As a parent of a FA child in this county, I will say that the decision for the ban is not out of the blue or new.  It supports policies that were already in place in previous years but ignored.  I have to commend the Dir. of Elementary schools for putting his neck out and making a statement.  There were policies of no-food sharing in place previously and in  the new food allergy management guidelines and all he did was reiterate and remind everyone what is to be expected. Yes the PIO did back peddle but I'm not worried about it 

I personal feel like we ask for someone to support us in our FA community from the district and here is someone that did and is getting a virtually beat down on the internet.  I support his decision for sure!  Kudos to the Dir.     

Ignore the comments.  Trust me, they're not worth reading nor are those that say they'll march to the school board won't.  I usually don't read comments anymore on news reports associated w/FA however I did this b/c it's so close to home.  I wasn't shocked at the negative, even hateful comments as I've seen them before.  I was, however, very pleased and refreshed to see supportive comments from non-food allergic parents, some I know personally.  There are supportive folks out there.  Let's keep our heads up!   

I'm sorry you have to deal with all that. 

Quote from: lakeswimr on February 05, 2012, 03:37:16 PM
I'm wondering why it is so difficult for people who have FAs to get those who do not to empathize or understand why having any types of bans are necessary for some food allergic kids and why including all kids is just a nice thing to do.  The people arguing with the posters yesterday when I looked through the thread and it had about 63 replies were not effective at getting anyone to change their minds.  It looks like many posters were concerned about their rights and about 'the state' or 'the government' telling the what to do.  I wonder if many there are politically conservative and people interested in things like 'states rights', the 'big government', etc and somehow this dislike is getting displaced onto FA children. 

NO QUOTING

I live in the county featured in the linked article.  I can tell you that it is indeed politically conservative and there is definitely a vein of political thought in the county (well, the commonwealth as well) about ensuring government is less instrusive.  There's also a brouhaha happening now about the county school district taking parents to court for repeated tardies, and most of the comments on an article on that issue mention "nanny state."

I will say that the school district public information officer is backpedaling.  This rule was posted on the web site of DD's school at least 2 weeks ago and it came from the school district not the principal and was clearly described as a countywide policy.  I, for obvious reasons, think it's a great policy but I also know from past experience that parents will still send in candy.  Nearly every year DD has been in school and a nut-free (even food-free classroom in first grade), someone has brought nuts into class (such as empty pistachio shells for 100 days).

The only thing that I have found which works (at least in some limited way) makes it VERY personal, so not at all useful for 'internet' conversation with a hostile random person posting vitriol about a child...


what I patiently explain is that it is as a DIRECT result of those attitudes that:

a) my child has never been able to attend any of the fine public schools that my (ample) tax contributions help to support (and hey-- how wrong is THAT?),

b) one of the TWO terminally degreed adults in our household has lost more than a decade in professional contributions to larger society, and

c) since that adult's education was also partially subsidized, I think it is fair to say that this has ultimately meant that society as a whole lost their investment in that highly educated adult. 

What professional achievements could that parent have made in lieu of educating a single child at home, merely to prevent the part-time inconvenience of other parents and children in a public school setting that the law (ADA/ADAA) says that the child is entitled to in any case?  What if I told you that this parent was--

a physician?  a prosecuting attorney? a cancer researcher? an airline pilot? a forensic scientist?

a mayor? the president of a non-profit organization? a pastor? a psychiatrist? a dentist?

What does preventing that one little child (a child whose disability neither the parent NOR the child him/herself asked for) from attending school in reasonable safety cost all of us?  We are all unique, and not all of us intended to be stay-at-home parents, nor is this necessarily the "best" use of some people's unique abilities and talents.

---

That works.  It works on RATIONAL people, that is.    On message-board trolls, nothing works but to not engage in the first place.

I'm wondering why it is so difficult for people who have FAs to get those who do not to empathize or understand why having any types of bans are necessary for some food allergic kids and why including all kids is just a nice thing to do.  The people arguing with the posters yesterday when I looked through the thread and it had about 63 replies were not effective at getting anyone to change their minds.  It looks like many posters were concerned about their rights and about 'the state' or 'the government' telling the what to do.  I wonder if many there are politically conservative and people interested in things like 'states rights', the 'big government', etc and somehow this dislike is getting displaced onto FA children. 

I think it would be useful to think of how we can more effectively talk to these people.  Telling the they are being selfish may be an accurate thing to say but probably not very effective at getting them to change their thinking on this subject.  It seems that those opposed to the school's actions are just reacting with the first thing that comes to their minds.

Arguments like this have been played out with the exact same comments all across the internet--person is opposed to accommodations, other person explains why accommodations are needed and why the law requires them.  Opposed person says, 'if your child is so allergic they should be at home'.  FA person explains the law more, that accommodations are easy and not that big of a deal.  Opposed person says they don't want to give up  'their rights' and that FA person is a terrible parent risking their child's life or a selfish person making everyone give up things for 'ONE child'.  Conversation goes round and round and people get very angry and it gets nowhere.  It wins FA community no new supporters or few and as many may start to 'get it' an equal number will see this and think we are nuts or selfish or should keep our kids home.  It is not a gain for our kids.  Is there a way to get others to be more supportive and understanding?  is there are better way to make the case for FA accommodations and inclusion that people will actually hear?

Quote from: ajasfolks2 on February 04, 2012, 01:18:09 PM
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/02/valentine-s-day-ban-on-candy-in-loudoun-schools-debated-72184.html

About 50+ comments now so far.

Up to nearly 100 comments now . . .

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/02/valentine-s-day-ban-on-candy-in-loudoun-schools-debated-72184.html

About 50+ comments now so far.