|
|
Completely banning nuts or other foods is not recommended as it is 1) not possible to control what other people bring onto the school grounds, and 2) does not provide the allergic student with an environment where he/she can safely learn to navigate a world containing nuts. When a ban is instituted, parents feel their child will not be exposed to allergens. A ban can create a false sense of security (“Banning allergies from school”, 2012).
Federal laws including the American Disabilities Act, Individual with Disabilities Education Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protect the legal rights of students with allergies along with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) which became law January 2011. These laws protect students’ individual rights as well as direct schools to develop voluntary guidelines on food allergy management while they prohibit preempting state laws (FMSA, 2010).
Entering school or changes in the school environment are stressful events, and many parents view these events as opportunities that increase their child’s chance of exposure to allergens (Roy & Roberts, 2011).
While I think that there are a lot of times that bans aren't necessary, the fact is that sometimes they are, and organizations should really be giving more support to the people that do need them.
It's like my asthma. I don't think that most people with asthma have the same ridiculous sensitivity that I do. I'm not asking for family members to not smoke or wear perfume for a 'false sense of security' though. I'm asking them to do it so I don't die.
And for preschool aged kids and the younger grades, bans are necessary. You can not expect a four year old to display the level of vigilance needed to keep them safe in a room full of their allergen with young children that touch EVERYTHING. I'm an adult, and I couldn't keep myself safe in a preschool classroom where my allergen was present.
Think they'd listen to us?
[url]http://www.nasn.org/AboutNASN/ContactUs[/url]
Think they'd listen to us?
[url]http://www.nasn.org/AboutNASN/ContactUs[/url]
I also hate the statements about "learning to live in a world full of your allergens". Need to navagate life statements etc.
Different at school because you have to be there, options outside of school include non attendance etc. I think this statement along with the false sense of security statements are total spineless copouts.
Dr. Biegler testified that Mystic Valley feared an increase in liability by imposing a ban. (Testimony of Dr. Biegler) He explained that if said policy were in place the staff would have a false sense of security and would fail to act as diligently as they would without the ban. This argument is not persuasive first, because the Parents never argued that this ban should be implemented to the exclusion of any other accommodation which is already in place (eg., teacher checking students’ lunches and snacks daily, sanitation protocols). Those accommodations should stay in place. Second, this charter school imposes numerous other additional bans regarding food, dress code, make-up, hair style, personal appearance, body piercing, jewelry, weapons, drugs, smoking, etc. For an infraction on each of these, the student’s handbook states a consequence. (PE-24; Testimony of Ms. Kinnon, Mr. Biegler) Dr. Biegler testified that for the most part, parents and students comply with the school rules and that the most common infraction has to do with food. Dr. Biegler stated that “if you have a ban there will be violations” (Testimony of Dr. Biegler) While infractions may occur, Mystic Valley’s own experience shows that having a policy in place is a deterrent and that more often than not students and parents follow its strict policies. Also, as is the case now, if a student brings a forbidden food item it is taken away and the student is offered the alternate lunch.
The evidence shows that personal agendas may have gotten in the way of Mystic Valley’s administration’s better judgment. (See testimony of Ms. Kinnon, Ms. McKinnon, Dr. Biegler) Mystic Valley does not have the best track record in avoiding accidents that could have had a tragic outcome; incidents like the distribution of M&Ms in the bus, not checking a child’s snack containing a peanut product before the child began to eat it in the classroom are some examples. Mystic Valley has been fortunate in avoiding having to address a life-threatening situation involving Student, but a child’s life cannot depend on fortuitous events when the inconvenience of the alternative could significantly decrease the life- threatening risks to a student.
Since Mystic Valley failed to introduce substantial evidence with respect to the costs or other burden of implementing the peanut/tree nut free classroom for Student, there is no basis to conclude that the accommodation sought by Parents imposes an undue hardship on Mystic Valley. Moreover, Student did show that he requires the aforementioned accommodation and that it can be provided. I find that Student met his burden but Mystic Valley did not meet its burden to show that the accommodation would cause it undue hardship. See Garcia-Ayala v. Lederle Perenterals, Inc., No. 98-2291 (1st Cir. 5/18/00) cited in In re: Worcester, at 26, 27.
Order:
Mystic Valley Regional Charter School shall implement the following accommodations under Student’s 504 Plan:
1. No peanut/tree nut products are allowed in Student’s classroom.
2. All other accommodations accepted by Parents shall continue to be implemented.
3. Child must have access to all classroom activities such as the celebration of the Chinese New Year, accommodated accordingly ie., no restaurant prepared food, food preparation not to include peanut oil, etc.
4. Letter to parents of classmates must describe Student as a child that has a “life-threatening allergy” not a “severe reaction” which is misleading. Provide an informational session to Parents and additional training to staff timely.
5. Provide an orientation to Student’ s classmates regarding Student’ s life-threatening peanut/tree nut allergy. So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
:sigh:QuoteA ban can create a false sense of security
Seriously?? ~) Are they STILL misusing and abusing FAAN/AMF's quote made back a decade ago??
I was very interested to learn that in 1999, Ms. Munoz Furlong received a $14,000.00 grant from The Peanut Foundation, which is the research arm of the American Peanut Council.
Here are the grant particulars:
The decision makers and parents should also be educated that bans do not work.
The sad part of all of this is that, probably at least in part due to the phobia and overreaction of parents who did not need this level of protection, we now have a strong policy statement from the NASN. It's going to make it a LOT harder for the kids who really could benefit from a ban to get one.