I am thinking of wording for this- Something like "If the child is to eat food provided at school, the parent is required to be at the school." Is that legal? If the parent isn't there, that would mean the child could not partake in the "celebratory food". Is that acceptable?
Is this something you want or the school wants and you're fighting?
In my opinion it depends on the age of your child and his or her classmates.
Where will the food be consumed? Are you referring to lunch, parties, a special school wide event? (I know you said celebratory food but I did not want to assume wha that meant.) Who is providing the food?
Does your school have a full time nurse?
It also depends on what your child is developmentally prepared to handle independently.
Each year as my DD grew up we slowly eased her accommodations based on her situation and her ability to self advocate and even more so when she began to carry her own meds. Also as the children get older there are less wiggly teeth, etc.... and less sharing of manipulative items so less likely for contact from what another child may have eaten.
The school is saying they will not let him eat at class parties or "additional" rewards without a parent present. He would not be allowed to participate in the food at all if one of us isn't there. As it stands now, the PTA provides the food for the 3 school wide parties and they want our input into additional food rewards (his teacher is pushing for this).
There is no mention of a limit on this (is it going to be weekly? Monthly? Once a year?) so my worry is that I will have to go sit at the school several times in addition to the 3x a year school party. That would have a financial impact on our family because DH would lose time off of work to watch our younger child or sit up at the school. (I AM already there at all school parties as is).
There is no full time school nurse so there is no guarantee that there would be one there when this food was being given out. I was under the impression that they can not require us to be there. I was kind of "forced" into allowing the addition of these reward treats even after I suggested and offered to help find nonfood activities as rewards.
No. They cannot require this. They would not be providing FAPE. They are not making this demand of your child's non-disabled peers.
To make this a condition of ?? (the 504), they would be violating FAPE.
That is what I assumed.
Now how to get this accommodation worded so cover things appropriately. Any suggestions? It was "no food will be provided that isn't parent approved". I am also uncomfortable with then asking me to get something for the class. What if a child with an unknown allergy has the "reward" I was instructed to get and has a reaction? I know anyone can sue for any reason but it sounds like a liability to me that I am not sure I want to take on. Perhaps I'm reading too muh into it.
If you can, I would add that parent receives notification of any food to be distributed at least 72 hours in advance. You don't want a phone call 10 minutes before they'd like to serve something.
To be honest, I gave up on the 72hr notice because it basically translated to a 10min prior phone call. Most of the time I had to say no, one time I said yes and it was to an allergen because I had the wrong child in mind (the fun of having multiple kids with differing food allergies).
(Yes, I should have had a 504 but our county has yet to grant a single one for food allergies - learned that tidbit this week).
I provided food for my kids and my kids only. And it was written into their IHP they could ask for a treat (I kept to shelf stable ones because I heard nightmares about frozen cupcakes served to kids) in case of "surprises".
So yes, our IHP said 72hrs (but was often violated) so I had shelf stable treats the kids could ask for per their IHP. And you know what, I let my kids pull the woe is me card from time to time and treated them after school. My perspective is a little different though, because DS1 has allergies to wheat, rye, barley and egg - not peanuts. Often he was told, but it doesn't have peanuts when it clearly had all of his other allergens.
They want it as follows:
Student will only ingest food provided by parents. He may eat food provided at holiday parties/as rewards if parents are there. Parties will be planned with parents involvement to ensure safety and avoid exposure.
There is a "no food consumption in classroom except for holiday parties" as well but the teacher wants that changed to parties and rewards but doesn't mention any limits on how many.
*bolding mine
No. They are not providing equal access. He is being treated differently because of his disability. How in the world would a mom who works manage to be there? I assume you SAH. What if you have to go back to work! This is crazy.
Agreed. They can't do it.
And I'd say so in PRECISELY the terms Mac used. They don't make this demand of other children's parents.
Can they word it re: parental approval? On a per-item, per-instance basis? That is, that they WILL seek prior approval for you to vet whatever it is?
They cannot MAKE you attend or require it in any way as a condition of part / all of child's ability to participate (be included) anymore than they could require you to ride the bus and act as the epi-trained adult . . .
