Way to go!!

No quoting thanks.

We have a 504. !!!

Still processing the road that it took to get there. At the final meeting many things said that DH and I are still in disbelief.

Folks who are in charge of the process offered only a blank form with no proposed route for LTFA. "see does not really apply to your condition". We supplied our own list of accommodations. It was proposed that DS to be excluded from unsafe activities such as field trips and labs with no penalties. At one point when discussing the studies showing bullying and LTFA, there was the comment made that if one made a "big deal" about LTFA that action is what made the child a target.

In the end, we have a 504 that focuses on inclusion.

Now, I've followed up with a friend, who sadly went through the same process for their kid a few years ago. No plan for LTFA from SD, done entirely off of their list. But once the plan is obtained, it has been easier for them. Wish I had known about their experience a month ago instead of today.

There is the thought of following up with OCR as obviously the SD is aware of many kids with LTFA and LAMPs. Although just a handful of kids are covered either because of being lucky to have a well trained counselor (different for each school) or the parents pursued, pursued, pursued. From the multiple decisions posted here, schools are responsible for identifying LTFA and following up with a 504, not the parents demanding one. And for the 2012 case at Virginia City--the decision was clear--the SD knew it had multiple kids needing LAMPs and the SD should have done 504s. Here's a timeline for coming into compliance.

*edited for brevity* Basically, here's another program in need of greater allergy awareness. Just thought I would not be facing this in 2013.

^ what she said.

I even went so far as to "encourage" others in meetings to "call OCR themselves for technical advice."

I call this the "nothing to hide/nothing to lose" move.

It says that you KNOW that you're right.

I suspect that you may get "why do you need a 504/what MORE do you want?"  So you may want to be prepared to counter that with "he qualifies" (with a puzzled expression) and that you're puzzled as to why they WOULDN'T want to write this in a formal document as a 504 plan...

...you seem really insistent.. Lol. Water and rocks. Water and rocks. And you've been dripping on them effectively!

Yeah, the OCR process can take forever. However, calling to chat with them can be helpful for you. For me, my Sped Dir knew I contacted them and had no qualms over filing a complaint if the school didn't obey the law. That helped our case.  We've had flub ups over the years, but intentions have been food overall (and thanks to the 504 and the good people at the school).

I'm excited your situation has improved!

Two items specifically to back pocket right now. Both are based on the paraphrased response from your school administration. ajasfolks linked earlier to a document from OCR finding that a school district failed its duty to provide due process to children with LTFA. Read it. Print out a copy highlighted with relevant paragraph regarding district's obligation to identify students who are in need of a 504 to fully provide FAPE.

Second is the most current letter reminding school staff it may not intimidate, nor retaliate, et cetera, for invoking 504 or filing a complaint with OCR.

It's a little more troubling than before that they are ignoring their duty and in its stead placing it as your insistence that due process take place. Macabre will have the full bureaucratic breadcrumb trail to follow--don't let up. But at the same time--watch your back.

Macabre, lakeswimr, CMdeux--sorry for the lack of posting. Meeting was postponed and I needed to recharge.

Latest update is that DH wrote a response citing OCR 504 faq. Which apparently had not been encountered before by the district. Got a response. Which postponed meeting. Have tentative verbal, "that's not how we do things, but we might write one since you seem really insistent".

Meanwhile, if I wanted all 504 items we wanted to address to play out before the meeting, short of dealing with the plan post-reaction, we're getting them. All scenarios I wanted in the 504 are just rolling out, one after the next. Currently, we're just working with the teachers who are fantastic. But I still want it as teachers can go on sick leave, omissions can happen, and written plans are just easier for all to understand. It is less effort for all parties once it is established. We have so many years of knowing just what can go wrong and how quickly. Just makes us more resolved to seek a written plan.

The extended weekend we will be creating what we want in a 504 based other states and DS's condition (age, level of response, maturity). Silly us, given 504 Plan recommendations for LTFA are just everywhere--including PARADE magazine two Sundays ago, we thought it would be a simple procedure and we'd craft it together. Instead, we will slowly read and digest your amazing post Macabre and address that in our material. Thank you so much for all the links.

I did not know the speed of OCR. I had the wrong impression that children would age out of the school before addressed.

Tigerlily, I would suggest you do this (and I know you've done much of this already, if not all of it), but for the win:
--Write one more time. Make this a letter of understanding and a request for an eligibility meeting.  Copy the Special Education Director.

--If they have given you a written notice that your child is not eligible for a 504, note the date of the letter and quote the text where they said it. And attach a copy of the letter to this.  If they did not give this information to you in writing, note the date they said it to you, who said it, and where (at the school, over the phone, etc.). 

--In the letter, again request an eligibility meeting (may be called a Child Find meeting in certain states). Note the district's policy.  Note briefly that the ADAAA pertains to persons with Life Threatening Food Allergies (but do be familiar with it and how it pertains before the meeting),

--Ask that certain people be present at the meeting, including the Sped Director.

--Tell them you will submit the materials you want them to consider a week in advance (or, go ahead and attach them with the letter--that's what I would probably do).


