- Welcome to Food Allergy Support.
Posted by guess
- November 07, 2014, 01:31:35 PMYes. Policy is not supposed to unilaterally change placement because it violates safeguards for notice. Stay put is the default. The principal reaching out proactively to cement that no change of placement will occur without notice is compliant and consistent.
My understanding based on what was linked upthread is the BOE and district driving policy that would potentially violate 504 and ADA if implemented.
My understanding based on what was linked upthread is the BOE and district driving policy that would potentially violate 504 and ADA if implemented.
Posted by Stinky10
- November 07, 2014, 12:47:34 PMJust real quick..... (trying to work today) my son has a 504 and was not affected really either way with this policy - when it was suspended his principal (at my request) sent a note to all of teachers that nothing has changed with regard to their classrooms and food and DS.
Posted by guess
- November 07, 2014, 10:01:17 AMStudents with disability have rights to due process. Section 504 is designed to address unique needs. The safeguards exist to protect that due process procedure. A unilateral move against a protected class patently ignores the safeguards for due process.
The district has duty of care to all students becoming negligent if they are noticed but fail to exercise reasonable care (different reasonable than 504 accommodation) or address the danger promptly and effectively.
Related but separate issues.
Board members or other district personnel who erroneously believe rescue medications are part of anaphylaxis prevention need to read the FDA warning letter to Mylan and Attorney General's statement.
Suffice to say whatever they cooked up could net them at least one law suit, possibly from insurance company if not parent, and open them up to a class-based compliance review for violating procedural safeguards across the entire section of affected students.
But it's not my SD and I'm not a lawyer.
Say it was my SD and I had a student there, hypothetically. See spoiler.
[spoiler]
I would provide the BOE, sped/504 coordinator and super with the following:
The district has duty of care to all students becoming negligent if they are noticed but fail to exercise reasonable care (different reasonable than 504 accommodation) or address the danger promptly and effectively.
Related but separate issues.
Board members or other district personnel who erroneously believe rescue medications are part of anaphylaxis prevention need to read the FDA warning letter to Mylan and Attorney General's statement.
Suffice to say whatever they cooked up could net them at least one law suit, possibly from insurance company if not parent, and open them up to a class-based compliance review for violating procedural safeguards across the entire section of affected students.
But it's not my SD and I'm not a lawyer.
Say it was my SD and I had a student there, hypothetically. See spoiler.
[spoiler]
I would provide the BOE, sped/504 coordinator and super with the following:
- FDA Warning letter to Mylan that EpiPen is not a mitigating measure and that the only effective prevention is strict avoidance
- Press release from Attorney General's office in region attesting to position above
- ADA AA mitigating measures are not used to determine 504 eligibility. See Q5.
- 504 procedural safeguards to protect due process to address unique needs
- Gebser notice from each parent to school district
- If available and applicable, insurance advocacy from private insurance that district has been noticed for medically necessary strict avoidance
- A formal letter acknowledging with gratitude the initial move towards progress through a policy exceeding minimum federal standards by eliminating unnecessary food from curriculum to ensure equal access. The board's reversal of that progressive policy is not at issue. At issue are the unilateral movements by the board circumventing procedural safeguards for affected students protected by 504, ADA and duty of care. All non-compliant proposals should be carefully reconsidered before official endorsement and adoption. Please review with district's counsel and OCR's technical assistance.
Posted by daisy madness
- November 07, 2014, 09:44:21 AMSo they created this food free protocol as a result of 16 incidents of allergic reaction during school. Obviously, the previous protocols were not working. So new protocols were made, and your board member described it as "very unfortunate" that these protocols would not be removed prior to Halloween.
Board decides to pull these protocols, which were put in place because previous protocols were proven to be insufficient, and go back to the ineffective previous protocols until they can come up with new policy?
This is crazy! How about keeping the new protocols which were put in place to protect Students with LTFA after 16 allergic reactions occurred under the old protocols until the board has time to consider any changes.
IMO, if there is an incident of anaphylaxis in your district in the time it takes the board to come up with new policy, after they pulled these new protocols in favor of going back to old and ineffective protocols, a parent would have their lawsuit handed to them on a silver platter.