When we were dealing with elementary school once upon a time that would NOT get inclusion and kept insisting that WE needed to provide all means for our child to be included, I flat out asked the vice principal if she were also going to set up a "Mexican's only" area for our kids so that our LTFA kids would also be then doubly excluded. :paddle:
Somehow, the lightbulb went on over her head that day. :bonking:
~~~~~~
Also, no way should YOU be providing food for any other kids . . . you are SO right to have concern as to other allergies OR other food-related special need or restriction (diabetes, etc). You don't want the liability, you don't technically have permission to feed the other children, and those kids/families have the right to their medical privacy too. Besides, that is money out of YOUR pocket and you should not have to pony up the $ or food just because your child has LTFA.
This relates to the whole "I'm not sending in safe treats" arguments and discussions from way, way back. (Hat tip to gvmom.)
Hang in there! Politely but firmly decline.
May I just add that REWARDING WITH FOOD is unconscionable.
Period.
I L-O-V-E quote from Drew Cary
"Crappy food is not a reward -- it's a punishment."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/drew-careys-weight-loss-c_n_738387.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/drew-careys-weight-loss-c_n_738387.html)
;D
Quote from: ajasfolks2 on January 23, 2015, 09:22:45 AM
May I just add that REWARDING WITH FOOD is unconscionable.
Period.
I L-O-V-E quote from Drew Cary
"Crappy food is not a reward -- it's a punishment."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/drew-careys-weight-loss-c_n_738387.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/drew-careys-weight-loss-c_n_738387.html)
;D
They don't see anything wrong with it and I wish I had though to point out that perhaps that also went against the districts health and wellness policy too but I was a little befuddled at it all ;)
Oh, man. Use your district's health and wellness policies verbatim to your advantage, always.
Start now by memorizing key phrases from it and use those in emails and in meetings.
After all, school should be about the safety and inclusion of ALL . . . not just your child, right? right! ;)
You've already gotten great advice. A word of warning from me. Do not fall into the trap of providing food for the class!
I did. DD was in 1st grade and boy was I dumb. The school in her 504 had it written that I would purchase safe snacks for the whole class and the teacher would collect money to pay for them and she would pass the snacks out.
The kids didn't care. I shopped biweekly and left grocery bags with the teacher (mind you I had an infant and toddler in tow in those days.) The kids were happy, the teacher was happy due to snack always being equal, but the downside, some parents did not pay. About 2/3d's did with much nudging and asking. The rest said they would and never did and it came out of my pocket. One family even sent unsigned checks and when I returned them to be signed, of course they never signed them. You can imagine the first thing on my agenda for the 2nd grade 504 meeting.
Good luck with this battle. It is going to be worth it at the end.
I did mention that that would be an unfair financial burden on us if it was a common occurrence. They said "Oh no, we would give you the money for it!"
Also the day after the meeting, we were talking about the no candy valentines which is written in the school handbook and a signed paper each parent sends back at the beginning of the year. Teacher said "Well in a class with no allergies it's up to the teacher"
Um.....No. It's in the handbook so how is it up to the teacher?
So she sent the list home the very next day (several weeks early) and had a note to include card for each student but nothing about a reminder of no candy on them. Maybe it's just me but this seems to be a game now and that is not good for my child. L( Maybe I am being paranoid but I also for the first time ever got a written repot about DS the day after she would have been informed of my complaint.
Up in resources are a series of 504 webinars along with a thread about documenting and file management. Treat those like training programs. The SD is already positioning for resistance. You'll need to build a solid case starting now.
Most experienced special ed advocates that do the work full time as a paid profession will advise not going alone into meetings. You needn't take a paid advocate but someone from your community who will stand with you on the child's behalf. A friend, a priest, rabbi, former teacher, anyone to even the numerical odds, spot you, take notes, keep things rolling, be a witness.
What would you like to have happen.
Will they allow your child to eat at parties if the food is from home?
Personally, I would not trust that group to feed my child anything not from home. I would worry greatly they would mess up. it has happened to other kids and caused life threatening reactions and even some fatalities.
