
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: lakeswimr on June 12, 2014, 08:34:28 PM
Even FARE only recently started supporting 504s so I don't think it is surprising that the CT guidelines are not worded more strongly.  I'm glad they have moved in the right direction from the first to the 2nd version.
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 13, 2014, 08:40:06 AM
Having a better plan and having a legally accountable plan are definitely 2 different things.   :yes:

Of course, my mind is right back to our (this group of members) original conversations about how NOT having a 504 does everybody a disservice (GailW, thank you once more!).

But beyond disservice, it does something much more serious:

it discriminates based on disability and allows for such from any/all players.





Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 13, 2014, 08:54:42 AM
Having experienced (first hand) the state of 504s for LTFA in 4 states and 7 school districts over 12 years, I'm not impressed by many states overall. 

It all comes down to local, typically.

But CT is not a huge state geographically or student population wise.  It seems to me there would be better overall consistency there than in say, Virginia, which is much larger both in area and population (and diversity of rural vs urban and cultures).

lakeswimr, know that this is not about you, so please don't take this personally.  I'm working on something behind the scenes and I knew we had more than just a couple members over the years from CT as well as having firsthand experience there . . . recall that once upon a time one of the people who was on the team developing those first CT allergy guidelines was someone with whom many of us had interaction over number of years (Rhonda R.S.).

Have worked hard here to not name districts and identify with members, so to protect privacy of members.

 
~ ~ ~

So, doing quick search as to names / number of school districts in CT, it's a surprise that there are so many for such a small state (if greatschools can be trusted as resource):

http://www.greatschools.org/schools/districts/Connecticut/CT/

That's a whole lot of districts and a whole lot of potential for interpreting policy and managing LTFA a whole lot of different ways.  Wow.

~ ~ ~

(Slightly wry humor -- just wanted to be sure I'm not being accused of putting CT on par with lowly Missouri so far as LTFA management and 504s . . .  ;)  )
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 13, 2014, 09:32:26 AM
I did see some other concerning or confusing passages in that CT Food Allergy Guidelines last night, but got too tired to copy/paste and comment.  Just noting that here as a reminder to myself to get back on that over weekend when I have more time.

ETA -- here is also the SPED manual for CT.  Might be helpful in some way:
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/Parents_Guide_SE.pdf

And the latest state SPED regulations for CT:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rrdata/pr/2012REG2012-046A-RC.PDF


Not throwing baby out with bath water here . . . trying to make things better and if we improve 1 state, we'll have better chance of improving another.

Heck, there are only 50 states.   :bonking:

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: hedgehog on June 13, 2014, 12:55:56 PM
CT is not a huge state geographically or student population wise.

As you noted later in that same post, yes there are a lot of districts.  For the most part, every town has it's own.  Some exceptions.  For example, in my town, we have our own  K-6 district, as do our neighboring towns, but we share a HS/MS district with those neighbors. 

Add in the fact that CT is really like two different states.  It is basically the Yankees/ Red Sox divide.  That is, Fairfield County, and parts of New Haven County are really suburbs of NYC. Both geographically and culturally.  Most of the rest of the state is truly part of New England, again both geographically and culturally.  In some ways, the distinctions are minor, in others, huge. 

So for a small state, CT is way more complicated than an outsider would think.
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: maeve on June 13, 2014, 04:23:31 PM
Litchfield County is kind of a mix of the two Connecticuts.  Though having lived in both CT and now in VA. Ajas is right in that there is a much greater variation in types of communities in VA than there is in CT. Certainly, CT is not monolithic but there is still a high degree of commonalities among communities.


The coal country of southwest Virginia is significantly different than the high tech Northern Virginia suburbs. There is not the same degree of disparity in CT. Even within school districts there's huge discrepancies, such as the district Ajas and I both live in. My daughter's MS has 1,640 students in a school built to hold 1,239 students. She has never attended a school with fewer than 1,000 students. However, just south of us in the same county there is a middle school that is under capacity (and yet it's having an addition built on it so that it is appropriately sized for the HS it feeds) and there are elementary schools with fewer than 100 students. Even demographics varies widely in a 4 to 5 mile radius. DD's MS and the HS she will attend is majority minority; the number of Asian (particularly south Asian) students is equivalent to or exceeds the number of white students. However, in the ES/MS/HS cluster that adjoins our cluster, it is predominantly white. The high schools in those two clusters are only 2.5 miles apart. The eastern part of our county is predominantly Hispanic and lower income Hispanic. The western part of the county is made up of farms and huge landed estates (it's VA horse country). The issues facing the eastern part of the county (language issues, need for reduced lunch) are different than the middle of the county (overcrowded schools) and are different than the west (under enrollment of small schools).


