Exactly.

While "policy" is fine-- it does NOT substitute for individual accommodations as needed, and the danger here is that all too often, once the 90% of affected individuals get THEIR needs met (Oh look-- now dorm food is safe!  Yay!) then who is left to take up the cause of the student who needs... no, REALLY... for a no-food-and-drink policy to be ENFORCED at the library?

Nobody, that's who.

Thus it needs to be VERY clear that such students are handled under the provisions of ADA which govern higher education.  Not "policy."

Whoah, there. No one said Celiac was not life threatening. Since I specifically mentioned the difference in the threat to life I can't see this in reference to anything but my single one, but anaphylaxis is threat to life per instance in objective terms. It is in medical terms a completely different animal and the accommodations are different. No need to introduce animosity where it doesn't exist. I ain't got a beef with them, period.

What is boils down isn't feelings but practicality. When this gets framed solidly as a food access issue, a "special diet" issue, then it is limited to food service. This is where it breaks down. Celiac is by definition limited to gluten. Food anaphylaxis is NOT, so the former group shares the same triggers, the latter group does not. Program access (and really all of campus life) is likely to be much more problematic for a low threshold food-induced anaphylactic individual, it is a unique life-threatening vulnerability. In maybe a shared sense banning campus smoking may help those with allergic disease as asthma is often co-morbid.

I am pointing out that in terms of regulations regarding postsecondary education it is just as important a matter of program adjustment that needs equal advocacy spotlight because that's what 504 and Title II cover in public institutions and/or those universities that are federal financial assistance recipients. Food service is different--recall DOJ on Lesley. The food service came under Title III as a public accommodation. As long as this remains about food service it's going to skew towards lesser standards of protection rather than greater. That's why it is an important distinction. No 504, no DOE, no program adjustment.

Yes, we all will need to find the right fit for our child's needs, however, this is a start.  A public start. 

Isolated families trying to forge a difficult path met with much resistance and notions of things not being possible.  That is how I started my public school journey. 

PA.com had some families ahead of me and I did get ideas from them.  I had to find other allergy families in my district and get some feedback from them to start.  Externally, I was determined to start in a positive role, not defensive and not expecting the worst.  Internally it was a lonely scary place to be.  Now things are so much easier for our school district's life threatening allergy families.  There is a written policy (our state has one too).  In our district it is a start.  From there you add the accommodations you and the school district think necessary based on individual situations and the child's developmental stage.

I can only hope that this group can do the same.  Break down the resistant barriers and educate college administration, faculty, medical and housing staff.  Give us all a place to start instead of us being "aliens".

I'm optimistic and hopeful.  And I don't at this time feel adding the Celiac group is a negative.   We can argue that Celiac is not life threatening, but to me that is irrelevant.  The quality of life of a celiac person exposed to gluten can be horrid.  I know this as I have a few friends, who end up in the ER because it upends their body systems so much.  It's as important for that person not to consume contaminated food.

Just this year, our school district moved to put our life threatening allergy policy, the critical illness (diabetes, asthma, etc....), and the wellness policy under one administrative group.  (I had previously been a parent member of the allergy policy group).  I applaud this.  They did not change the individual policies, but brought them together under health and wellness.  All children, all wellness issues...and it brought the adults who oversee the policies together for one purpose...to keep our schools safe and healthy for all.

So perhaps this group as it evolves will be successful at opening eyes, educating, and establishing policy addressing the health and wellness of all college students.

Yeah, some students may need advocacy to be exempt from mandates about campus residency to begin with.

This is top of mind for me right now, as DD is checking out colleges this year and applying different places.

She eliminated a number of prospects based on "mandatory freshman dorm residency" policies.  Not because we didn't think that a 504/accommodation wouldn't be granted-- it almost certainly WOULD-- but because it means that she'd be isolated experientially from all[ other students on that campus.  SO campuses with a bit of flexibility were a better fit for her.

That is why freshman residency rates of 99%+ eliminated colleges from consideration; those with rates less than 90% got a big boost. 

I guess that ice has been broken. I'm not sure partnering with Celiac was the best opening move because as a first defining move it's passively framed as a nutrition/food issue. If it were me doing the press releases I wouldn't have included the quote from the Celiac spokesperson about students requiring special diets. That's far too reductionist on where Ceiliac and anaphylaxis differ on threat to life, and also in terms of disability accommodation.

Good - The subject is officially cracked open and acknowledged! Coming of age students with LTFA need community support to move forward in college, internships, work.

Not so good - It's kind of the 1990s model before all the cool necessary 504 advocacy and clarification

Nitpick details - Public schools (or any federal financial assistance recipient) are Title II and/or 504, the privately run food service are Title III at best II if in an existing public building.

All of the above underscoring the veteran moms and students w/LTFA are trail blazing again in need of community support not just K12. We always knew that but the time for a push on that advocacy is now from all of us even if we don't yet have a teen or college age child.

It's great that they are doing this...

but is it wrong that I kind of got a not-so-warm feeling when I read:

Quote
uniform policies

and

Quote
the FARE College Food Allergy Program will focus on convening experts and stakeholders to create comprehensive guidelines and develop resources such as trainings for dining services and resident advisors, educational materials for existing and prospective students and their families, and guides for creating campus social groups

Quote
first College Summit, which focuses on dining services

I realize that they are trying to get the most IMPACT to start out with...  but I am very very worried about this initiative undermining the position of those students (like my DD) who are never going to be very safe living in a dorm setting or eating from campus food service... she needs support, all right-- but different kinds of support in order to have fair and safe access to educational programs on campus.  The kinds of policy that focus on safe environment, not on what she is eating (which, ultimately-- SHE controls herself).  Social groups?  Campus dining halls??  That's the least of her worries, honestly.   

{sigh}

Sorry, I just get bummed out by the focus on helping those that are moderately/modestly limited by their condition and ignoring the plight of those whose lives are seriously impaired because there aren't so many of them.

I hope that they are making it CRYSTAL clear that such "policies" may never constitute a menu of accommodations for students with food allergy-- and that some of those students will need accommodations in place that transcend safe food offerings in dining halls.
I worry that this might be used as a way to force campus residency on low-threshold students, which ultimately would simply lock them out of higher ed or force them to accept risks that they and their families/physicians KNOW are unacceptably high.

Two thumbs up!