I don't like that it sounds like the teacher doesn't like you. If you are not comfortable with this teacher you can push to have your child's teacher switched. I'm not sure that is ideal mid-year but it isn't ideal this way, either.
The heart of the problem is not following procedural safeguards for due process. There is a 504 in existence created collaboratively by the team knowledgeable about the child. Not only are those existing accommodations not being implemented with fidelity, the school has not 'noticed' the parent that it intends to alter the 504 without either meaningful parental participation as part of the team, or provide the variety of sources that they are using to come to the decision.
504 does not address specific accommodations or modifications it merely lays out a process for the protection of the student's right to equal access. That may mean what it looks like, ultimately, is there is a plan where parent does attend along with a contingency where parent does not attend. Either way for the purposes of delivering FAPE the school cannot discriminate against the student denying him or her equal benefit as non-disabled peers, nor hold the parent or student responsible for the disability. It is an unfunded mandate but that cost cannot be transferred to the family. In addition the school is responsible for related custodial functions in line with the doctrine of in loco parentis and duty of care. It cannot act negligently or engage in choices that would lead to the student to harm.
It doesn't need to be a loving relationship--just a working relationship. The safeguards are not as robust as under the IDEA but they do exist and are what OCR will enforce as well as address equal access according to regulations. Investigation and findings vary by region and personnel.
Looking at the framework of advocacy and process makes it a working model for good or ill.
Back to the original question: no. A school cannot compel a parent to perform something related to the disability in order for the student to receive FAPE. That devil is in the procedural details. Always refer back to the model of process and safeguards because neither can a parent order a school into a specific accommodation or modification. Administrative law is a bit silent on ordering specific accommodations until it rises to certain thresholds like extraordinary circumstances or deliberate indifference, bad faith, negligence. Examples of those tend to demonstrate absolutely colossal amounts of stupidity and/or animus on the district's part so they are unicorn with hen's teeth rare.
Obligatory disclosure that I'm not a lawyer and nothing I write is intended as legal advice.
Quote from: Macabre on January 22, 2015, 06:24:57 PM
No. They cannot require this. They would not be providing FAPE. They are not making this demand of your child's non-disabled peers.
To make this a condition of ?? (the 504), they would be violating FAPE.
I just wanted to note something. I used the term "violate" but really shouldn't have. As FAPE is not a regulation in and of itself, violation isn't the right term to use.
However, "not providing" is.
Just wanted to clarify. I don't want to arm you with language that is not accurate.
As it stands now, the class parties 3x a year have 3 snacks which are purchase by the PTA. Those labels are sent to any parent with a kid who has a 504/food issues to sign off on and I am three for those 3 parties (as this new school wide snack thing is newer and per the original 504 I was at all class parties). I am fine with that. What they want to do is add in "class rewards" into this. They are not saying how many times per year. The wording is that "Student will only ingest food provided by parents. He may eat food provided at holiday parties/as rewards if parents are there. Parties will be planned with parents involvement to ensure safety and avoid exposure." BUT they were also talking of adding in the other rewards, that is when they wanted to add "planned with parents and admin". Well here's the thing, the admin (building principal) is one of the two people who GAVE HIM food initially so I can not say I am very confident with her decision making WRT other kids safety in the class. What I want is no food in the school that isn't lunch but ya know.... DS's classroom is food free
I did tell them that I don't know of any other issues in the class, that I don't want to know and understand I am not entitled to know! I asked if I would be legally expect from anything that could potentially happen if there was an issue with another child if I did purchase the extra treats for the room. I have not heard back from them on that one.
Quote from: guess on January 23, 2015, 05:55:43 PM
504 does not address specific accommodations or modifications it merely lays out a process for the protection of the student's right to equal access.
Obligatory disclosure that I'm not a lawyer and nothing I write is intended as legal advice.
I don't understand this exactly. Can you explain further?
