504 and the Principal

[MomTo3]

It's been a while. One of the accommodations is NO FOOD that isn't from a parent.

She gave him an after dinner mint.  THANK GOD DS is smart and did not eat it.  There was no label or anything on it. Yeah DS for not eating it.  So I email her after I cool down and say "A phone call and this would be a non issue. Would have sent something to satisfy this and would not have violated his 504."  I still have heard NOTHING from her.

[guess]

Does the student's 504 plan have an accommodation where school staff will support student's self-advocacy?  What I get from what you're writing, if I am understanding the subtext, is preserving the relationship while drilling past (1) ignorance (2) failure of the principal to include his or her self subject to 504 compliance. 

You could point out that child grows through age and developmentally appropriate stages towards self-management as an adult.  As a student this creates a stalemate that could coerce an ingestion, violating both the accommodation to not offer food and failing to support the student's self-advocacy. 

Dr. Robert Wood has an illustrative story about a baked item from a colleague's wife who assured him the cookies were free of peanut.  It was the one time he broke his rule about accepting baked goods from others.  He ended up needing 5 doses of epinephrine and overnight hospitalization (if I remember correctly) to survive that reaction.

A world class allergist's spouse had neglected to calculate a contaminated spatula.  Surely, being a mere mortal he or she is capable of that oversight but unlike the allergist's wife, the principal will be held accountable for not only 504 violation but very possible negligence.  You'd hate to see that happen.

A choice of last resort would be Gebser notice.  See school resources or use a search engine to find an example.  You would effectively notice the school meaning it would be properly informed in writing and to ignore that notice requires making deliberate choices that may constitute deliberate indifference.

In theory.  I am not a lawyer and cannot give out legal advice.

[MomTo3]

In the note I sent her I mentioned how we at home practice for these such events and how grateful I was that he did what we've drilled him on but I don't thing that the self advocacy thing is in the 504.


Thanks and I will look up Gebser.  I am wondering if she has sent my original email to the the schools legal department or if she is just going to ignore it.

[guess]

My wording didn't come through, my fault.  The principal, regardless of clerical structuring of the 504 document, must comply with 504, ADA.  Even law enforcement out on a call for service are subject to ADA compliance but for exigencies.  Compliance isn't exempted in public schools.  ADA is not something administration or staff could choose to participate in or not. 

[ajasfolks2]

This may also be a good point for some hands-on education of the principal, nurse, and possibly other staff.

If you can afford and have the time, I'd go buy a bunch of different candy canes -- some with warnings, some without, and some with claims of "X allergen free" . . . and also print out a copy of the food label laws.  Have a brief meeting and education session.  Let them try to decipher "safety" and define "harmless" . . . don't do it for them.  Leave with the candy -- NONE stays there.

You can also do this with photos of ingredient lists from candy, if you don't want to buy.  Make a powerpoint lesson and email it, cc'ing all who need to see it and get it.

I think there needs to be an eye-opening lesson that does NOT entail the injury or death of a child on their watch.

This isn't just about your child's limitations (or not) as to self-advocacy.  This is about the adults' limitations as to understanding that they are NOT to feed your child or even OFFER food.  You have to illustrate the "why".

Sorry you are having to deal with this! 

[ajasfolks2]

"It's just a candy cane principal. It's not dangerous to anyone.  It's harmless."

Right.

[daisy madness]

Perhaps a "Do Not Feed This Child" letter would help the principal to get it.

"DO NOT FEED THIS CHILD!"

[guess]

Those may help break up the perception road block.  It won't fit as a one-timer inside the 504, at least not in a way that would create fidelity and increase retention in the minds of non-core staff because it must fight for attention in the mix of messages and directives the staff are facing daily, plus proper transfer to peripheral or temporary staff. 

Offered as a regular in-service where it could be marketed as a benefit to the school to reduce oversights and increase compliance may help buy in.  Maybe the simpler the question the better: Dear Principal, we have this straightforward accommodation.  Where is the breakdown on implementing it?  I would like to schedule a 30 minute meeting to resolve this.

Show you've made good faith to resolve it at the building level then escalate to district as necessary.  Do this all in writing.  No response = 504 coordinator and asst super or super. 

This is a hard one to implement overall despite its simplicity due to the multiple layers of interaction.  It also may conflict with messages such as inclusion -- not that I'm defending the school but we have an altered mindset to process cognitive risk of otherwise inert material to 99.9% of the population.

[MomTo3]

***If there is a 504 plan in place at my school (as principal) that states NO food that isn't from home/parent,  then if someone wants to give out food they can not because it would violate every kid in the school who has a 504 that states this.***

No?  Would that be a valid argument to the "school admin determines"?

[ajasfolks2]

Your 504 plan accommodation would OVERRIDE the district policy -- is that what you are asking?  The answer should be YES -- 504 plan accommodation such as you described would mean the admin could not invoke that district policy as "protection" as to why he/she could give out candy.

Your principal has basically violated the 504, IMHO.

[MomTo3]

Right with the candy at the principals thing most definitely.

[guess]

There's the administrative answer.  Then there's the political answer.

[ajasfolks2]

I would say that the PTA might reasonably assume it *might* be violating somebody's 504 if giving food out . . . might even be a kid with diabetes or other food-related medical need.  The safest and most inclusive (least liability for the PTA and for the kids) would be FOOD FREE events in all things.

[MomTo3]

Editing for privacy- Sorry if it's messing up the flow.

[guess]

You could let this do the talking for you.  The crux of the matter is "significant assistance".  It should land with an otherworldly thud.

OCR Case Summary (1993), Irvine (CA) Unified Sch. Dist.

OCR Case Summary (1993), Irvine (CA) Unified Sch. Dist. OCR concluded the district violated 34 CFR 104.4(b)(1)(v) and 28 CFR 35.130(b)(1)(v) by failing to either provide the necessary support services to enable student to participate in the PTA's after-school program or cease providing the significant assistance to the PTA program.

Wright, P. (2014, January 1). Allergies and Anaphylaxis - Wrightslaw. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/allergy.index.htm