\"Peanut Police\" Article In Newsletter

Posted on: Thu, 03/23/2006 - 7:34am
bandbmom's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/14/2005 - 09:00
Posted on: Thu, 03/23/2006 - 12:17pm
2BusyBoys's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/03/2004 - 09:00

I found the article to be pretty well written. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/confused.gif[/img]
I'm impressed that many situations were covered including the possibility of airborne reactions.

Posted on: Thu, 03/23/2006 - 9:53pm
notnutty's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/15/2004 - 09:00

Since I assume the "audience" for this article would be school administrators, I think the article was more favorable to children with peanut allergies than to administrators....
It discusses what needs to take place for a child to be covered under ADA...it seems like they have taken a stance "elgibility determined on a case by case basis."
The article even addresses the chance that school may need to totally ban peanuts if a child is allergic to the smell of peanuts. This is a very bold statement, because most schools will do whatever necessary to prevent a total ban on peanuts.
Thanks for sharing...it is always interesting to see what type of information administrators are getting on this subject.
Donna

Posted on: Thu, 03/23/2006 - 11:44pm
Carefulmom's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2002 - 09:00

So according to this article, the "reasonable accomodation" rule does apply to the schools. If it is not considered a "reasonable accomodation", then the school doesn`t have to do it. I thought I read on this board that the "reasonable accomodation" rule applies to the workplace and not to schools. I am looking at the third sentence on the second page.

Posted on: Fri, 03/24/2006 - 12:22am
notnutty's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/15/2004 - 09:00

carefulmom: VERY GOOD POINT! I missed that altogether. According to everything I have read the word "reasonable" does not apply to a 504 accommodation. The school must provide a FAPE to each person in the district regardless of what accommodations are necessary.
I think the gray area exists when we try to determine what is "necessary" for a FAPE. What is necessary may be very different for different children and may range in costs. I think what ends up happening is that parents are forced to "prove" that an accommodation is necessary.
Perhaps someone should email Caroline Brown and let her know that information is not exactly accurate according to the law.
Thanks for pointing this out...it changes the credibility the article has in my eyes.
Donna
[This message has been edited by notnutty (edited March 24, 2006).]

Posted on: Fri, 03/24/2006 - 12:44am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Remember: ADA and 504 are different. (!)

Posted on: Thu, 03/23/2006 - 12:17pm
2BusyBoys's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/03/2004 - 09:00

I found the article to be pretty well written. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/confused.gif[/img]
I'm impressed that many situations were covered including the possibility of airborne reactions.

Posted on: Thu, 03/23/2006 - 9:53pm
notnutty's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/15/2004 - 09:00

Since I assume the "audience" for this article would be school administrators, I think the article was more favorable to children with peanut allergies than to administrators....
It discusses what needs to take place for a child to be covered under ADA...it seems like they have taken a stance "elgibility determined on a case by case basis."
The article even addresses the chance that school may need to totally ban peanuts if a child is allergic to the smell of peanuts. This is a very bold statement, because most schools will do whatever necessary to prevent a total ban on peanuts.
Thanks for sharing...it is always interesting to see what type of information administrators are getting on this subject.
Donna

Posted on: Thu, 03/23/2006 - 11:44pm
Carefulmom's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2002 - 09:00

So according to this article, the "reasonable accomodation" rule does apply to the schools. If it is not considered a "reasonable accomodation", then the school doesn`t have to do it. I thought I read on this board that the "reasonable accomodation" rule applies to the workplace and not to schools. I am looking at the third sentence on the second page.

Posted on: Fri, 03/24/2006 - 12:22am
notnutty's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/15/2004 - 09:00

carefulmom: VERY GOOD POINT! I missed that altogether. According to everything I have read the word "reasonable" does not apply to a 504 accommodation. The school must provide a FAPE to each person in the district regardless of what accommodations are necessary.
I think the gray area exists when we try to determine what is "necessary" for a FAPE. What is necessary may be very different for different children and may range in costs. I think what ends up happening is that parents are forced to "prove" that an accommodation is necessary.
Perhaps someone should email Caroline Brown and let her know that information is not exactly accurate according to the law.
Thanks for pointing this out...it changes the credibility the article has in my eyes.
Donna
[This message has been edited by notnutty (edited March 24, 2006).]

Posted on: Fri, 03/24/2006 - 12:44am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Remember: ADA and 504 are different. (!)

Peanut Free Store

More Articles

You already know that if you or your child has a peanut allergy you need to avoid peanut butter. Some...

There are many reasons why you may want to substitute almond flour for wheat flour in recipes. Of course, if you have a...

Are you looking for peanut-free candies as a special treat for a child with...

Do you have a child with peanut allergies and an upcoming birthday? Perhaps you'd like to bake a...

Most nut butters provide all the same benefits: an easy sandwich spread, a great dip for veggies, a fun addition to a smoothie. But not...