As for the teacher, there wasn't an issue till this. I am trying to determine what to do about that now. From the get go I offered any help I could offer. Help with papers. Making copies. On and on as I have done with every teacher. She never tool me up on any of it which is fine. I figure DS is getting older and they are doing more and more on computers so perhaps she just didn't need the help. There was an issue DS had with a kid at the beginning of the year that I had to deal with (kid threatened to break DS's arm and also drew a picture of DS "dead in a cage"). It wasn't handled very quick and I did mention I felt by changing DS's seat and not the kid causing the issue that it was blaming him and not the kid who was the issue (and is a know issue). I don't think she liked that I cc'ed the principal with that but I really though that was over.
I feel like they are trying to make me out to be a bad, crazy person. I have not had a single issue with ANY of the teachers or admin till this point :(
504 is a process it's not a guarantee of a specific modification or accommodation. So when analyzing your position at any place or time you want to consider how an investigator would be able to follow the process because they cannot take action unless a procedural violation has occurred or proof by preponderance of evidence shows discriminatory actions and despite noticed, the school does not take reasonable actions to remedy the discrimination or violation.
Let me root around to see if I can find a certain piece that will help. I'll edit when I find it.
MomTo3: http://home.allergicchild.com/food-allergy-504-plans-title-ii-and-k-12-schools/ (http://home.allergicchild.com/food-allergy-504-plans-title-ii-and-k-12-schools/)
So when I was reading your original post in this thread I coukdnt help but think that some retaliation I involved--that the principal is still miffed by the candy cane incident. The principal's response what so small of her, yk?
Thanks Guess! That helps! So basically is it a "this is what should happen" and not a "this is happening"? Wouldn't that lead to more violation meetings if they don't do it?
Macabre- I am trying really hard to pass it off as a lot of coincidences- I really am. But like I said, they are starting to make me feel like a bit of a :dunce: I am also concerned because DS is still young and we will be at the school for several more years AND I have 2 younger kids. DH and I have already looked at the private schools in the area. Last resort.
In my non-lawyer opinion here's how I read it.
Procedure was followed the first round. School fulfilled Child Find mandate, found student eligible, worked with parent to identify unique needs, delivers FAPE, satisfies its signed assurance prohibiting discrimination.
Then we run into a failure to implement accommodations with fidelity, essentially the 504 is violated. More unraveling process with failure to engage parent, procedural safeguard violation by failing to notice parent of intent to alter 'placement' (read that link on what placement means with 504), procedural safeguard violation by failure to allow parental participation in team collaboration (including more food creating more barriers), procedural safeguard violation to produce variety of sources used in making decisions on accommodations necessary, appropriate and effective to address student's unique needs in order to receive FAPE (access to general education equal to peers if not results from education equal to peers). Understanding all the while this isn't about potential-maximizing results or affirmative action or any other extension of the obligation of FAPE but equal access.
But wait, there's more. ADA/504 violation by placing burden back on parent and child with disability through requirement that parent compensate for the disability as a condition for the school to meet FAPE obligation.
Audit the student's records, document everything (read the thread in resources), make sure everything tightly tells the story to a stranger following it. Stay professional, consider having a friend or other accompany you to meetings, know your rights, and more importantly the educational civil rights of the qualified individual with disability, your first drafts are always rough drafts, know how the game is played. Play it better.
2015 is not a great time and place for students with disabilities. I do a lot of ADA work in other arenas with lawyers private and public sector, and in special education school law with many parent advocates and attorneys. It's a rough time for funded mandates like IDEA whose more substantial safeguards are eroding. For an unfunded mandate like 504 it's a really dicey time. Be a hard target that discourages those who may underestimate how difficult it will be to not deliver FAPE for your disabled student, but not a incorrigible one. It's a fine line to keep that working relationship going, friendly yet turn on a dime if the student's rights are sold out.
The student was found eligible and that's a huge part of leverage already on your side. From here it's about making sure your safeguards are in place for due process and ensuring the implementation of necessary, appropriate and effective accommodations and modifications to ensure equal access.
Reminder about not legal advice, not a lawyer.
The strategy in graphic form.
(https://stottilien.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.gif)
You have lovely eyes in person, too, guess. ;D