Board decides to pull these protocols, which were put in place because previous protocols were proven to be insufficient, and go back to the ineffective previous protocols until they can come up with new policy?
This is crazy! How about keeping the new protocols which were put in place to protect Students with LTFA after 16 allergic reactions occurred under the old protocols until the board has time to consider any changes.IMO, if there is an incident of anaphylaxis in your district in the time it takes the board to come up with new policy, after they pulled these new protocols in favor of going back to old and ineffective protocols, a parent would have their lawsuit handed to them on a silver platter.
Posted by Macabre
- November 06, 2014, 11:13:10 AMQuote from: ajasfolks2 on November 06, 2014, 07:34:39 AM
Besides that, I need to keep my CUPcake hole shut right now. Because I am pissed.
Posted by ajasfolks2
- November 06, 2014, 07:34:39 AMWhere is that school board's attorney/counsel in all of this?
I'd be asking if the SB has conferred with counsel and if they are aware of federal laws that would apply?
Besides that, I need to keep my cake hole shut right now. Because I am pissed.
I'd be asking if the SB has conferred with counsel and if they are aware of federal laws that would apply?
Besides that, I need to keep my cake hole shut right now. Because I am pissed.
Posted by guess
- November 05, 2014, 09:46:01 PMThe answer also isn't push harder and grease your wheelchair to squeeze through the doorway, to extend the analogy. Or listen harder if you're hard of hearing. "We" need "community" (Except you people who would ruin our community building. You people stand over there while we build a compassionate community.)
School policy can either meet or exceed ADA, duty of care, what it can't do is deny students with disability due process by unilaterally disregarding safeguards. Nor can they offset their duty of care onto the disabled student.
Preaching to the choir, yes. The point is with that OCR regional office one would want to be VERY specific about a complaint, and one of the key components in the board's response is to violate safeguards for due process unilaterally for an entire disability through policy. That is the sort of procedural safeguard violation that if filed on the same issue from the same district becomes a weighted complaint, and as an entire protected class might make a good candidate for hand off to DOJ.
Obligatory not a lawyer, not legal advice, need to put it in my sig.
School policy can either meet or exceed ADA, duty of care, what it can't do is deny students with disability due process by unilaterally disregarding safeguards. Nor can they offset their duty of care onto the disabled student.
Preaching to the choir, yes. The point is with that OCR regional office one would want to be VERY specific about a complaint, and one of the key components in the board's response is to violate safeguards for due process unilaterally for an entire disability through policy. That is the sort of procedural safeguard violation that if filed on the same issue from the same district becomes a weighted complaint, and as an entire protected class might make a good candidate for hand off to DOJ.
Obligatory not a lawyer, not legal advice, need to put it in my sig.
Posted by CMdeux
- November 05, 2014, 09:20:41 PM
And "public opinion" isn't the way to go about finding an adequate means of compliance with the feds, either.
In fact, if you look at ANY other means of accommodation-- replacing a stairway entry with a ramp, dedicating handicapped parking spaces, etc. it would be LUDICROUS to suggest that the public "weigh in" on their opinion about being "inconvenienced" by the accommodations.
Posted by guess
- November 05, 2014, 09:09:01 PMStinky give it a week for it to shake out. Take screen caps of what's been written by the board member. If they're setting conditions on students with disability there may be some interested parties.
Posted by guess
- November 05, 2014, 09:05:19 PMQuote from: Stinky10 on November 05, 2014, 11:17:17 AM
Post from a board member:
Food in Schools and Anaphylaxis Prevention - an update on the recent procedural changes at BSD
Following a somewhat rushed rollout of a staff update to an operating procedure (3420 - Anaphylaxis Prevention and Response), we heard many voices from across our community. I learned many things including these:
(1) The recent procedural update was not adequately thought out (particularly with respect to unintended consequences) nor did it engage the community sufficiently to reflect the breadth of food related needs and concerns across our district.
(2) We have a growing number of students with life-threatening anaphylactic conditions, several of which have manifested (for a variety of reasons) during school time, and that should be addressed in a way to further reduce risks to those children in our schools.