I can tell you even within the cluster that food allergy issues/504 are handled differently. The MS has been pretty proactive, but in no way perfect. As with anything in food allergies, it really is dependent on the staff that you deal with. I have another friend in the same district whose daughter had a reaction during a school party. She had to go to the ER. And yet, nothing has changed in the district. There was still food at field day and an ice cream social sponsored by the PTO today.


lakeswimr, I think you missed my point. Of course, it's important to your family that the IHCP is great and well implemented. It is not relevant in the grand scheme of things if CT misleads parents into thinking that an IHCP affords the same legal rights. It doesn't. Also, what you describe in terms of the IHCP is not so much how good the plan is itself but how well it is implemented. I have a good 504 but there still have been issues with things falling through the cracks. I, however, could make a legal stink if I wanted to that I would not be able to make if I only had an IHCP.

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on June 13, 2014, 04:25:11 PM
hedge & maeve -- than you for that intel . . . helps me a lot as I try to understand and get to the root of some of the issues . . .  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: my3guys on July 13, 2014, 10:37:24 AM
Recent article on one CT town...

http://www.fairfield-sun.com/24027/parents-seek-safe-food-handling-instructions/

The non-compliance is blood boiling. :rant:
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: hedgehog on July 13, 2014, 11:12:55 AM
 Does not surprise me that that is an issue in that part of the state.  Although I would think it more likely in some of Fairfield's neighbors.  But that part if the state has an over abundance of people who are so incredibly self-centered and cannot even fathom that they are not entitled to everything they want.  Not saying everyone in that area is like that, just that they have more than their share and it seems to be part of the culture.  Many of. DD's uni classmates are from that area.  And they are the on she can't stand stand due to that very attitude. 

BTW, I was born in that area, grew up not far from there, but had connections there my whole childhood through college.  I am familiar, but it does seem to have gotten worse since then.
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: lakeswimr on July 13, 2014, 08:56:47 PM
I'm surprised the State didn't catch them yet as not having complied and come out with a district policy. My son's district tried to get away with not making a new district plan and got forced to do so by the state.  Why wasn't that district also forced to do so? 
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: hedgehog on July 13, 2014, 09:29:47 PM
Umm, because it's Fairfield.. You know, in the part of the state that is exempt from any rules they don't like.   ~).
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: lakeswimr on July 14, 2014, 06:52:38 PM
I would have thought that some with FAs there would have gotten things changed.  I'm surprised.  Remember when we had a state senator with a child with FAs and he and his wife helped advocate for all the great state legislation that got passed?  I would assume they lived down thata way, you know? 
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: hedgehog on July 14, 2014, 07:18:03 PM
If you mean who I think, it was a US senator.  Although I suppose there could be a state senator with an FA child as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: maeve on July 14, 2014, 08:28:27 PM
It was Chris Dodd. His daughter has several food allergies.  He and Rosa DeLauro sponsored food allergy legislation that passed both chambers.  Dodd has been retired from the Senate for several years now.  I'm not sure if DeLauro is still in Congress.
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on December 12, 2014, 08:39:52 AM
More currently in Fairfield:

Fairfield Citizen
School board struggles with food allergy policy
Andrew Brophy
Updated 1:55 pm, Thursday, December 11, 2014

http://www.fairfieldcitizenonline.com/news/article/In-apparent-FOI-violation-school-board-struggles-5949924.php#page-2



From that article:

(having to do with whose responsibility it is to check food labels . . . )
Quote
At earlier board meetings, parents who spoke in support of the proposed policy said having the wrong food in a classroom could be a matter of life and death to their children, and Maxon-Kennelly, the Policy Committee's chairwoman, previously said the last revision to the policy was in 2004 and that changes are needed because of a request from the school district's Central Office, state legislation, parental concerns and legal obligations, according to minutes of previous meetings.




Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on December 12, 2014, 08:44:38 AM
Easiest, smartest, safest thing to do would be ELIMINATE SNACKS . . . the kids won't starve . . . the classroom will be safer . . . more time spent on learning . . .

Just my .02-worth today.

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on October 08, 2015, 06:58:13 PM
Bumping up and wondering if anyone here has more recent info to share or muse about . . .

Anyone done a recent FOIA request of the reg OCR office thathandles Connectcut?

If you'd rather PM me, that is fine too.

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on October 16, 2015, 02:34:18 PM
Interesting.

https://ctchro.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/as-u-s-attorneys-panel-gears-up-school-lawyers-brace-for-discrimination-claims/
Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on January 12, 2017, 11:35:08 AM
Connecticut task force report.  I know this is LONG, but would really appreciate some input . . .

Not exactly sure what impact this task force report wll truly have . . . yet


https://www.cga.ct.gov/ed/tfs/20150702_Life-Threatening%20Food%20Allergies%20in%20Schools/Final%20Report/Life%20Threatening%20Food%20Allergies%20Task%20Force%20Final%20Report.pdf

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: ajasfolks2 on March 03, 2017, 10:32:05 AM
Posting with permission of the original poster at Facebook, personal names removed.

Not sure all links embedded will transfer here, so please bear with me:

Quote
ATTENTION CT FOOD ALLERGY FAMILIES - URGENT CALL TO ACTION!!!
 As many of you know, I and a few others have been working over the past three years for new and improved legislation to protect the health, safety and inclusion of our food allergic children in CT schools. Most recently, I served on the State Food Allergy Task Force charged with studying these issues, writing a report and submitting recommendations to the Public Health and Education Committees.

