From the pages of Only In America

[normiss 851]

We're going to have to ask you to not consume any possible allergens at least 72 hours prior to your posting on this web site.
Our attorneys will be in contact shortly.

[masterrig 1]

I sure see your point.


Chuck

[livendive 8]

Quote

Our local school system sent out letters to 900 parents asking them not to send any peanut products to school with their kids because,you're not going to believe this, there are 3 kids in the school that have peanut allergies.

Did every single one of you people miss the bolded part?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[PhreeZone 20]

Homeschooling/private schooling is an option if the public school is willing to pay for it if they are unable to accomodate the students into their environment. I know one school that when faced with either putting in elevators and handicapped restrooms to accomodate a student instead paid to transfer the student to a school that accomodated him and was forced to give that district the money that would have been spent on a normal student.

Instead of "peanut allergy" insert "wheelchair" and this is a different arguement.

Congress set this up a long time ago thanks to the No Child left behind act.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

No Child left behind act.

Which in reality means let's dumb down the achievers to create equality

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[normiss 851]

So let's extrapolate this onto the rest of the world.
Could UNICEF be forced to stop the Plumpy'nut program because they're poisoning children in other countries?
Or should we simply convert all peanut based products to the allergen free peanuts and be done with this?

[Synapse 0]

Hmm, now that could change things, but I'd have to read the NCLB act myself. If it really does mandate it, then I I'd just have to join all the teachers who hate that act, bitch at the Fed instead, and leave the school alone.

-syn

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain
a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty
nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

An exert from the ruling:

Quote

Education is a right, not a privilege.
The Court wrote: "In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he (or she) is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."

Notice the "on equal terms" part. That means they do have a legal responsibility to offer education to everyone and thereby could not deny entry to the students. However, that offer only has to be on equal terms, there is no mandate that they accommodate to anyone's special needs.

Right. Which means that all kids are equally entitled to a safe learning environment. Thanks for supporting my point.

Try again, counselor - the word "safe" is NOT mentioned in the opinion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

We can freely choose what we want to wear, eat, drink and etc.

Yes, but not necessarily where we want to do so.

Quote

In this case, the parents chose to put their allergic prone children in a public school. That's cool. They chose to do so with stipulations.

No stipulations. Their kids have a right to attend public schools. They have a right to learn in a safe environment. It is the school's legal responsibility to provide that safe environment while the kids are at school.

Quote

That is not fair to the majority of kids in that school.

How is it unfair?

Quote

To me, it's just another case of parents leaving parenting up to someone else.

I fail to see how this is the case. Parents are legally required to compel their children to get an education. For most parents, public school is the only feasible option. Sending one's kids to school with an expectation that they be reasonably safe is not leaving the parenting up to someone else.

Quote

Don't get me wrong. I feel bad for those kids who have special needs or what have you but, it shouldn't be at the expense of the school or the majority of other kids.

In an ideal world, the kids wouldn't have the allergies. But they do, so the school has to take reasonable precautions. At worst it is a very minor inconvenience to the other students.

Quote

O.K., it's a public school. They outlaw peanut products in the school. Some kid decides it would be funny to drop a peanut down the back of the allergic kid's shirt... just to see what would happen? Then what?

I suspect the ER for one student and juvenile detention for the other.

Quote

How much bending over backwards do we have to do?

No one is being expected to bend over backwards.

Quote

What's wrong with the child being home schooled in a 'safe' environment?

Nothing, if the parents are qualified and are able to survive on a single income. That's a fairly rare combination. Fortunately, the families have a right to send their kids to public school.

Quote

Too much effort for the parents to have to put-out?

The chance that it is feasible for all three families is very slim.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[masterrig 1]

Congress... God bless 'em!


Chuck

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

An exert from the ruling:

Quote

Education is a right, not a privilege.
The Court wrote: "In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he (or she) is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."

Notice the "on equal terms" part. That means they do have a legal responsibility to offer education to everyone and thereby could not deny entry to the students. However, that offer only has to be on equal terms, there is no mandate that they accommodate to anyone's special needs.

Right. Which means that all kids are equally entitled to a safe learning environment. Thanks for supporting my point.

Try again, counselor - the word "safe" is NOT mentioned in the opinion.

"… on equal terms …"

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

No Child left behind act.

Which in reality means let's dumb down the achievers to create equality

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Butters 0]

Quote

"… on equal terms …"

Are you suggesting that "on equal terms" is synonymous with "safe learning environment"? If "on equal terms" is synonymous with "safe learning environment" and we ban peanut products to maintain equal terms than we also need to ban glue, scissors, water, windows, etc... to maintain equal terms. Don't you agree?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

An exert from the ruling:

Quote

Education is a right, not a privilege.
The Court wrote: "In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he (or she) is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."

Notice the "on equal terms" part. That means they do have a legal responsibility to offer education to everyone and thereby could not deny entry to the students. However, that offer only has to be on equal terms, there is no mandate that they accommodate to anyone's special needs.

Right. Which means that all kids are equally entitled to a safe learning environment. Thanks for supporting my point.

Try again, counselor - the word "safe" is NOT mentioned in the opinion.

"… on equal terms …"

Which STILL doesn't spell "safe".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

We can freely choose what we want to wear, eat, drink and etc.

Yes, but not necessarily where we want to do so.

Quote

In this case, the parents chose to put their allergic prone children in a public school. That's cool. They chose to do so with stipulations.

