Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not talking about washing hands after going to the bathroom although I do wish more people would do this, I'm talking about having kids wash their hands after they eat lunch. I have a five year old and she's actually very good at washing her hands thoroughly. With a person monitoring the hand washing, it's not super difficult to direct them to do a thorough job. Not only would this reduce the likelihood of a cross contamination exposure, it would reduce the spread of illness in schools and that benefist everyone, kids, staff, even parents.
I have a good friend who has a daughter with a severe peanut allergy. Hand washing post lunch was the biggest thing that she wanted to happen at her kid's school along with other measures such as parent and staff education on severe food allergies. The school refused because hand washing takes too much time. She pulled her daughter out.
I understand this and even posted such prior. It poses a tiny risk but still a risk. With supervised hand washing, the risk could be cut to almost nothing. There is no way to reduce all risk however, especially with playgrounds open to the public after hours as well as people not reading food labels and sending foods that actually do contain peanuts to school wither their kids. Unless the schools are checking labels on everything and banning food without labels, there is no way to eliminate nuts. There's also nothing stopping a kid from eating a peanut butter sandwich in the car on the way to school and coming in with sticky hands and even crumbs on his or her shirt.
They are one tool that schools can choose to use but certainly there are other reasonable ways to greatly reduce the risk.
I worked with K-8 elementary students (Arizona divides it at eighth grade rather than fifth/sixth grade for most districts) in a before/after school program. We would have up to 40 or so kids during the school year and up to 120 at summer camp. Honestly, the 120 washing their hands is a job in it off itself and is more inline with working in a lunch room due to the amount of classrooms. For this cash strapped districts would have to add one more lunch aide to their already tight budgets. I say this because Arizona teacher pay is low as are most school workers besides principals and admin on a district level. For these distinct, it is far cheaper to offer a school wise ban.
So if they are not able to go to school because the school is not safe, then they do not get their free education. Reasonable accommodations need to be made for children whose health is at risk for whatever reason. It is not unreasonable to tell kids at one table, in one classroom, in one school, or in one district that they cannot eat peanut butter for the 6 hours they're in school. Not being allowed to eat peanut butter will not affect their free educations. If a child has autism or some other condition that requires them to be allowed to eat peanut butter during school hours, accommodations can be made. That child is also entitled to a free education. If little Susie just wants to eat PB&J because that's what she prefers but the school/classroom is peanut-free, then unfortunately, Susie has to wait until she gets home to eat her favorite sandwich. Her not being able to partake in her favorite food is not a reason to provide accommodation.
'You are legally and constitutionally entitled to a free education.'
You keep repeating this and I dont know why. Yes kids are entitled to a free education, so What?
If their allergy is so severe, that their life is at risk when they go to school, they can't get the education they are entitled to. You remove peanuts from the school so that their life isn't at risk every day that they go to school, so they can get the education to which they have a right.
That's why it has been said over and over here, that the mall, movie theater, or park are irrelevant. The kid isn't guaranteed a trip to the mall, movie theater, or park. If their parents decide it isn't safe, they don't go. No big deal. Not being able to attend school is a big deal.
'You are legally and constitutionally entitled to a free education.'
You keep repeating this and I dont know why. Yes kids are entitled to a free education, so What?
That means schools are legally obligated to accommodate children with medical conditions. Other places, like theaters, playgrounds, etc. have no such obligation. That's why schools work differently.
And anyone has a right to bring peanut butter to school unless it's banned.
I agree. But if there is a serious allergy at the school, then it should be banned. I don't know of any school that bans peanuts unless there is a child there with a severe contact allergy.
Serious question. Where were these problems in the classroom in the fifties and sixties?
According to the CDC, food allergies have increased in children by 50% since the 1990's. So there just weren't nearly as many kids with food allergies as there are now. There are theories, but the medical community does not know the reason for the sharp increase.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Re