It is NOW TIME for YOU to ACT.
 On Wednesday, the Education Committee raised bill # 7200 An Act Implementing the Recommendations of the Task Force on Life-Threatening Allergies in School. They have scheduled a public hearing on the bill for this coming Monday, March 6th in Hartford at the Legislative Office Building. WE NEED YOU THERE TO TESTIFY!!! We also need you to submit WRITTEN TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HEARING!!!

The bill is a work in progress and a far cry from representing the actual recommendations of the Task Force. We need to make our collective voices heard once and for all and direct this legislature to take a firm position and put forward legislation that will ensure existing federal laws are enforced, that there will be oversight and accountability, that our kids will have the equal and safe access to their schools and the educational experiences that they are rightfully afforded under federal laws, such as Section 504, ADAAA, USDA and Child Find.

The Education Committee would like to see much of the public testimony PRIOR to Monday's hearing. It is also very beneficial to also come and speak in person at the hearing. They need to SEE us - to see this is important to us and that WE ARE MANY and WE ARE INFORMED and ENGAGED. This is our chance folks.... many of us have had awful experiences dealing with our schools or our districts or other families....if not overall at least in one area like exclusion from before or after school programs, no access or unsafe access to school bus transportation or school lunch program, bullying,being denied a 504 plan, being denied the right for your child to carry their epinephrine, being excluded from class curriculum or parties because they involve food. WE HAVE LIKELY ALL EXPERIENCED SOME OR EVEN ALL OF THESE ISSUES. The legislators on the committee and YOUR legislators from your district need to hear from you. We are there constituents and they must hear our needs and our call for them to ACT.
 Here is a link to the bill as it currently reads (it will not stay this way)...

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/TOB/h/2017HB-07200-R00-HB.htm

so in your written or verbal testimony thank them for raising this bill but tell them you want to see either the full list of recommendations from the task force implemented (and explain why they are important) or pull out specific areas of importance to your family and share your experiences.

If you are afraid to go public (out of fear of retaliation), you can testify without having your name said or face shown, and you can submit written testimony anonymously (but if you do so, please state that you are submitting anonymously because of that fear, and be sure to send it from a dummy email address that does not identify you as this becomes part of the public record.

Here is a link to the Task Force Final Report.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/…/Life%20Threatening%20Food%20Allerg…

It is long and you don't need to read the whole thing but it is important to read the recommendations the task force put forward (which can be found up front) as this is what we are advocating for. We know we will not get everything detailed in this comprehensive list but we need to aim high and explain why each of these is important to the health, safety, social emotional well being and inclusion of our food allergic students. And again, remind the legislators of exisitng laws that need to be enforced.

Again, lets get these testimonies in to the Education Committee prior to the hearing if we can so they have an understanding of the complex and pervasive nature of these issues and what matters most to us and our children.

KEEP IN MIND - EVERY OTHER STAKEHOLDER GROUP HAS LOBBYISTS, OR UNIONS OR AT LEAST ASSOCIATIONS, REPRESENTING THEM - THE SUPERINTENDENTS,THE BOARDS OF EDUCATION, THE NURSES, THE TEACHERS, THE BUS DRIVERS, ETC...

OUR CHILDREN HAVE US AND ONLY US TO REPRESENT THEM....THIS OPPORTUNITY IS A LONG TIME COMING AND MAY NOT COME AGAIN.

Finally, please spread the word. If you know anyone willing to testify on behalf of these issues please contact them ASAP. IT WOULD BE ESPECIALLY HELPFUL IF WE CAN GET MEDICAL EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS - THEY ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT IS RECOMMENDED BY ALL THE LEADING FOOD ALLERGY ORGANIZATIONS AND MEDICAL AUTHORITIES. THEY ARE ALSO BACKED UP BY RECENT RESOURCES PRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS.

Here is a link to the Education Committee Website and also the Public Hearing Agenda. You need to sign up in advance that morning, to give oral testimony. You can reach out to the committee clerk for more information if you need it. It may be a long day so prepare for that. I understand this may involve taking time off from work, or arranging for childcare and that can be difficult but this could not be more important. They need to see many parents. And if you have older children with LTFA who may be wiling to testify themselves, having the legislators hear from students directly is invaluable.

On the webpage you can find the link to submit testimony. just look up HB 7200.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/ED/

https://www.cga.ct.gov/…/eddata/pha/2017PHA00306-R001100ED-…


 Thank you and hope to see many of you in Hartford on Monday and to written your written testimony.

WRITTEN TESTIMONY CAN BE EMAILED TO: edtestimony@cga.ct.gov
 Be sure to reference House Bill 7200 specifically

AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE ON LIFE-THREATENING FOOD ALLERGIES IN SCHOOLS.

Title: Re: Connecticut
Post by: name on March 06, 2017, 11:11:51 AM
Connecticut task force report.  I know this is LONG, but would really appreciate some input . . .

Not exactly sure what impact this task force report wll truly have . . . yet


Why not reach out to Allergy Law Project over Facebook since they presented before the Task Force?  Your question would be well within legitimate scope of their overall mission and direct involvement in this state legislative activity.