One child in elementary school has a P-nut allergy. Should the school (276)
mindfful: i dont remember that
i meant what i said
you are appreciated
ty honey,so are youi meant what i said
you are appreciated
jac379: Somebody on this thread and I can't remember who, said their child always washed their hands immediately before going to school and enjoyed the responsibility of taking care to protect a fellow pupil. That's a good thing, isn't it?
If a child has a severe allergy, I'd say you have to weigh up protection against quality of life. If precautions are taken to create an allergen free zone, that doesn't mean that emergency proceedures shouldn't be in place. Just as the child with the allergy will be forgetful, so might others.
There are risks crossing the road, driving a car and allowing our children freedom and independance, but they are risks that we minimise sensibly and to the best of our ability. Sadly, we can't account for every eventuality, but to avoid these risks would screw up our kids.
Its about minimising risks, catering for emergencies AND maintaining a reasonable quality of life to the best of our ability. If that requires a bit of collective responsibility, is that any different from the way all adults in a village will look out for all children and help if they get themselves into a fix?
Maybe that's part of the problem, we've lost some of that community thing that worked really rather well in lots of instances.
Yay Jacs is here <333If a child has a severe allergy, I'd say you have to weigh up protection against quality of life. If precautions are taken to create an allergen free zone, that doesn't mean that emergency proceedures shouldn't be in place. Just as the child with the allergy will be forgetful, so might others.
There are risks crossing the road, driving a car and allowing our children freedom and independance, but they are risks that we minimise sensibly and to the best of our ability. Sadly, we can't account for every eventuality, but to avoid these risks would screw up our kids.
Its about minimising risks, catering for emergencies AND maintaining a reasonable quality of life to the best of our ability. If that requires a bit of collective responsibility, is that any different from the way all adults in a village will look out for all children and help if they get themselves into a fix?
Maybe that's part of the problem, we've lost some of that community thing that worked really rather well in lots of instances.
jac379: Somebody on this thread and I can't remember who, said their child always washed their hands immediately before going to school and enjoyed the responsibility of taking care to protect a fellow pupil. That's a good thing, isn't it?
If a child has a severe allergy, I'd say you have to weigh up protection against quality of life. If precautions are taken to create an allergen free zone, that doesn't mean that emergency proceedures shouldn't be in place. Just as the child with the allergy will be forgetful, so might others.
There are risks crossing the road, driving a car and allowing our children freedom and independance, but they are risks that we minimise sensibly and to the best of our ability. Sadly, we can't account for every eventuality, but to avoid these risks would screw up our kids.
Its about minimising risks, catering for emergencies AND maintaining a reasonable quality of life to the best of our ability. If that requires a bit of collective responsibility, is that any different from the way all adults in a village will look out for all children and help if they get themselves into a fix?
Maybe that's part of the problem, we've lost some of that community thing that worked really rather well in lots of instances.
If a child has a severe allergy, I'd say you have to weigh up protection against quality of life. If precautions are taken to create an allergen free zone, that doesn't mean that emergency proceedures shouldn't be in place. Just as the child with the allergy will be forgetful, so might others.
There are risks crossing the road, driving a car and allowing our children freedom and independance, but they are risks that we minimise sensibly and to the best of our ability. Sadly, we can't account for every eventuality, but to avoid these risks would screw up our kids.
Its about minimising risks, catering for emergencies AND maintaining a reasonable quality of life to the best of our ability. If that requires a bit of collective responsibility, is that any different from the way all adults in a village will look out for all children and help if they get themselves into a fix?
Maybe that's part of the problem, we've lost some of that community thing that worked really rather well in lots of instances.
That was my daughter.. & very well said!
Amity: Abso bloody lutely
As i said earlier...i am soooo thankful i live in a society who accepts and willing to help others.
Amity 2 wow heyy hon,been awhile how are ya?As i said earlier...i am soooo thankful i live in a society who accepts and willing to help others.