At Tuesday night's (11/4) school board meeting, the board requested that the staff temporarily roll back the recent (October 2014) updates to the anaphylaxis prevention procedure and begin a process to more comprehensively consider appropriate changes to the procedure. The board requested that a date be set for the updates to be completed and that the update process engage the community. The staff accepted this request and will communicate next steps shortly. Updates to the procedure are expected to be made before February 14, 2015.
(Note that anaphylaxis prevention is only one reason for the regulation of food in schools. Any school-specific or classroom-specific rules about food are not impacted by this temporary procedural roll-back.)
Our community - parents, teachers, students, nurses, community members, etc. - has been exceptional in exposing a breadth of perspectives on this issue. It is my hope that subsequent procedural updates will take into account not only a balance in how we reduce risks to our students, but also a variety of approaches to reducing risk and intentional consideration of implications to both safety and inclusion.
I believe our staff will work with both the best interests of our students and the inputs of all of our community members in mind. I personally hope to see many of the issues discussed at our board meeting addressed in the next round of procedure updates. Some examples include:
* enhanced education, including a specific plan for student education (that may need to acknowledge age-based differences in students' capacities for awareness and action)
* availability of stock epi pens in our schools for approved use in emergencies
* additional clarity in some of our cafeteria food labels/ingredient info
* specific communication guidelines for schools and classrooms to share with families (including how to differentiate between life-threatening allergens and other allergens of concern in a given building or classroom)
* specific consideration of the breadth of reasonable uses of food in academic projects, educational experiences, and community building balanced with reduction of exposure of affected students to relevant allergens; clarity about the conditions under which any constraints in the use of food are applied
I am grateful to our community for its passion and courage in sharing ALL points of view. I hope this passionate and respectful dialogue continues as the procedural updates are developed.
Problem: Conditions can't be placed on individual with disability for participation. District policy for food free aside, they can't write conditions in order for students to get access. They don't need to go food free everywhere at all times in order to not violate FAPE but this is essentially boxing in a disability without a hint of compliance almost like they're making up their own rules.
Stocking epinephrine isn't a mitigating measure. Epinephrine is not a mitigating measure, nor would it be considered even if it was a mitigating measure.
What exactly do they plan on 'educating' students with LTFA with? These are patients of board certified allergists with specific medical knowledge of the condition. Anaphylaxis prevention is strict avoidance. It's all it's ever been there is no FDA approved treatment, cure or preventative medication.
Duty of care belongs to school. No, they do not have to go food free at all times as a district policy but this may turn into an OCR issue with what they are doing in response trying to hedge in a disability and set conditions upon students based on that disability.
Posted by Mfamom
- November 05, 2014, 06:17:22 PMI read it on fb. disheartening to say the least. Upsetting that they have 16 allergic emergencies but still can't LEARN their lesson. So sorry. 
Posted by CMdeux
- November 05, 2014, 04:07:56 PMOUCH. 
it really stings when the louder CHORUS of majority ignorance drowns out the very real issue at the bottom of policy changes like this. 
it really stings when the louder CHORUS of majority ignorance drowns out the very real issue at the bottom of policy changes like this. Posted by Stinky10
- November 05, 2014, 12:38:15 PMQuote from: Macabre on November 05, 2014, 11:43:08 AM
I could have missed it, but I think I didn't see inclusion refered to at all.
I haven't either. I will draft a very comprehensive report to the board. When I recover.
Posted by becca
- November 05, 2014, 12:15:09 PMGah. it hurts reading all of this, and I read on the Facebook page. It is similar to what I experienced in my town about 8-9 years ago. it was rough. After a big brouhaha little changed. Fewer birthdays, and a bit more control over party foods, but still cultural festivals with food, breakfast with Shakespeare, Pilgrim fest, etc... Ugh.
After a big brouhaha little changed. Fewer birthdays, and a bit more control over party foods, but still cultural festivals with food, breakfast with Shakespeare, Pilgrim fest, etc... Ugh. Posted by Macabre
- November 05, 2014, 11:43:08 AMI could have missed it, but I think I didn't see inclusion refered to at all.