OR --an alternate case:

--Call your Sped Director and talk with him or her about the district's policy.  And then talk about your school.  And say that you would like another eligibility meeting and would like for him or her to attend. 

--Then do the above stuff. 

Either course, I would call OCR as soon as possible to tell them what the school has done.  It doesn't hurt to talk with them--especially if your district office is in DC--that one is great.  But I would not file until you've tried one more time and have involved the Sped Dir.

If trying to get another meeting doesn't work, I'd file a formal complaint against the school with OCR or get an attorney.  I would try the stuff above before doing either of those things. 

Later this weekend I'll mention some threads with OCR cases that are relevant (though an OCR case is just that--one case.  It doesn't exactly set case precedent, but I was certainly able to use Gloucester that way--and it was helpful because my school was in Virginia and so was Gloucester. But Gloucester has been helpful around the country.) There are some OCR threads one the first two Schools pages that you could look at.

Engaging the Sped Director made all the difference for us.  I've outlined what our situation was below. Our Sped Director became my son's greatest ally.  That might not be the case for every district, but your Sped Director knows district policy and federal law--which your school is choosing to ignore. 

This article on an allergist's web site is wonderful as a resource:
http://www.acaai.org/allergist/Resources/letters/Pages/SchoolAccommodationsforFoodAllergicStudents.aspx


Here's my thread on the previous board in case it's helpful in any way.

Memorable moments from 504 Eligibility meeting


1st Eligibility meeting (what they termed the Child Find Meeting where they found my child inelegible for a 504, btw): I had a fab packet in which I laid out the law for them and why DS qualifies (I have listed the details in other threads--and you're welcome to steal whatever you find useful and applies), but we did not give it to folks until we sat down for our meeting. The committee had NO.CLUE about the law. The school psychologist made statements about the law, and I corrected her. It was like a tennis match. I told her, "You are wrong. That is not the law. See this . . . ." I was prepared. I knew my stuff.

At that first meeting, there was a vote--and they all voted that DS is not eligible that day.

I went home and called OCR and talked with them.  They affirmed what the school did was wrong. 

I then called our Special Education Director.  He was not at that first meeting, and the principal had called him, too.  He told me to call OCR if I wanted (I already had, and I had told him so), but asked us not to file a complaint until we can hold a real eligibility meeting (he probably used the word "another" instead of "real.").

The Real Eligibility Meeting
Before that meeting he asked me to have all the materials I wanted the committee to consider a week in advance. They made the copies (which was way better than our making the copies, like we did for the first meeting). They had ample opportunity to look at my materials. I presented them a watertight case.

It was at that meeting that he looked at our request (our "case statement"), asked what Major Life Activities (I had presented four; the Sped Director brought up), said he thought DS was eligible. Then the vote happened again--with the same people pretty much (now cafeteria manager was added), and this time we were not the only ones who said he qualified. In fact, no one said he didn't.


Here's a list of what I included (it would include different things now, including the new ADAAA and other new things). You may or may not need to
http://allergy.hyperboards.com/?action=view_topic&topic_id=11472&start=1

By "case statement" I'm referring to the document I created outlining the law for them and exactly why my son qualified (and again, it would be different today).  Here's the link to it here: http://foodallergysupport.olicentral.com/index.php?action=page;sa=504_CaseStatement1 
But here's a link there that is continuous and easier to read I think:  http://allergy.hyperboards.com/index.php?action=view_topic&topic_id=11848&start=1

Food Allergies and 504 Plans

Food allergies are a hidden disability that are episodic and can affect major life activities such as breathing and self-care.

The U.S. Department of Education's website   http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html
States, ' To be protected under Section 504, a student must be determined to: (1) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (major life activity = breathing)...'

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.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008, 'emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis. '  (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website:  http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statues/ )

The Wright's Law website discusses a case where Gloucester County Public Schools denied a child with life threatening food allergies a 504 because it felt the child did not have a disability and was not eligible.  The family filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights and the OCR found in favor of the family that the district had been wrong to deny the 504 for life threatening food allergies.             (Wright's Law website:  http://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/?p=58 )

Oh, I'm not shy about that.  Mac knows that my cat avatar is for a good reason.   

I'm betting on some 504 nuggety goodness we can use. Saves me from being super nosy by asking.

Oh no.

(I'm sincerely hoping only as a fervent cheerleader and not as a playa, so to speak.)

I will come back this evening to contribute to this thread.

New thread here.  Read the whole document.

Take heart.   

OCR - Virginia Beach City Schools 2012

Highly suggest the OCR process -- if you are fortunate enough to have the DC office as your regional OCR office, their track record is seemingly good so far as LTFA students' rights complaints . . .

We're going through our own version of foot dragging on accommodations. Having come from a lengthy discourse with a very accomplished lawyer specializing in disability and education law last month I've opted to do similarly as you're doing now, tigerlily. I feel the resource materials from FARE, NSBA are perhaps even more progressive than attorneys who have an established a la carte menu for 504. Beware of the 'Lets Make a Deal' attorney whose strategy is stuck in 1990.

When I would pull in a lawyer, possibly the one I talked to, is finding myself red-zoned with the SD and it starts costing me time for my own continuing education, or I need to free up for being a mom.