|
|
He has never experienced anaphlyaxis, but he did have a minor reaction at home that affected his breathing about a month ago. We were able to control it with Benadryll per his allergist.
He has never experienced anaphlyaxis, but he did have a minor reaction at home that affected his breathing about a month ago. We were able to control it with Benadryll per his allergist.
Have you revisited this with your current allergist to revise your emergency action plan for anaphylaxis? A good first step before you even take one more step towards a 504 is truly understanding anaphylaxis. I'm not remotely convinced based on the above that there is any congruence between you and the allergist on the use of epinephrine and calling for emergency services. Breathing is major, not minor and your school will need clear, accurate directions in case of a life threatening reaction that could include respiratory symptoms.
Q13: Are the provision and implementation of a health plan developed prior to the Amendments Act sufficient to comply with the FAPE requirements as described in the Section 504 regulation?
A: Not necessarily. Continuing with a health plan may not be sufficient if the student needs or is believed to need special education or related services because of his or her disability. The critical question is whether the school district's actions meet the evaluation, placement, and procedural safeguard requirements of the FAPE provisions described in the Section 504 regulation. For example, before the Amendments Act, a student with a peanut allergy may not have been considered a person with a disability because of the student's use of mitigating measures (e.g., frequent hand washing and bringing a homemade lunch) to minimize the risk of exposure. The student's school may have created and implemented what is often called an "individual health plan" or "individualized health care plan" to address such issues as hand and desk washing procedures and epipen use without necessarily providing an evaluation, placement, or due process procedures. Now, after the Amendments Act, the effect of the epipen or other mitigating measures cannot be considered when the school district assesses whether the student has a disability. Therefore, when determining whether a student with a peanut allergy has a disability, the school district must evaluate whether the peanut allergy would be substantially limiting without considering amelioration by medication or other measures. For many children with peanut allergies, the allergy is likely to substantially limit the major life activities of breathing and respiratory function, and therefore, the child would be considered to have a disability. If, because of the peanut allergy the student has a disability and needs or is believed to need special education or related services, she has a right to an evaluation, placement, and procedural safeguards. In this situation, the individual health plan described above would be insufficient if it did not incorporate these requirements as described in the Section 504 regulation.
The nature of the regular or special education and related services provided under Section 504 must be based on the student's individual needs. As noted in Q2 above, the student would also be protected from discrimination under Title II's statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as Section 504's general nondiscrimination provisions.
Q14: Does the Amendments Act affect the situation in which a parent or guardian believes that his or her child has a disability and is not receiving special education or related services as described in the Section 504 regulation?
A: As stated in Q4 above, students who were in the past determined not to have a disability may now, in fact, be found to have a disability. If a parent or guardian of a child with an impairment believes that the child may be a student with a disability and therefore requires services that he or she is not currently receiving in school, the parent or guardian can ask the school district to evaluate or reevaluate the child pursuant to the requirements of the Section 504 regulation. The evaluation would determine whether the child has a disability, and, if so, whether the child needs special education or related services. As noted in Q9 above, school districts must evaluate a child if that child needs or is believed to need special education or related services because of a disability.
If, as described in the Section 504 regulation, a child is receiving special education or related services that the parent or guardian believes are inadequate, the parent or guardian can request changes to the educational placement. If agreement cannot be reached, the parent or guardian may invoke the procedural safeguards set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 104.3615 to address the child's needs and current educational placement.[/quote
I know she will again make the argument that 400 other kids have the right to peanut butter... Instead of focusing on what will make my child safe. This will be an uphill battle...thanks again.
Defendants also submitted the affidavit of Nancy Campbell, the superintendent of the school district, who explained the procedures that were followed to adopt the 504 plan for student A. According to Campbell, the board of education had voted in September 2010 to seek guidance from the federal Office for Civil Rights regarding the ban and was advised that § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act required school districts to provide a free, appropriate public education to students with disabilities, including students with nut allergies. The Office for Civil Rights was not aware of any law that required a school district to accommodate a student who wished to consume nut products at school
Plaintiff argues that the nut-ban policy deprives her of a liberty or property interest because it requires her to purchase more expensive foods she otherwise would not have to buy. The trial court did not err in rejecting this claim. The nut-ban policy does not require plaintiff to purchase any specific food item; it only prohibits plaintiff’s child from bringing to school one very narrow class of items. The ban is not an arbitrary exercise of power but, rather, is rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of providing an education for a student with a life- threatening allergy to nut products
Reasonable accommodation: a term used in the employment context to refer to modifications or adjustments employers make to a job application process, the work environment, the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, or that enable a covered entity's employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment; this term is sometimes used incorrectly to refer to related aids and services in the elementary and secondary school context or to refer to academic adjustments, reasonable modifications, and auxiliary aids and services in the postsecondary school context