Another bump . . . parents trying to enroll for Kindergarten in fall & being stiff-armed and told a 504 is "not necessary" . . . thought they should read this thread and others related to it.

bump for fall & all those parents getting the 504-runaround.

Thanks for bumping this. I could have used this with the whole home ec issue.

Another bump to be sure this thread does not get missed.


Also, including link to our Stinky's thread as to "an IHP will do" vs 504 --
DO NOT MISS THIS THREAD!!!
He doesn't need a 504 - an IHP will act as his 504

Bumping for some who may want to read whole thread.

Just noting the similar OCR Memphis statement.

OCR Compliance Review: Referral for 504 Eval if IHCP

 

So our tweet about this:

@FASupport
OCR VA Beach ruling: school knew of peanut allergies, so why don't these kids have 504 plans? http://ow.ly/22gkj4  Another win! HUGE!


And we'll do more tweets about it--with varied language.

Absolutely my pleasure!!      

Thank you Ajasfolks2!! 

I guess it depends on the form. Our basic form doesn't have LTFA on it, but other forms do. The Emergency Action Plan, the form for DS self-carrying Epi, the medication form for nurse's office--they all indicate a life threatening food allergy.

Forms like that definitely tell the school that information. I'm guessing that's how the VB school knew, too.

In your opinion, would the annual school district enrollment forms serve as a basis for identification of students potentially eligible for a 504 plan. 

An attorney at OCR is a fed. We all FASers tend to reference and interact with the fed. In comparison with private attorneys in ADA/education I find a couple of universal traits that create a crucial divide in perspective. First is that they interact far more with school districts even though they represent parents so IMHO they get stuck in the system as it exists from the SD's perspective. Second, a good portion of their experience is first hand as parents at odds with their children's SD so there's some sort of axe to grind. There's also a legal divider between 504 and IDEA regarding the Child Find Mandate which seems to be a rather powerful tool where applicable.

In my dream of dreams my ideal private attorney would probably be one who used to work for OCR.

And THIS!!!


Just a gold mine!!

(Color added for emphasis)

Quote
OCR interprets the above provisions to require that public school divisions take steps that are necessary to ensure that the school environment for students with disabilities is as safe as the environment for students without disabilities.  As the vast majority of students without disabilities do not face a significant possibility of experiencing serious and even life-threatening reactions to their environment while they attend school, Section 504 and Title II require that the Division provide students with peanut and/or tree nut allergy (PTA) – related disabilities with a medically safe environment in which they do not face such a significant possibility.  Indeed, without the assurance of a safe environment, students with PTA-related disabilities might even be precluded from attending school, i.e., may be denied access to the educational program.

To provide students with PTA-related disabilities with FAPE and meet the standards referred to above, the Division must have a plan to meet those students' needs that is based on individualized consideration of their needs.  A plan that meets the students' needs should take into account procedures that limit or prevent the risk of exposure to the allergens in each type of school program or activity in which students participate, including in classrooms and common areas, the gymnasium, cafeteria, and hallways, and during recess, extracurricular activities, field trips, and school-related activities.   The plans should also set out procedures to follow when the students are exposed to allergens.

My pleasure to get this up for all to see, read, download, share . . .

The OCR attorney has interesting background.  Google her.