Quote from: CMdeux on August 15, 2012, 10:45:36 PM
:sigh:

Quote
A ban can create a false sense of security

Seriously??     Are they STILL misusing and abusing FAAN/AMF's quote made back a decade ago??

A new blog post on an old topic:

"Misquoted And Misunderstood: Peanut Bans In Schools And A False Sense Of Security"
http://blog.onespotallergy.com/2014/01/misquoted-and-misunderstood-peanut-bans-in-schools-and-a-false-sense-of-security/

QuoteI was very interested to learn that in 1999, Ms. Munoz Furlong received a $14,000.00 grant from The Peanut Foundation, which is the research arm of the American Peanut Council.

Quote
Here are the grant particulars:

QuoteThe decision makers and parents should also be educated that bans do not work.

Same story-- different year...

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

Also, I'll put this here ...

"Are Food Allergy Bans Even Protective?"
http://foodallergybitch.blogspot.com/2012/08/are-food-allergy-bans-even-protective.html

QuoteThe sad part of all of this is that, probably at least in part due to the phobia and overreaction of parents who did not need this level of protection, we now have a strong policy statement from the NASN. It's going to make it a LOT harder for the kids who really could benefit from a ban to get one.

I've had a first round draft of my letter for a while but I need to make it less cease and desist and more helping them towards compliance. I'd like to use the following excerpts from Mystic Valley. Team Anaphylaxis' letter is impeccable but I'd like to head on challenge their citation, point to their bias and counter their outdated use of false sense of security.

QuoteDr. Biegler testified that Mystic Valley feared an increase in liability by imposing a ban. (Testimony of Dr. Biegler) He explained that if said policy were in place the staff would have a false sense of security and would fail to act as diligently as they would without the ban. This argument is not persuasive first, because the Parents never argued that this ban should be implemented to the exclusion of any other accommodation which is already in place (eg., teacher checking students' lunches and snacks daily, sanitation protocols). Those accommodations should stay in place. Second, this charter school imposes numerous other additional bans regarding food, dress code, make-up, hair style, personal appearance, body piercing, jewelry, weapons, drugs, smoking, etc. For an infraction on each of these, the student's handbook states a consequence. (PE-24; Testimony of Ms. Kinnon, Mr. Biegler) Dr. Biegler testified that for the most part, parents and students comply with the school rules and that the most common infraction has to do with food. Dr. Biegler stated that "if you have a ban there will be violations" (Testimony of Dr. Biegler) While infractions may occur, Mystic Valley's own experience shows that having a policy in place is a deterrent and that more often than not students and parents follow its strict policies. Also, as is the case now, if a student brings a forbidden food item it is taken away and the student is offered the alternate lunch.
The evidence shows that personal agendas may have gotten in the way of Mystic Valley's administration's better judgment. (See testimony of Ms. Kinnon, Ms. McKinnon, Dr. Biegler) Mystic Valley does not have the best track record in avoiding accidents that could have had a tragic outcome; incidents like the distribution of M&Ms in the bus, not checking a child's snack containing a peanut product before the child began to eat it in the classroom are some examples. Mystic Valley has been fortunate in avoiding having to address a life-threatening situation involving Student, but a child's life cannot depend on fortuitous events when the inconvenience of the alternative could significantly decrease the life- threatening risks to a student.

Since Mystic Valley failed to introduce substantial evidence with respect to the costs or other burden of implementing the peanut/tree nut free classroom for Student, there is no basis to conclude that the accommodation sought by Parents imposes an undue hardship on Mystic Valley. Moreover, Student did show that he requires the aforementioned accommodation and that it can be provided. I find that Student met his burden but Mystic Valley did not meet its burden to show that the accommodation would cause it undue hardship. See Garcia-Ayala v. Lederle Perenterals, Inc., No. 98-2291 (1st Cir. 5/18/00) cited in In re: Worcester, at 26, 27. 

QuoteOrder:
Mystic Valley Regional Charter School shall implement the following accommodations under Student's 504 Plan:

1. No peanut/tree nut products are allowed in Student's classroom.

2. All other accommodations accepted by Parents shall continue to be implemented.

3. Child must have access to all classroom activities such as the celebration of the Chinese New Year, accommodated accordingly ie., no restaurant prepared food, food preparation not to include peanut oil, etc.

4. Letter to parents of classmates must describe Student as a child that has a "life-threatening allergy" not a "severe reaction" which is misleading. Provide an informational session to Parents and additional training to staff timely.
5. Provide an orientation to Student' s classmates regarding Student' s life-threatening peanut/tree nut allergy. So Ordered by the Hearing Officer, 

Now might be the best window of opprtunity for other complementary letters of concern to
follow their momentum.

It's at Team Anaphylaxis' website.  One of their members got link to me via Facebook.

Above letter is excellent - where did you find it?

