Parent challenges student's 504 accommodation

[twinturbo]

I have not read this in full yet but it may be worthy to store in the FAS arsenal. Once again cites "reasonable" does not apply to primary and secondary schools.

Parent challenges student's 504 accommodations. Court upholds 504.

[CMdeux]

That's.... both...

incredibly useful and gratifying to read, on the one hand (because the appellate court opinion basically leaves out ONLY "and really, you ought to be ashamed of your sorry, petty little self")...

but also downright horrifying in that there is SO much identifying information in that document.  OMG.  SO much private medical history stated.

All because some cupcake queen with a Mega-b****-of-the-Year certification went postal, or something close to it.

[CMdeux]

Oh yeah-- love the part where "equal rights" under the law aren't "special rights."

Only those that are sort of automatically afforded to those more fortunate than those in protected classes seem to garner automatically.

[lakeswimr]

What a mean-spirited person!  Wow!  Glad she lost.

[twinturbo]

Since ajas always surprise-tweets things like this I'll have to refrain from the metaphor that comes to mind.

P.S. Since this was an appeal she actually lost twice.
P.P.S. School district doing the right thing-- All of us here know how you went to the mat to make sure that kid had access to an education equal to his peers.

[ajasfolks2]

@ TT -- LOL!  Ajasfolks2 may not be the only Tweeter from here, however . . .   

[eggallergymom]

Thanks for sharing this--I am happy to see this, since my kid was the first to have a 504 for food allergies in our district. There is a very vocal pro-cupcake faction, though they haven't gone to these lengths yet.

[ajasfolks2]

IMHO, one of the biggest "take aways" here is that it is a matter of public record and RULING that there is no "right to a single <name your food>" . . . esp WRT child with LTFA vs jenny-q-student  . . .

MANY of us beat our heads against the brick wall of ignorance when some staff or parent claims a "right" to a particular food for lunch/snack at school . . . and we try (though proves to be futile) to EDUCATE people as to legal definition of "right" . . . vs. "desire" or "privilege" . . .

Loved the use of "inconvenience" in this ruling as referring to the non-LTFA parents and students . . .

Just some random musings.

But, yes, I did a frigging DOUBLE FIST PUMP when I read the ruling.

Need a dbl-fist-pump emoticon, TYVM!

[ajasfolks2]

Related story:

http://www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2013/08/food_allergies_a_silent_disabi.html