Bumping up this thread because I wanted to highlight that book I referenced above & the comments about the nurse's responsibility for 504 advocation . . .

and how that might apply to child-find and the recent (2012) OCR Virginia Beach finding.



ajasfolks2 said:

Quote
Posted: 06.04.2010 at 01:58:46       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crossposting this from the SCHOOL NURSE thread here.

11.12.2008 at 02:03:56, ajasfolks2 wrote:

Book from Amazon. It's thick. (Text book!) 

Legal Issues in School Health Services
By Nadine C. Schwab, Mary H. Gelfman

Can read it online

Look at pages 189 - 191.

Students With Life-Threatening Alleriges


http://books.google.com/books?id=F8JmObZT0gYC&printsec=frontcover

http://books.google.com/books?id=F8JmObZT0gYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA189,M1


Chapter 11 starts here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=F8JmObZT0gYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA335,M1


Page 337 is GOLDEN in the section "Notice and Coordinator Requirements" as to discussion of nurse:

As an ethical matter, school nurses must be advocates for students regarding their rights under S. 504, even when that advocacy may place them in conflict with district administrators.

(Oh, read that whole section!!!!!!!)

Now, earlier in Chapter 6, there is section Individualized Health Care Plans -- pages 190 - 192. Worth every second it takes to read that as well.

http://books.google.com/books?id=F8JmObZT0gYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA190,M1


NO time today to put excerpts here, but will try to work on it next week.

THIS BOOK IS VERY, VERY HELPFUL.

Worth.every.nickel.

Posted: 06.03.2010 at 02:13:52       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ran out of room-- sorry)

Quote:

Quote

19. How much is enough information to document that a student has a disability?

At the elementary and secondary education level, the amount of information required is determined by the multi-disciplinary committee gathered to evaluate the student. The committee should include persons knowledgeable about the student, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options. The committee members must determine if they have enough information to make a knowledgeable decision as to whether or not the student has a disability. The Section 504 regulatory provision at 34 C.F.R. 104.35(c) requires that school districts draw from a variety of sources in the evaluation process so that the possibility of error is minimized. The information obtained from all such sources must be documented and all significant factors related to the student's learning process must be considered. These sources and factors may include aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social and cultural background, and adaptive behavior. In evaluating a student suspected of having a disability, it is unacceptable to rely on presumptions and stereotypes regarding persons with disabilities or classes of such persons. Compliance with the IDEA regarding the group of persons present when an evaluation or placement decision is made is satisfactory under Section 504.

Emphasis mine.

So what, one might reasonably ask, constitutes "might reasonably be suspected of having" a disability, and therefore be grounds for evaluation...



Well, OCR addresses THAT, as well:

Quote:

Quote31. What is reasonable justification for referring a student for evaluation for services under Section 504?

School districts may always use regular education intervention strategies to assist students with difficulties in school. Section 504 requires recipient school districts to refer a student for an evaluation for possible special education or related aids and services or modification to regular education if the student, because of disability, needs or is believed to need such services.

SO if they are going to make ANY accommodations, they are OBLIGATED to evaluate.  Because it shows that such services are needed. Oh, and furthermore, if you word written requests appropriately, I'm guessing that they are also obliged to evaluate. Becuase YOU and your child's PHYSICIAN are certainly "experts" on the subject of management of the child's allergy, and certainly qualify as "persons familiar with the child" and also with "the disabling condition." Therefore, if PARENTS think that the child needs accommodations, that alone should be basis for an evaluation under Section 504.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Above info is all from:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html#evaluation

---

Posted: 06.03.2010 at 09:39:02       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is backwards. They should read the OCR Letter to Gloucester.
(do you have it?)

Yes, I have heard of districts trying to do this and saying a medical plan (IHCP) is enough. In fact my district does this. (but a few people did push for the 504 and finally got them after OCR Letter to Gloucester was issued).

ALso, ADAA (2009 I think?) made it pretty darn clear that LTFA is a qualifying condition. 

