If I was that awesome at advocacy I'd have our school under control--I don't.

Right. "Duty of Care".

Which should include things like not passing out unsafe food in classrooms with students with anaphylactic allergies to such food, under the guise of a "reward".

Excellent points about Free Will in the Real World....vs. "babyish" plans in the K-12 world where kids are subjected to rules of personnel that don't necessarily understand LTFA or have the motivation to have safe procedures in place, and/or allow students the autonomy to handle themselves in a safer manner when a situation arises.

And the idea of "food rewards" in high school is not only "babyish", it also is proven to have a negative impact on intrinsic motivation (as you said) and even our "elementary" school principal got that one.

I think TT has a calling as a FA advocate.   I'd hire her! 

QuoteSelf-management requiring liberty to move at will, question at will, require answers upon demand when necessary, work with staff on a more equal basis, have unfettered access to two-way communication (cell phone), credibility when citin medical difficulties if they interfere with assignment completion, request an alteration when needed to facilitate participation, what did I miss?

Not a thing, as far as I can tell. 

That's the ticket, all right.  And it's precisely how I fight fire with fire on this score.

"Real world?"
 

GREAT.  My daughter has veto authority as it pertains to her safety, and she also gets immunity from YOU for exercising it.     SO glad that we can agree...


Usually makes administrators go-->    , but they know that they've lost at that point, because anything to the contrary is unsupportably irrational.  Either the duty of care belongs with the school... or... it doesn't.  It belongs to SOMEONE, at any rate. 

So, along that vein either requires a 504 designation in order to have the accomodations in place either enabled, supported, comprehensive autonomy supervised by parent and other responsible adults, or the preexisting plan. But while it's a great mental exercise (for me at any rate) I think what DH calls he cupcake mafia wants is no accomdations because it inconviences them. And as far as examining the "real world" argument goes if an administration is citing real world without real autonomy that actually requires as many accomodations as "babyish" plans then it wouldn't support a real world assertion towards fostering self-management. Self-management requiring liberty to move at will, question at will, require answers upon demand when necessary, work with staff on a more equal basis, have unfettered access to two-way communication (cell phone), credibility when citin medical difficulties if they interfere with assignment completion, request an alteration when needed to facilitate participation, what did I miss?

I know universities can handle this. Can a K-12 handle this?

Exactly.

I won't EVER hand over the authority to make decisions about FA or anaphylaxis to anyone that doesn't understand it.  I seldom am willing with anyone other than my DD herself.  HER, I trust.  School officials?  Not on your, er-- or rather "her" life. 

EVERY situation that she is in, she must have that authority.  Her.  NO adult can have veto power over her there.  If she abuses that, then that is a separate behavioral issue.  But this is about the bedrock of a lifetime management strategy.  NOT negotiable.

And yeah, that was my point about food rewards-- not only are they infantile... they are actually counterproductive if they are serving as an "extrinsic" motivator, plus they are clearly punitive to FA children (and like to diabetic ones as well), since they provoke isolation, shame, and fear as a result of meeting said goal or objective.

From an operant conditioning standpoint, food rewards are ABSOLUTELY verboten in this situation, and it has nothing to do with 'the real world' so much as it has to do with fostering learning without actively damaging any student's intrinsic motivation to learn.

That could be a win-win alternative taking a page from the school's own handbook - autonomy, on the record autonomy that the school supports with positive consistency through action not lipservice. In a way that is how we *have* to do it through private school without Title II protections. Long story I don't want to clutter this thread with but that's where DH & I decided to go. Not ALL DS1's responsibility of course but I guess when it comes to trusting an individual I simply don't trust any school generally speaking.

From my perspective coddle or fend for self is a false dichotomy, a school might want a student to take personal responsibilty for management as much as possible but if they refuse to provide an environment that truly fosters self-management without glaring ADAA violations not to mention risk to life then what they are saying really is they don't want to be inconvenienced with prevention measures whether performed on the staff side or largely by the affected student.

CM, your points are good but it doesn't diminish the fact that the school staff was bullying the parent with those terms, with the goal of removing 504 or reducing accomodations.

Food rewards are way behind the times.

And there should always be emergency protocol for anaphylaxis, and I'm not convinced most High schools even have this...because when asked, bet they don't really have proper procedures down (ie, many teachers would send a kid having a reaction to the nurse alone).

A child in my kid's 5th grade class was BEGGING to go to the nurse becuase she felt sick the other day. Yes, it was during a test and the teacher (who is known to be difficult) repeatedly refused, to the point it was distracting all students in the classroom during the test (the girl was then crying).  However, who was teacher (that she sees twice a week for 1 hour) to say that she didn't have a legitimate need (said a stomach ache)?  This is how teachers will treat our kids - like "regular ones" if they don't know of the condition as per the 504.