MetalgirlPlush: Amity 2 wow heyy hon,been awhile how are ya?
HeyyyyWhere the hell have you been hiding?
_LoVe_BuG_: So because a child has an affliction that is potentially life threatening, they should be excluded from something that is a given right in our country? What if this child's parents cannot afford to homeschool? What if this child comes from a single parent home & the parent has to work to support his/her family? Should that parent be forced to be on welfare to stay home & homeschool their child? That is UNREALISTIC & UNFAIR!
Having a child who has changed schools several times due to relocation & having had experience with each of those schools having nut bans, I know from experience that none of the parents I ever came in contact with had any issues with it. I guess the people I know are more understanding & compassionate to other kids' needs than the ones you obviously know!
Having a child who has changed schools several times due to relocation & having had experience with each of those schools having nut bans, I know from experience that none of the parents I ever came in contact with had any issues with it. I guess the people I know are more understanding & compassionate to other kids' needs than the ones you obviously know!
Here in the US I believe it's title 10. If a child has a sever medical need that precludes the child from being in the classroom or other activities due to medical necessity then it is the obligation of the school district with the use of federal funds to ensure that child get;s the same education if possible.
That includes paying for private tutoring and any other needs of the child. Homeschooling is cheap as it is and if the school district has to pay for certain things then it's even cheaper. There is also teleconferencing and it is being used in the classroom by children that are unable to be in the classroom. All paid for by the taxpayers of America. No excuse to place your child in and uncontrollable environment if absolutely not necessary.
Amity: Heyyyy
Where the hell have you been hiding?
Been busy went to Italy now im in Jersey.Lots of stuff going on..Nice to see you honey..MuahhsWhere the hell have you been hiding?
rohaan: Exactly. If we were to start this, there just wouldn't be any end to it.
Isn't that a bit like saying, "never have a glass of wine as you'll end up alcohol dependant".
Surely, its as much of a responsibility to sensibly distinguish between one set of needs and another?
Two examples used: peanut free zone equals great benefit to one, but no big deal for the majority; sunscreen free zone equals benefit to one, massive potential detriment to the majority.
jac379: Isn't that a bit like saying, "never have a glass of wine as you'll end up alcohol dependant".
Surely, its as much of a responsibility to sensibly distinguish between one set of needs and another?
Two examples used: peanut free zone equals great benefit to one, but no big deal for the majority; sunscreen free zone equals benefit to one, massive potential detriment to the majority.
Surely, its as much of a responsibility to sensibly distinguish between one set of needs and another?
Two examples used: peanut free zone equals great benefit to one, but no big deal for the majority; sunscreen free zone equals benefit to one, massive potential detriment to the majority.
I am allergic to being kicked in the nuts.
time4fun4u: I am allergic to being kicked in the nuts.
I think most men are. Some I hear enjoy it.
time4fun4u: I am allergic to being kicked in the nuts.
How do you know
venusenvy: How do you know
MetalgirlPlush: Yay Jacs is here <333
How do? What's the <333 thing? (I suspect I'm being uncool by having to ask).
jac379: How do? What's the <333 thing? (I suspect I'm being uncool by having to ask).
Means love and the 3's are hearts,your not uncool youre very cool..Actractorguy: Here in the US I believe it's title 10. If a child has a sever medical need that precludes the child from being in the classroom or other activities due to medical necessity then it is the obligation of the school district with the use of federal funds to ensure that child get;s the same education if possible.
That includes paying for private tutoring and any other needs of the child. Homeschooling is cheap as it is and if the school district has to pay for certain things then it's even cheaper. There is also teleconferencing and it is being used in the classroom by children that are unable to be in the classroom. All paid for by the taxpayers of America. No excuse to place your child in and uncontrollable environment if absolutely not necessary.
That includes paying for private tutoring and any other needs of the child. Homeschooling is cheap as it is and if the school district has to pay for certain things then it's even cheaper. There is also teleconferencing and it is being used in the classroom by children that are unable to be in the classroom. All paid for by the taxpayers of America. No excuse to place your child in and uncontrollable environment if absolutely not necessary.