---

Posted: 06.04.2010 at 01:49:59       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My district attempts to push all LTFA into IHCP's. They do this in attempt to keep folks from seeking 504 or IEP -- by pretending to have the child's best interests and safety as focus with the IHCP.

My district also attempts to have the LTFA parents/families accomodate the use of food (curricular and non-curricular) rather than the other way around.

My district? For 20 more days --

http://www.fcps.edu/dss/ips/ssaw/healthservices/

Scroll just past half-way down & you'll find their links to the different lists of "responsibilities".

Everything about it is constructed to push the parents toward IHCP and to make it look as though the school district is soooooooo working "for" the child, when in reality,


well,

some of us know better.

NQ/NQ

My district is the one in which FAAN is housed and sits smack-dab in the middle of.

I hear rumblings that some parents are trying to improve FFX and get it more in line with the new ADA and standards supposedly espoused by FAAN and the medical/professional organizations that have some policies and procedures outlined thru their orgs.

Good luck with that (meant in sincerity).

However, we (my family) have little stomach left for the patent dishonesty and subterfuge we've encountered at every turn here.

We are done.

(Reminder -- this is the district where the allergist recommends to patients to "MOVE TO MARYLAND" for better school situation for LTFA.)

---

Posted: 06.04.2010 at 01:58:46       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crossposting this from the SCHOOL NURSE thread here.

11.12.2008 at 02:03:56, ajasfolks2 wrote:

Book from Amazon. It's thick. (Text book!) 

Legal Issues in School Health Services
By Nadine C. Schwab, Mary H. Gelfman

Can read it online

Look at pages 189 - 191.

Students With Life-Threatening Alleriges


http://books.google.com/books?id=F8JmObZT0gYC&printsec=frontcover

http://books.google.com/books?id=F8JmObZT0gYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA189,M1


Chapter 11 starts here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=F8JmObZT0gYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA335,M1


Page 337 is GOLDEN in the section "Notice and Coordinator Requirements" as to discussion of nurse:

As an ethical matter, school nurses must be advocates for students regarding their rights under S. 504, even when that advocacy may place them in conflict with district administrators.

(Oh, read that whole section!!!!!!!)

Now, earlier in Chapter 6, there is section Individualized Health Care Plans -- pages 190 - 192. Worth every second it takes to read that as well.

http://books.google.com/books?id=F8JmObZT0gYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA190,M1


NO time today to put excerpts here, but will try to work on it next week.

THIS BOOK IS VERY, VERY HELPFUL.

Worth.every.nickel.

Posted: 06.03.2010 at 07:06:31     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My child has a 504 plan for multiple FAs. During a recent 504 meeting it was mentioned that the school will no longer do 504 plans for FAs. Also heard this from another staff member earlier in the year. Instead school will use medical plans for students with FAs.

I can't remember if principal asked us to get rid of 504, but DH thinks he did. I do recall me telling him "no way."

Can a 504 coordinator ask you to give up a 504 plan if it's already been determined child is eligible? 

---

Posted: 06.03.2010 at 08:43:14       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this a public school or a private school that recieves federal funds (like for a lunch program or something)? 

---

Posted: 06.03.2010 at 10:41:40       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the school will no longer do 504 plans for FAs


I didn't know that they could "decide" things like that...


that a particular medical diagnosis is NO LONGER going to be a qualifying condition, I mean.


Get it in writing-- I recommend an e-mail to meeting participants. Something along the lines of "I recently heard __________. Is this true? I was not aware that there was any list* of medical diagnoses which are either qualifying or not qualifying conditions. If there is such a list, can I request a copy?"

Then call OCR.   

* because any such "list" is VERY DEFINITELY a procedural violation with OCR. 

---

Posted: 06.03.2010 at 10:47:45       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Make sure that you take a look at this, too:

http://allergy.hyperboards.com/index.php?action=view_topic&topic_id=15530 

---

Posted: 06.03.2010 at 11:07:39       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

06.03.2010 at 10:41:40, CMdeux wrote:

Quote
the school will no longer do 504 plans for FAs


I didn't know that they could "decide" things like that...


that a particular medical diagnosis is NO LONGER going to be a qualifying condition, I mean.


