Necessary and Appropriate . . . the FACTS, policies, procedures

[twinturbo]

The reflexive answer from schools tends to be about supposed fairness to other kids. Note I am not endorsing that merely posing that all too common response. Any persons have a solid, to-the-point response they like to use in this situation? My brain is stuck in first gear. Possibly neutral or reverse.

[ajasfolks2]

Related -- DUTY OF CARE

Special thanks to somebody -- 

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/teachers_and_schools/teachers_duty_of_care.html

[ajasfolks2]

More and more it seems that schools / districts are DEMANDING that the physician's letter plainly state,

"These accommodations for [child's name] are necessary and appropriate for the safe inclusion of [child's name] in school activities" 


I might suggest adding/modifying as follows:

"At a minimum, these accommodations for [child's name] follow best practices and are necessary and appropriate for the safe inclusion -- physical as well as emotional safety -- of [child's name] in ALL school activities."



Thoughts, suggestions, experiences to share?

[rainbow]

That wording is good. i can't see an Allergist objecting to writing that...and it puts it in schools own language. 
You said schools are requiring this - did schools that you know of suggest this actual wording, or is this your inference?

[CMdeux]

Terminology (from a USDA slide show for an Oregon foodbank link =
http://www.slideserve.com/presentation/71112/USDA-Civil-Rights-Training  )

Differential treatment

Disparate treatment

Disparate impact or discriminatory impact = discrimination that is not intentional but has that effect; rule, policy, or practice that may be neutral on its surfacebut impacts a protected class disproportionately

Reprisal/Retaliation = negative treatment of someone because he/she filed a complaint or complained about discrimination; retaliation could involve denial of service, harassment, intimidation, etc.; retaliatory behavior can result in finding of discriminatory retaliation even if the original complaint filed by the individual is baseless.

This is something that is federal agency speak.  Seriously-- when I spoke with DOJ regarding our <ahem> swimming situation, I was strongly encouraged to file with DOJ because it was a clear instance of a failure to change "practices, policies, and procedures" which were discriminatory-- and that while it was not inherently illegal to maintain such PPP as an organization, the refusal to alter them in the face of a clear case of exclusion of a QID was (and presumably, "is").

Make sense?

Now, yes, the burden of proof still rests with the individual to demonstrate that the PPP are inadequate to permit inclusion.  But don't worry there, since most of these organizations are MORE than willing to give a person an endless number of examples of both exclusion and even of undue burden from which to draw...

"sit in the special seat."
"just don't participate in..."
"have you sit this part out..."
"go down to the ________ office instead..."
"have your mom or dad provide you with...."
"wipe down your own equipment..."
"provide your own equipment..."

And believe me, if DOJ has a problem with this in the context of ADA, you'd better BELIEVE that it's a problem in the context of 504, which is far more stringent (no "reasonable" provision).

[ajasfolks2]

"provide your own equipment" in the context of LTFA equates to the requirement that the student/parent "provide your own food"  (for any event that is school sponsored and/or school sanctioned) where the school or other entity is providing the food for everybody else . . .

[ajasfolks2]

rainbow --

yes, getting this type of "exact wording" requirement from some schools/districts and ONLY will take it from the physician before they will even consider that accommodation . . . of course, this seems often to apply ONLY to the accommodations that the school doesn't want to mess with or grant.

One more hoop and such bs.

This is being requested by schools/districts even in the face of strong allergist's letter that includes statement, "I consider [child's parents] to be experts in managing this condition."

In some instances, this is a square filler for them -- they want it in writing from attending physician as part of their documentation . . . but in many other instances it is more stalling tactic in order to deny accommodations so that they don't have to grant them.  They want to wear out the parents and get parents to capitulate.

Plus, of course, each time parents have to go back to the doctor it costs the family more money $ and precious time.