That may be so there & I do not know of any cases like that in my part of Canada so I will not comment on it but I still think it's unfair that a child be penalized & excluded when it is something that can be controlled to a degree & when a mishap does happen, emergency measures can be in place.
A peanut ban in schools is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.. IMHO
_LoVe_BuG_: That may be so there & I do not know of any cases like that in my part of Canada so I will not comment on it but I still think it's unfair that a child be penalized & excluded when it is something that can be controlled to a degree & when a mishap does happen, emergency measures can be in place.
A peanut ban in schools is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.. IMHO
A peanut ban in schools is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.. IMHO
Yes but suppose this kids class goes to a school function like the zoo. Some kids buy peanuts to feed the animals and forget to wash their hands. Touch the kid or shake hands. Now the kid not knowing that this person has touched peanuts and then eats a sandwich or a snack. now he/she has been exposed to the peanuts and his reaction kicks in. then what.
Only thing I see coming out of this is the parent's see dollar signs from being able to sue the school for failing to protect the child. It works both ways. At what point does the school system say sorry but we just can't take the responsibility. Here is the title 10 funding get what you need and hope he/she grows out of the allergy. when/if they do then they are welcome to come back.
Too many uncertain things can go wrong for this to end well.
As far as making concessions I can agree to it but only if the reactions to allergies are medim to mild if it's sever enough to cause almost instant death the kid would be better off staying home and the heck with social integration in a school setting.
There are homeschool groups all over this country for just that sort of social interaction between children.
Actractorguy: Here in the US I believe it's title 10. If a child has a sever medical need that precludes the child from being in the classroom or other activities due to medical necessity then it is the obligation of the school district with the use of federal funds to ensure that child get;s the same education if possible.
That includes paying for private tutoring and any other needs of the child. Homeschooling is cheap as it is and if the school district has to pay for certain things then it's even cheaper. There is also teleconferencing and it is being used in the classroom by children that are unable to be in the classroom. All paid for by the taxpayers of America. No excuse to place your child in and uncontrollable environment if absolutely not necessary.
That includes paying for private tutoring and any other needs of the child. Homeschooling is cheap as it is and if the school district has to pay for certain things then it's even cheaper. There is also teleconferencing and it is being used in the classroom by children that are unable to be in the classroom. All paid for by the taxpayers of America. No excuse to place your child in and uncontrollable environment if absolutely not necessary.
Socialising with peers is as much of an education as the three R's. If small changes can enable a child to have an education free of discrimination, then I'd more more than happy to make those changes, even if its a bit of a pain in the butt.
I remember going into a local shop for a loaf of bread when my daughter was small and times were hard. It was late Decmber and the shop owner filled a carrier bag with food to make sure I had enough over Christmas, only charging me for the loaf.
I think the same Christmas someone anonymously shoved £50 through my door. (Looking back, I think I might have been looking a wee bit on the skinny side... :laugh). I view it as my responsibility to carry on that tradition in whatever way I can, (and I have).
A peanut ban in a school is part of that spirit and only a part of the nanny state/pc gone f-witty thing, if that's the way you view it and treat it.
If something is of little consequence to you, but has a massive impact on another, just do it.
If the person in front of you in the supermarket is a couple of quid short and you can afford it, just slip it to them.
Its no big deal, but it makes the world go round.
MetalgirlPlush: Means love and the 3's are hearts,your not uncool youre very cool..
I knew what it was.... does that mean I'm really cool.
Actractorguy: Yes but suppose this kids class goes to a school function like the zoo. Some kids buy peanuts to feed the animals and forget to wash their hands. Touch the kid or shake hands. Now the kid not knowing that this person has touched peanuts and then eats a sandwich or a snack. now he/she has been exposed to the peanuts and his reaction kicks in. then what.