No stipulations. Their kids have a right to attend public schools. They have a right to learn in a safe environment. It is the school's legal responsibility to provide that safe environment while the kids are at sc

Quote

That is not fair to the majority of kids in that school.

How is it unfair?

Quote

To me, it's just another case of parents leaving parenting up to someone else.

I fail to see how this is the case. Parents are legally required to compel their children to get an education. For most parents, public school is the only feasible option. Sending one's kids to school with an expectation that they be reasonably safe is not leaving the parenting up to someone else.

Quote

Don't get me wrong. I feel bad for those kids who have special needs or what have you but, it shouldn't be at the expense of the school or the majority of other kids.

In an ideal world, the kids wouldn't have the allergies. But they do, so the school has to take reasonable precautions. At worst it is a very minor inconvenience to the other students.

Quote

O.K., it's a public school. They outlaw peanut products in the school. Some kid decides it would be funny to drop a peanut down the back of the allergic kid's shirt... just to see what would happen? Then what?

I suspect the ER for one student and juvenile detention for the other.

Quote

How much bending over backwards do we have to do?

No one is being expected to bend over backwards.

Quote

What's wrong with the child being home schooled in a 'safe' environment?

Nothing, if the parents are qualified and are able to survive on a single income. That's a fairly rare combination. Fortunately, the families have a right to send their kids to public school.

Quote

Too much effort for the parents to have to put-out?

The chance that it is feasible for all three families is very slim.

The schools do the best they can with what they have yet, 'shit happens'. Guns, knives, dope and etc., still make it into our schools. A kid goes to school he takes his chances. I did, my kids did. That's the reality of things. Some kid, somewhere, is going to sneak a peanut butter sandwich into school. As Wendy pointed-out... kids are not neat. Some kid may have
peanut residue' on his shirt and come in contact with a kid who is allergic to peanuts. How, do you stop that? Life is a risk, a crap-shoot. We do the best we can to protect our citizens but, we cannot stop everything. In the original post, parents were 'requested'... not demanded of or threatened... 'requested'. Our schools can only do so much.


Chuck

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

"… on equal terms …"

Are you suggesting that "on equal terms" is synonymous with "safe learning environment"?

I'm suggesting that, in the context of this thread, safe learning environment is encapsulated by "on equal terms."

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"… on equal terms …"

Are you suggesting that "on equal terms" is synonymous with "safe learning environment"?

I'm suggesting that, in the context of this thread, safe learning environment is encapsulated by "on equal terms."

Since you believe that peanut products should be banned to provide a safe learning environment (which you believe is synonymous with "on equal terms") than do you also believe that glue, scissors, water, windows, etc... should be banned to provide a safe learning environment (which you believe is synonymous with "on equal terms")?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The schools do the best they can with what they have yet, 'shit happens'.

Right. That's what the school in this thread is trying to do.

Quote

As Wendy pointed-out... kids are not neat. Some kid may have peanut residue' on his shirt and come in contact with a kid who is allergic to peanuts. How, do you stop that? Life is a risk, a crap-shoot. We do the best we can to protect our citizens but, we cannot stop everything.

Right, but we can minimize risk. That is what the school is trying to do. It's no different from why skydivers take reserves and other backup safety equipment with them on each skydive. It reduces the probability of death. It doesn't eliminate that chance, only reduces it.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Since you believe that peanut products should be banned to maintain equal terms (safe learning environment) than do you also believe that glue, scissors, water, windows, etc... should be banned to maintain equal terms (safe learning environment)?

Again, that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. No one is suggesting a sterile learning environment can ever be achieved.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Since you believe that peanut products should be banned to maintain equal terms (safe learning environment) than do you also believe that glue, scissors, water, windows, etc... should be banned to maintain equal terms (safe learning environment)?

Again, that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. No one is suggesting a sterile learning environment can ever be achieved.

You are suggesting that we attempt to achieve a sterile learning environment. I'm wondering where you draw the line. Why isn't that relevant?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

reserves and other backup safety equipment

Not really, I take my reserve, nobody takes it for me. I bought my AAD (even if it's not always turned on) I don't expect the every other jumper to pay a Divot subsidy tax to supply me with this stuff. When I'm rusty (which is often) I get out low, alone a few times to get my rythem back. I don't forbid the plane to fly higher that 3K so that the other jumpers can't have the altitude they like.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You are suggesting that we attempt to achieve a sterile learning environment.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that banning peanut products is a reasonable precaution in the given scenario.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Not really, I take my reserve, nobody takes it for me.

Right, but the reason why you take it is to minimize the probability of landing outside the aircraft without a properly functioning canopy over your head.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

You are suggesting that we attempt to achieve a sterile learning environment.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that banning peanut products is a reasonable precaution in the given scenario.

What makes banning peanut products a reasonable precaution? According to you, some children are allergic to peanut products and all children have the right to a safe learning environment. So, why can't the same argument be used for banning glue, scissors, water, windows, etc...?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[JackC 0]

Quote

Since you believe that peanut products should be banned to provide a safe learning environment (which you believe is synonymous with "on equal terms") than do you also believe that glue, scissors, water, windows, etc... should be banned to provide a safe learning environment (which you believe is synonymous with "on equal terms")?

Equal terms means just that doesn't it? Everyone has a similar risk of being killed in a freak glue accident. Not everyone has the same risk of being killed by little Johnny's PB&J sandwich. Now if you could infect all kids with peanut allergy genes, that would also be "equal".