Here's a draft of the next missive:
Mr. 504C,
Mr. Maeve and I would like to respectfully request the removal of our daughter, DD, from Mrs. Teacher’s class and that she be exempted from FACS. We understand that there is likely not another class in which DD can be placed during this block. As such, we request that she be placed in an additional Resource block so as to minimize disruptions to the rest of her schedule. She is thriving in all her other classes and has bonded with those teachers. Further, the other classes in her schedule are her academic classes, including one for high school credit, and have a direct impact on her high school course of study. We request that this action be taken for the following reasons:
• FERPA violation
• Retaliation/bullying of DD because of her allergy
• Unwillingness to provide the information needed to create appropriate accommodations to ensure DD’s safety and participation
On January 17, Mrs. Teacher sent Ms. Maeve an email in response to a meeting scheduled for January 22 to discuss DD’s food allergies in advance of the start of FACS in the spring semester. In the email, Mrs. Teacher stated, “Please be assured that I have had other students with allergies and am aware of the precautions. The recipes on the website aren't always used and some of them are for the 8th grade classes. I have a list of all students' allergies.” Ms. Maeve had previously been directed to Mrs. Teacher’s web site for the recipe information. Ms. Maeve reviewed those recipes and indicated in an email to Mr. 504C dated January 16 that she had reviewed the recipes and had questions about how the class operates. Please note that Mrs. Teacher states that she has “a list of all students’ allergies.”
On February 4, students in Mrs. Teacher’s FACS class were provided a form (see attached photo) that parents were to complete and which was to be returned no later than Monday, February 10. On February 6, Mrs. Teacher called out to DD in front of the class "DD, allergy form?" before the deadline for the form to be returned. I had not completed the form, so DD did not have a copy to hand in. DD handed the form in on Monday, February 10, the due date provided when it was distributed. After handing it in and during class on Monday February 10, Mrs. Teacher called DD to the front of the class to discuss the form with her because Mrs. Teacher told DD she could read Ms. Maeve’s handwriting. (The word in question has a box around it in the photo.) When dealing with the other students, Mrs. Teacher has pulled those students aside in a corner of the classroom to address issues. Though, DD says the volume of Mrs. Teacher’s voice is loud enough that DD and other students could overhear, and DD was able to overhear that one of the students is allergic to soy.
It is our belief that the February 6 incident represents a FERPA violation because Mrs. Teacher disclosed DD’s medical condition to her classmates who did not have a need or right to know the information. We further believe the February 6 and February 10 incidents, indicated a singling out of DD because of her allergy. Discussion between student and teacher about allergies was handled differently for DD than her allergic peers.
Ms. Maeve received a phone call from Mr. 504C on Friday, February 7. Ms. Maeve was unavailable at the time and Mr. 504C left a voice mail in which he asked whether it would be possible for DD to wear gloves during cooking labs to ensure her participation. Ms. Maeve returned Mr. 504C’s call on Monday, February 10. Mr. 504C mentioned that he, his admin, and Mrs. Teacher were discussing what can be done so that DD can participate in cooking labs and that wearing gloves was suggested. Ms. Maeve replied that this was not a viable solution because it would single DD out and that having the class all wear gloves probably wasn’t feasible as well because the students would likely figure out why they were wearing gloves. During the conversation, Mr. 504C said that Mrs. Teacher had sent him a list of the jobs/roles for cooking labs and that they were trying to determine which DD could perform. Ms. Maeve said that she had not received such information, nor had she received information as to which recipes would be used which she found to be unacceptable. Mr. 504C said he would forward the list of roles to Ms. Maeve right away. Ms. Maeve received the email with the job duties at 12:37 p.m. Ms. Maeve replied at 12:39 p.m. thanking Mr. 504C for the information and again requesting information on which recipes would be used in class so as to tailor which duties DD can perform. Mr. 504C sent an email at 4:04 p.m. with a link to the recipes on Mrs. Teacher’s site. Ms. Maeve sent an email at 4:09 p.m. stating that she had reviewed the recipes on the site in December and that she did not understand why she could not get information on which recipes would be used this semester.
We believe that we have acted in good faith to work to school staff to obtain accommodations and have repeatedly requested the specific information that is necessary to create those accommodations. However, we have yet to receive that information and have found staff unwilling to provide that needed information. In addition, staff were meeting to discuss accommodations for the class without seeking input from DD’s parents.
In summary, we request that DD be removed from Mrs. Teacher’s class, that she be exempted from FACS, and that she be placed in an additional Resource section for that block for the semester. We request that this action be completed no later than February 21.