Get it in writing-- I recommend an e-mail to meeting participants. Something along the lines of "I recently heard __________. Is this true? I was not aware that there was any list* of medical diagnoses which are either qualifying or not qualifying conditions. If there is such a list, can I request a copy?"

Then call OCR. 

* because any such "list" is VERY DEFINITELY a procedural violation with OCR.

Yep...what CM said. Get it in writing. Your child was deemed eligible and his/her medical condition has not changed, right? Still eligible regardless of what the school district would like to do. 

---

Posted: 06.03.2010 at 01:54:08       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a public school.

We weren't told they would take away the designation for our child, only that for future FA children, they will seek medical plans only.

CMduex, thanks for your comments. The link you posted is what triggered my question.

---

Posted: 06.03.2010 at 02:00:11       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me see something else....


I know that OCR specifically addresses this issue in their supporting materials, and the answer is that evaluations MUST be individual, and that determinations CANNOT be made on the basis of a medical diagnosis ("epilepsy" or "diabetes") alone.

Let me look.


Quote:

Quote
23. Are there any impairments which automatically mean that a student has a disability under Section 504?

No. An impairment in and of itself is not a disability. The impairment must substantially limit one or more major life activities in order to be considered a disability under Section 504.

24. Can a medical diagnosis suffice as an evaluation for the purpose of providing FAPE?

No. A physician's medical diagnosis may be considered among other sources in evaluating a student with an impairment or believed to have an impairment which substantially limits a major life activity. Other sources to be considered, along with the medical diagnosis, include aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social and cultural background, and adaptive behavior. As noted in FAQ 22, the Section 504 regulations require school districts to draw upon a variety of sources in interpreting evaluation data and making placement decisions.

Quote25. Does a medical diagnosis of an illness automatically mean a student can receive services under Section 504?

No. A medical diagnosis of an illness does not automatically mean a student can receive services under Section 504. The illness must cause a substantial limitation on the student's ability to learn or another major life activity. For example, a student who has a physical or mental impairment would not be considered a student in need of services under Section 504 if the impairment does not in any way limit the student's ability to learn or other major life activity, or only results in some minor limitation in that regard.

and also note:

Quote:

Quote
35. Is an impairment that is episodic or in remission a disability under Section 504?

Yes, under certain circumstances. In the Amendments Act (see FAQ 1), Congress clarified that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. A student with such an impairment is entitled to a free appropriate public education under Section 504.

and finally,

Quote:

Quote21. May school districts consider "mitigating measures" used by a student in determining whether the student has a disability under Section 504?

No. As of January 1, 2009, school districts, in determining whether a student has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that student in a major life activity, must not consider the ameliorating effects of any mitigating measures that student is using. This is a change from prior law. Before January 1, 2009, school districts had to consider a student's use of mitigating measures in determining whether that student had a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited that student in a major life activity. In the Amendments Act (see FAQ 1), however, Congress specified that the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures must not be considered in determining if a person is an individual with a disability.

Congress did not define the term "mitigating measures" but rather provided a non-exhaustive list of "mitigating measures." The mitigating measures are as follows: medication; medical supplies, equipment or appliances; low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses); prosthetics (including limbs and devices); hearing aids and cochlear implants or other implantable hearing devices; mobility devices; oxygen therapy equipment and supplies; use of assistive technology; reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services; and learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications.

Congress created one exception to the mitigating measures analysis. The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered in determining if an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. "Ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses" are lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error, whereas "low-vision devices" (listed above) are devices that magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual image.

So I'm not sure on what basis they are unilaterally deciding that they WILL NOT consider potential for anaphylaxis to be "not limiting enough." (Whole 'nother rant, that one... I mean, just how much ore "impaired" can a person become than cardiac arrest, hmmm?  ) But I'm betting that OCR will disagree with their apparent decision to REFUSE EVALUATIONS under section 504 based solely upon their preconceptions regarding any particular medical diagnosis.

That, too, is verboten: