NASN new position statement

[CMdeux]

It appeared so to me, TT.  I looked when I first ran through this one.  I could NOT find a non-subscription source, nor was it a citation used anywhere but here and in other school nursing venues.  Ergo, my interpretation of that is that it is likely to be industry-associated, yes.  That probably also means that the biases common in that industry (school nursing and school administration) are likely to be reinforced by that particular publication.

[twinturbo]

It is a trade mag from a private publisher LRP Publications. Which means it's time to write a letter to NASN regarding the use of this citation in their position statement. I will probably petition them to either retract or include a statement that their position in no way overwrites federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on disability. In other words a little light trolling via email.

But LRP Publications website is worth a look under the "Education" section it's Education Administration and Law, subdivisions of special education, SD attorneys, legal issues educating students with disabilities. There's their lrpinstitute site as well. Why would we all want to take a look? Because their materials are being used as if it comes from the regulating body they are interpreting privately b2b.

While drafting a letter using DOE OCR Section 504 info and reviewing Mystic Valley it occurred to me that HHS OCR has jurisdiction over medical institutions.

[ajasfolks2]

TwinTurbo . . . u make me smile . . . or is it U make my Prop Rotate?

Thank you.

~ ~ ~

I'm just so bleeping  sick of the SH** that pretends to be "fabulous" policy .  .  . that I don't even want to engage anymore.


I know.  I know.

THAT is exactly what


THEY want.


~e,
need to recharge

AND NEED OTHERS TO RECOGNIZE THE sh** FOR WHAT IT IS

AND

TO ENGAGE!!!

[ajasfolks2]

.

[ajasfolks2]

I see that this is what Team Anaphylaxis has sent to NASN:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0ZWFtYW5hcGh5bGF4aXN8Z3g6M2JkNGU4Yjc2NzJhMTBkNQ

[ohreally]

Above letter is excellent - where did you find it?

[ajasfolks2]

It's at Team Anaphylaxis' website.  One of their members got link to me via Facebook.

[twinturbo]

Now might be the best window of opprtunity for other complementary letters of concern to
follow their momentum.

[twinturbo]

I've had a first round draft of my letter for a while but I need to make it less cease and desist and more helping them towards compliance. I'd like to use the following excerpts from Mystic Valley. Team Anaphylaxis' letter is impeccable but I'd like to head on challenge their citation, point to their bias and counter their outdated use of false sense of security.

Dr. Biegler testified that Mystic Valley feared an increase in liability by imposing a ban. (Testimony of Dr. Biegler) He explained that if said policy were in place the staff would have a false sense of security and would fail to act as diligently as they would without the ban. This argument is not persuasive first, because the Parents never argued that this ban should be implemented to the exclusion of any other accommodation which is already in place (eg., teacher checking students' lunches and snacks daily, sanitation protocols). Those accommodations should stay in place. Second, this charter school imposes numerous other additional bans regarding food, dress code, make-up, hair style, personal appearance, body piercing, jewelry, weapons, drugs, smoking, etc. For an infraction on each of these, the student's handbook states a consequence. (PE-24; Testimony of Ms. Kinnon, Mr. Biegler) Dr. Biegler testified that for the most part, parents and students comply with the school rules and that the most common infraction has to do with food. Dr. Biegler stated that "if you have a ban there will be violations" (Testimony of Dr. Biegler) While infractions may occur, Mystic Valley's own experience shows that having a policy in place is a deterrent and that more often than not students and parents follow its strict policies. Also, as is the case now, if a student brings a forbidden food item it is taken away and the student is offered the alternate lunch.
The evidence shows that personal agendas may have gotten in the way of Mystic Valley's administration's better judgment. (See testimony of Ms. Kinnon, Ms. McKinnon, Dr. Biegler) Mystic Valley does not have the best track record in avoiding accidents that could have had a tragic outcome; incidents like the distribution of M&Ms in the bus, not checking a child's snack containing a peanut product before the child began to eat it in the classroom are some examples. Mystic Valley has been fortunate in avoiding having to address a life-threatening situation involving Student, but a child's life cannot depend on fortuitous events when the inconvenience of the alternative could significantly decrease the life- threatening risks to a student.

Since Mystic Valley failed to introduce substantial evidence with respect to the costs or other burden of implementing the peanut/tree nut free classroom for Student, there is no basis to conclude that the accommodation sought by Parents imposes an undue hardship on Mystic Valley. Moreover, Student did show that he requires the aforementioned accommodation and that it can be provided. I find that Student met his burden but Mystic Valley did not meet its burden to show that the accommodation would cause it undue hardship. See Garcia-Ayala v. Lederle Perenterals, Inc., No. 98-2291 (1st Cir. 5/18/00) cited in In re: Worcester, at 26, 27. 

Order:
Mystic Valley Regional Charter School shall implement the following accommodations under Student's 504 Plan:

1. No peanut/tree nut products are allowed in Student's classroom.

2. All other accommodations accepted by Parents shall continue to be implemented.

3. Child must have access to all classroom activities such as the celebration of the Chinese New Year, accommodated accordingly ie., no restaurant prepared food, food preparation not to include peanut oil, etc.

4. Letter to parents of classmates must describe Student as a child that has a "life-threatening allergy" not a "severe reaction" which is misleading. Provide an informational session to Parents and additional training to staff timely.
5. Provide an orientation to Student' s classmates regarding Student' s life-threatening peanut/tree nut allergy. So Ordered by the Hearing Officer, 

[LinksEtc]

:sigh:

A ban can create a false sense of security

Seriously??     Are they STILL misusing and abusing FAAN/AMF's quote made back a decade ago??

A new blog post on an old topic:

"Misquoted And Misunderstood: Peanut Bans In Schools And A False Sense Of Security"
http://blog.onespotallergy.com/2014/01/misquoted-and-misunderstood-peanut-bans-in-schools-and-a-false-sense-of-security/

I was very interested to learn that in 1999, Ms. Munoz Furlong received a $14,000.00 grant from The Peanut Foundation, which is the research arm of the American Peanut Council.

Here are the grant particulars:

The decision makers and parents should also be educated that bans do not work.

Same story-- different year...

-------------------------------

Also, I'll put this here ...

"Are Food Allergy Bans Even Protective?"
http://foodallergybitch.blogspot.com/2012/08/are-food-allergy-bans-even-protective.html

The sad part of all of this is that, probably at least in part due to the phobia and overreaction of parents who did not need this level of protection, we now have a strong policy statement from the NASN. It's going to make it a LOT harder for the kids who really could benefit from a ban to get one.