Well, okay.... I'm merely playing devil's advocate here, but I can see the value in leaving more and more of the day-to-day avoidance and decision-making in our kids' hands at this stage.

I base what I ask for from the school on what we're (and our physician is) comfortable with in terms of day to day management.  That is, we do allow (encourage?) our DD13 to go to the movies, visit local coffeeshops, etc. without us in tow, and WITHOUT controlling the food FOR her...

Like Mac's son, this has been miraculous for her socially.  I can't possibly overstate it, truly.  On the other hand, it's more than occasionally terrifying for us as parents.  But so far, she's managed very very well.  She is pretty much never without one or more friends that knows about her allergies-- and several of those friends have asthma.

As long as autonomy is being HANDED OVER to the allergic adolescent, then I have less problem making the 504 plan more "real-world-like."

Where I have a problem with this in a school setting is, as noted above, when the student is FORCED to remain in a situation which is:  a) uncomfortable, and/or b) overtly dangerous.  We hand over control and let DD venture places that we'd NEVER have taken her four years ago-- but the reason is that SHE is in control of herself and she has carte blanche for managing.  She can (and has) gotten up and left, or opted out completely, when a situation seems unsafe to her.

I also have a BIG problem with food rewards-- because for our kids, that directly inverts the external motivator and makes it punishment for doing a task/activity.  PUNISHMENT.  That's actively damaging to kids that see it that way.  If it isn't, then there's no point in offering it as a 'reward' to any kids, since it's not really a "reward."  KWIM?  If it is a 'reward' for those who get it, then it's PUNISHMENT for kids who find it a hazard rather than a pleasant thing.  That is just such simple operant conditioning that it boggles my mind that ANY educator could possibly fail to note it.

Secondly, extrinsic motivators have been shown, in adolescents and adults, to be PARADOXICAL.  That is, tasks associated with rewards become LESS intrinsically rewarding, LESS appealing, and less competently accomplished.  There's research on this effect, by the way.  I'd use it.  For kids with developmental delays, fine.  For adolescents without them-- not so fine.

I'd just like to know if OCR realizes how the families of children with LTFA are getting bullied out of 504's by schools.

Like here, with the terms "big boy" and "babyish" and "real world". 

Putting this link here, not just as it relates to current news of ana reax in HS, but ALSO as it states "student came into clinic" . . . when the EPI should have been co-located with the student AND the student should had had nurse/aid COME TO HIM.

http://pwcs.edu/modules/news/announcements/announcement.phtml?aid=3120409&share=pwcsnews


also, from link within that briefing:

http://pwcs.schoolfusion.us/modules/news/announcements/announcement.phtml?aid=3088687

Quote from: twinturbo on October 19, 2012, 07:18:33 AM
There's no way I could armchair jockey a stonewalled administration digging its heels in even further, but, short of stifling the urge to help their faces meet the table I'd also have the urge to acknowledge the bs with a Neil Degrasse Tyson meme shrug and say

Alrighty, you got me. You're denying accomodations. But since this is a public school and we're within the 504 process without using pet buzzwords "big boy" and "real world" I am requesting on October 18, 2012 10:34 am to have a clear and precise explanation within the framework of FAPE, Section 504, Title II ADAA, and your job descriptions why these accomodations are being denied. I contend that the requested accomodations do not constitute undue burdens and do not in any way change the fundamental nature of any program.

I expect this answer in writing and in full compliance with above mentioned regulations adhering to 504 procedural safeguards.

Having said that, if they did indeed have a solid reply one would have to remain open minded about it to at least hear them out.

Thing of beauty, this!

Not just for moral support, but the opening quote from the original thread (old place, but I copied into our thread too) may resonate as well:

Quotes to live by

There's no way I could armchair jockey a stonewalled administration digging its heels in even further, but, short of stifling the urge to help their faces meet the table I'd also have the urge to acknowledge the bs with a Neil Degrasse Tyson meme shrug and say

Alrighty, you got me. You're denying accomodations. But since this is a public school and we're within the 504 process without using pet buzzwords "big boy" and "real world" I am requesting on October 18, 2012 10:34 am to have a clear and precise explanation within the framework of FAPE, Section 504, Title II ADAA, and your job descriptions why these accomodations are being denied. I contend that the requested accomodations do not constitute undue burdens and do not in any way change the fundamental nature of any program.

I expect this answer in writing and in full compliance with above mentioned regulations adhering to 504 procedural safeguards.

Having said that, if they did indeed have a solid reply one would have to remain open minded about it to at least hear them out.

Hearing "Duty of Care" in my head as I continue to mull this thread . . .