Only thing I see coming out of this is the parent's see dollar signs from being able to sue the school for failing to protect the child. It works both ways. At what point does the school system say sorry but we just can't take the responsibility. Here is the title 10 funding get what you need and hope he/she grows out of the allergy. when/if they do then they are welcome to come back.
Too many uncertain things can go wrong for this to end well.
As far as making concessions I can agree to it but only if the reactions to allergies are medim to mild if it's sever enough to cause almost instant death the kid would be better off staying home and the heck with social integration in a school setting.
There are homeschool groups all over this country for just that sort of social interaction between children.
Only thing I see coming out of this is the parent's see dollar signs from being able to sue the school for failing to protect the child. It works both ways. At what point does the school system say sorry but we just can't take the responsibility. Here is the title 10 funding get what you need and hope he/she grows out of the allergy. when/if they do then they are welcome to come back.
Too many uncertain things can go wrong for this to end well.
As far as making concessions I can agree to it but only if the reactions to allergies are medim to mild if it's sever enough to cause almost instant death the kid would be better off staying home and the heck with social integration in a school setting.
There are homeschool groups all over this country for just that sort of social interaction between children.
I live in Canada where not everyone is "sue happy" like Americans.. My daughter has gone on group outings such as the zoo & feeding ducks, etc.. the teachers bring "safe" things for the kids to feed the animals.. they make things work for the child with the allergies. They also ensure that an epipen is brought with them as well as the child to ensure safety.
time4fun4u: I am allergic to being kicked in the nuts.
You want some medicinal ointment massaged into the affected area?
MetalgirlPlush: Means love and the 3's are hearts,your not uncool youre very cool..
Aaaah...
I geddit.
_LoVe_BuG_: So because a child has an affliction that is potentially life threatening, they should be excluded from something that is a given right in our country? What if this child's parents cannot afford to homeschool? What if this child comes from a single parent home & the parent has to work to support his/her family? Should that parent be forced to be on welfare to stay home & homeschool their child? That is UNREALISTIC & UNFAIR!
Having a child who has changed schools several times due to relocation & having had experience with each of those schools having nut bans, I know from experience that none of the parents I ever came in contact with had any issues with it. I guess the people I know are more understanding & compassionate to other kids' needs than the ones you obviously know!
Having a child who has changed schools several times due to relocation & having had experience with each of those schools having nut bans, I know from experience that none of the parents I ever came in contact with had any issues with it. I guess the people I know are more understanding & compassionate to other kids' needs than the ones you obviously know!
So if the child had Polymorphic light eruption or porhyria would you still send them to school knowing it could kill them or at the very least leave them in pain.That is also an affliction a child did not ask for and did not deserve.These children still have a right to school,but because life is unfair they either can't go at all or take a great deal of precaution.
It's a parents choice or not to send their deadly allergic child into a situation that may kill them,but if I had a child and I knew my child had an allergy so severe that a mere whiff of something could kill them I would rather have them alive then going to school.I would do my best to give them as best a social life as their affliction would allow.
It's of course best if all children were clean and washed their hands, mouths and possessions all the time after ever use,but realistically a child will not do this all the time.
_LoVe_BuG_: So because a child has an affliction that is potentially life threatening, they should be excluded from something that is a given right in our country? What if this child's parents cannot afford to homeschool? What if this child comes from a single parent home & the parent has to work to support his/her family? Should that parent be forced to be on welfare to stay home & homeschool their child? That is UNREALISTIC & UNFAIR!
Having a child who has changed schools several times due to relocation & having had experience with each of those schools having nut bans, I know from experience that none of the parents I ever came in contact with had any issues with it. I guess the people I know are more understanding & compassionate to other kids' needs than the ones you obviously know!
Having a child who has changed schools several times due to relocation & having had experience with each of those schools having nut bans, I know from experience that none of the parents I ever came in contact with had any issues with it. I guess the people I know are more understanding & compassionate to other kids' needs than the ones you obviously know!