I see that this is what Team Anaphylaxis has sent to NASN:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0ZWFtYW5hcGh5bGF4aXN8Z3g6M2JkNGU4Yjc2NzJhMTBkNQ

.

TwinTurbo . . . u make me smile . . . or is it U make my Prop Rotate?

Thank you.

~ ~ ~

I'm just so bleeping  sick of the SH** that pretends to be "fabulous" policy .  .  . that I don't even want to engage anymore.


I know.  I know.

THAT is exactly what


THEY want.


~e,
need to recharge

AND NEED OTHERS TO RECOGNIZE THE sh** FOR WHAT IT IS

AND

TO ENGAGE!!!

It is a trade mag from a private publisher LRP Publications. Which means it's time to write a letter to NASN regarding the use of this citation in their position statement. I will probably petition them to either retract or include a statement that their position in no way overwrites federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on disability. In other words a little light trolling via email.

But LRP Publications website is worth a look under the "Education" section it's Education Administration and Law, subdivisions of special education, SD attorneys, legal issues educating students with disabilities. There's their lrpinstitute site as well. Why would we all want to take a look? Because their materials are being used as if it comes from the regulating body they are interpreting privately b2b.

While drafting a letter using DOE OCR Section 504 info and reviewing Mystic Valley it occurred to me that HHS OCR has jurisdiction over medical institutions.

It appeared so to me, TT.  I looked when I first ran through this one.  I could NOT find a non-subscription source, nor was it a citation used anywhere but here and in other school nursing venues.  Ergo, my interpretation of that is that it is likely to be industry-associated, yes.  That probably also means that the biases common in that industry (school nursing and school administration) are likely to be reinforced by that particular publication.

Quote from: Mfamom on August 16, 2012, 10:17:33 AM
I also hate the statements about "learning to live in a world full of your allergens".  Need to navagate life statements etc.
Different at school because you have to be there, options outside of school include non attendance etc.  I think this statement along with the false sense of security statements are total spineless copouts.

It certainly has no clinical relavence. My phone is uncooperative at the moment but I was trying to search for that excerpt in the citations from "Section 504 Complance Advisor" does anyone know if that is some sort of industry journal? I'd like to source that directly.

Found info that it's a private publication newsletter from LRP Publications. Will update as I find more. Plan on rectifying it if I can maybe forward it to OCR.

This is really bothersome.

I do think we should write to NASN.  The parent is actually the expert on that child's food allergy management.  Parents do focus on PREVENTION, not just treatment, which is the focus of nurses.

Remove food from the classroom and most of these problems are a non-issue. 

Nurses are totally underestimating the stress on the child of being around his allergens in a classroom, a place where the child should be able to learn safely and inclusively.

I do think we need to separate the *real* risks from those that are not significant....peanuts/nuts account for most (90%+) reactions in schools.  Spillable milk also significant concern for person with anaphylactic dairy allergy....otherwise no one will listen. 

Really think we should be writing to NASN or FAAN/FAI to address this.

Quote from: Momcat on August 17, 2012, 01:53:44 PM
Think they'd listen to us?

http://www.nasn.org/AboutNASN/ContactUs

No.  I don't.

The reason is that there is language in this statement that is (deliberately, I should think) indicative that parents are, by definition, rather 'emotionally invested' to a degree that prevents any FA parent from objectively evaluating risk.

In other words, that parents are not "experts" in management (by definition) because they are parents.  The reason that planning needs to include them is to make them FEEL more comfortable, and to make sure that the school gains their cooperation. 



Until NASN begins to understand that its members would be well-advised to LEARN about management quirks from the parents, because those parents are quite often experts in that particular child's medical management by the time schools see those children...


well, I don't think that anything that a group of parents says to them is going to get through this kind of hubris, honestly.  I hate to sound bitter, but there it is.

While I think there doesn't need to be a blanket answer to not removing allergens from the classroom, nor do I think all classrooms need to have removal of all allergens.  This truly needs to be a case by case basis. 

Okay fine, my son can have gluten and egg containing snacks in his class.  But at the same time, I am not crazy about him touching those items to graph with and frankly cooking in class using wheat is a personal nightmare.  Yes, real world.  I get that.  My DS has to wear a mask if we are going to be in our grocery store buying produce because of the location of the bakery.  Do you think he wants to do that in the classroom or is it better he just be asked to leave (which is what the preschool teacher asked us to do for the pancake making lesson).  Neither is exactly inclusive.  But my point is - there are no clear cut rules for any of us dealing with allergens in the classroom. 

Quote from: Momcat on August 17, 2012, 01:53:44 PM
Think they'd listen to us?

http://www.nasn.org/AboutNASN/ContactUs

We can always try.

Needs to be from UNemotional stance -- facts, studies, evidence of bans making things better/safer . . . anecdotal experiences (so far as more emotional situations) might be best separately?

This should be about the WHOLE child . . . and the WHOLE learning environment!