So if the child had Polymorphic light eruption or porhyria would you still send them to school knowing it could kill them or at the very least leave them in pain.That is also an affliction a child did not ask for and did not deserve.These children still have a right to school,but because life is unfair they either can't go at all or take a great deal of precaution.
It's a parents choice or not to send their deadly allergic child into a situation that may kill them,but if I had a child and I knew my child had an allergy so severe that a mere whiff of something could kill them I would rather have them alive then going to school.I would do my best to give them as best a social life as their affliction would allow.
It's of course best if all children were clean and washed their hands, mouths and possessions all the time after ever use,but realistically a child will not do this all the time.
Actractorguy: Yes but suppose this kids class goes to a school function like the zoo. Some kids buy peanuts to feed the animals and forget to wash their hands. Touch the kid or shake hands. Now the kid not knowing that this person has touched peanuts and then eats a sandwich or a snack. now he/she has been exposed to the peanuts and his reaction kicks in. then what.
Only thing I see coming out of this is the parent's see dollar signs from being able to sue the school for failing to protect the child. It works both ways. At what point does the school system say sorry but we just can't take the responsibility. Here is the title 10 funding get what you need and hope he/she grows out of the allergy. when/if they do then they are welcome to come back.
Too many uncertain things can go wrong for this to end well.
As far as making concessions I can agree to it but only if the reactions to allergies are medim to mild if it's sever enough to cause almost instant death the kid would be better off staying home and the heck with social integration in a school setting.
There are homeschool groups all over this country for just that sort of social interaction between children.
Only thing I see coming out of this is the parent's see dollar signs from being able to sue the school for failing to protect the child. It works both ways. At what point does the school system say sorry but we just can't take the responsibility. Here is the title 10 funding get what you need and hope he/she grows out of the allergy. when/if they do then they are welcome to come back.
Too many uncertain things can go wrong for this to end well.
As far as making concessions I can agree to it but only if the reactions to allergies are medim to mild if it's sever enough to cause almost instant death the kid would be better off staying home and the heck with social integration in a school setting.
There are homeschool groups all over this country for just that sort of social interaction between children.
I suspect that you don't value money over your children, so why do you come from the perspective that others do?
What a bizarre thing to accuse other parent of.
In the case of the zoo trip one of the child's parents can attend. Parents do in this country. I have. Its to enable the school and teachers to do these trips in the first place, regardless of allergies.
jac379: Socialising with peers is as much of an education as the three R's. If small changes can enable a child to have an education free of discrimination, then I'd more more than happy to make those changes, even if its a bit of a pain in the butt.
I remember going into a local shop for a loaf of bread when my daughter was small and times were hard. It was late Decmber and the shop owner filled a carrier bag with food to make sure I had enough over Christmas, only charging me for the loaf.
I think the same Christmas someone anonymously shoved £50 through my door. (Looking back, I think I might have been looking a wee bit on the skinny side... :laugh). I view it as my responsibility to carry on that tradition in whatever way I can, (and I have).
A peanut ban in a school is part of that spirit and only a part of the nanny state/pc gone f-witty thing, if that's the way you view it and treat it.
If something is of little consequence to you, but has a massive impact on another, just do it.
If the person in front of you in the supermarket is a couple of quid short and you can afford it, just slip it to them.
Its no big deal, but it makes the world go round.
I remember going into a local shop for a loaf of bread when my daughter was small and times were hard. It was late Decmber and the shop owner filled a carrier bag with food to make sure I had enough over Christmas, only charging me for the loaf.
I think the same Christmas someone anonymously shoved £50 through my door. (Looking back, I think I might have been looking a wee bit on the skinny side... :laugh). I view it as my responsibility to carry on that tradition in whatever way I can, (and I have).
A peanut ban in a school is part of that spirit and only a part of the nanny state/pc gone f-witty thing, if that's the way you view it and treat it.
If something is of little consequence to you, but has a massive impact on another, just do it.
If the person in front of you in the supermarket is a couple of quid short and you can afford it, just slip it to them.
Its no big deal, but it makes the world go round.
I agree with you to a point. There has to be an end to giving in to one person's desires to have something that may not be in that persons best interest or the best interest of his fellow students. In this circumstance Home school would be best and there are home school groups where parent's get together for social event's for the children. They usually have it better than the ones on public schools.
I did the home school for my children. They got to go places and do things growing up that no other children did or may ever do in their lives. I didn't ask for a penny from the school system. I footed the bill on my own.
Again the ban is fine but the school won't be able to enforce it without having backpack checks every morning and then your gonna have people complaining that the school treats the children like prisoners checking their stuff just to get into the school. Much like trying to fly here in the us now. Soon there will be strip searches with x-ray machines at each entry just to make sure that nothing with peanuts of peanut ingredients get in.
It will go bad and then what? There has to be a line somewhere.
This thread has become quite disgusting to read...
maryrachelle: So if the child had Polymorphic light eruption or porhyria would you still send them to school knowing it could kill them or at the very least leave them in pain.That is also an affliction a child did not ask for and did not deserve.These children still have a right to school,but because life is unfair they either can't go at all or take a great deal of precaution.It's a parents choice or not to send their deadly allergic child into a situation that may kill them,but if I had a child and I knew my child had an allergy so severe that a mere whiff of something could kill them I would rather have them alive then going to school.I would do my best to give them as best a social life as their affliction would allow.It's of course best if all children were clean and washed their hands, mouths and possessions all the time after ever use,but realistically a child will not do this all the time.
Would you mind explaining to me what these two conditions are?
Its difficult to make a comparison in shameful ignorance.
<--- sheepish grin.
_LoVe_BuG_: So because a child has an affliction that is potentially life threatening, they should be excluded from something that is a given right in our country? What if this child's parents cannot afford to homeschool? What if this child comes from a single parent home & the parent has to work to support his/her family? Should that parent be forced to be on welfare to stay home & homeschool their child? That is UNREALISTIC & UNFAIR!
Having a child who has changed schools several times due to relocation & having had experience with each of those schools having nut bans, I know from experience that none of the parents I ever came in contact with had any issues with it. I guess the people I know are more understanding & compassionate to other kids' needs than the ones you obviously know!
Everybody has valid ways of seeing this, but in spite of what is ideal, being practical must prevail. Look at it this way: Suppose there is a child with an ultra sensitive immune system. He picks up just about every possible germ. He is entitled by law to a public school education, and his parents are adamant he gets it. In order to maintain the lowest level of contracting germs and an illness, he must wear protective clothing and don a mask, even full headgear. They argue that this is too restrictive for him, as it is his right to move about freely. Shall all the other kids wear the protective clothing and masks, then? What about their right to move about freely? Do you see the problematic situation of demanding such reconstruction of a community setting, such as a school? We can't do this! (I realize that when someone has a loved family member, their ability to see that practical measures have to be a priority, but part of being an adult is knowing that not everything is simply about our narrow worlds. It's tough, but it's the way it goes).Having a child who has changed schools several times due to relocation & having had experience with each of those schools having nut bans, I know from experience that none of the parents I ever came in contact with had any issues with it. I guess the people I know are more understanding & compassionate to other kids' needs than the ones you obviously know!
More Threads
It's been a long time....
How To Secure Your Gate
Your Mental Health
Blast From The Past
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Thinking out loud #3
the death nail for dating websites
A question
Note
Reality Check
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
For the last ten years they have been phasing out oil based paints and artificial white spirits for thinning paint and cleaning brushes, too. They found that turps substitutes end up in the water table and no amount of filtering and cleaning eradicates it, Consequently we drink it, and then wonder why our bodies react so violently to so many things.
I didn't know that one. Of course, turps substitutes are much cheaper.
And we haven't mentioned hormonal contraceptives and the impact that's having because the hormones end up in the water supply.