Thursday, 17 March 2011

How Far Should Inclusion Go?

A public school in Florida is making all its first-grade pupils rinse out their mouths and wash their hands before coming into class and after lunch - because one child has a severe peanut allergy.
Yes, this is litigation-barmy America, to be fair.
Teachers must continually wipe down desks with Clorox wipes, children cannot bring in outside food for parties and a peanut-sniffing dog has even been brought into the school grounds.
This is taking at least 30 minutes estimated time out of the teachers study periods per day, and this – and the restrictions on their own children – has brought things to a head with other parents:
Angry parents protested against the strict measures outside the gates of Edgewater Elementary School, Florida, last week. They are designed to protect one six-year-old girl, who has not been named.
It’s quite a dilemma.
They claim their children are losing time in class and are having their faces wiped with Clorox. One mother even said the rules - which also ban all peanut products - were intruding on her child's right to have peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch.
OK, there’s no ‘right’ to have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Or...is there?
The protest broke out into a shouting match between two of them mothers, one of whom said her eight-year-old son also has a peanut allergy.

Shannon Layshock told My Fox Orlando: 'If he gets one touch of peanut oil, peanut butter, peanut anything, he's dead in an instant, and you're going to worry about a Clorox wipe that's not even allowed to be used on a child's face.

'It's embarrassing. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.'
Well, should they?

We are, after all, used to the practice of inclusion and adjustment for disabilities, and we accept them, whether out of pure compassion or practicality.

We’ve got used to ramps, hearing loops, dropped curbs, etc. But those are all ‘passive’. They require nothing from the able bodied, and in some cases, they make life easier for the able-bodied too.

There’s the money issue, of course, and some will resent taxpayer money being spent on disability support and such, though they seem to assume that they will never need it themselves.
But there’s a world of difference between those issues and this one, where it is indeed impinging on others’ freedoms.

And for those who say that this is teaching the children a valuable lesson in tolerance and acceptance, well, maybe not:
…her son Michael said he was already under pressure from classmates. He told the channel: 'They say that, put me in a different class, so that they can eat peanut butter.'
OK, so, they are kids, and a kid’s complaint can be – and no doubt will be - dismissed as ‘thoughtlessly selfish’.

But is this over-the-top, draconian dismissal of others wants and concerns going to foster more tolerance, or less?

…Nancy Wait, district spokeswoman for Volusia County Schools, said the school is legally obliged to take the precautions under the Federal Disabilities Act.

The policy was implemented last August in a letter from school principal Lynda H Moore, which says the girl 'has very severe reactions to even the slightest exposure'.

Mrs Wait told Fox News: 'It would be the same thing as putting a handicap ramp for a student that is physically disabled. The only difference with this is that is affects other students.

That, it seems, is the big difference. Is it too big a difference to be accepted or acceptable?

Over to you, readers.

21 comments:

Disenfranchised of Buckingham said...

Stuff inclusiveness.

It is about time those with "disabilities" accepted they were different.

And before anyone says I don't understand I've spent 5 years pushing my mother in a wheelchair.

PT said...

Is there also a wheat-intolerant, and a lactose-intolerant child in the class? Any seafood allergies? Possibly a child from a Vegan family might be offended by what others eat. Should all pupils have their clothes washed before classes to ensure that dust mites which could trigger asthma attacks are not present? How far do we take this? Theatres? Shopping malls? Public transport? Should we ban all traffic in areas that deaf or blind people might frequent?
Sensible risk management should not and need not go to extremes. And would not go to extremes either, but for a grubby, ambulance-chasing, corrupt legal system, ever-ready to perpetrate another legalised mugging.

Anonymous said...

And if the parents take the unfortunate child out of the family home or the compliant school? What happens then?

Ian B said...

I'm sorry, if this child is really in such a precarious state, then they can're reasonably be out in public. There might be a fragment of peanut anywhere.

I must say I'm sceptical that any child can be killed merely by touching a dab of "peanut oil". But if they are, the world is just too dangerous for them, and they should be in a special facility.

Mjolinir said...

/Quite a dilemma/ - yes!

According to the maker's USA website http://www.clorox.com/products/clorox-disinfecting-wipes/faq/

Can I use Clorox® Disinfecting Wipes as a hand wipe or for personal use?
No, Clorox® Disinfecting Wipes should not be used for personal cleansing. Please read and follow the product label instructions.

For 'workplace' use in US (? if that includes schools?) Maker's "Material Safety Data Sheet" (UK equivalent CoSSH = Product Safety Data Sheet)

//Work Practices: Avoid eye and skin contact and inhalation of vapor or mist.
Avoid contact with food. Not for personal cleansing.
KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN//

*Disclaimer* I have no idea if these 'wipes' are the exact same as those being used in Florida - but they seem to be the only formulation of wipes shown with the brand "Clorox".
As with all chemicals 'always read the label8 &c &c

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that there is a normal mainstream school to environment, which disabled children should be welcome to join, but they should not be given the power to veto any of it.
If you want to join the mainstream, accept the mainstream for what it is. It is a whole bunch of rowdy snotty nosed kids with all the germs under the sun, dashing around, bumping into eachother, getting bumps, bruises, scrapes, and chicken pox, sometimes throwing up, picking their noses, and sometimes piddling their pants. They are going to bring frogs and lizards to school and let them loose in class to frighten the teacher. And their lunch boxes will be full of whatever their parents know they will eat.
If you can't fit in with that, then it is you who isn't mainstream.

Monty

Anonymous said...

'If he gets one touch of peanut oil, peanut butter, peanut anything, he's dead in an instant,'

It's this kind of hysterical outright lying that p*sses me off. If it's honestly THAT bad the kid is at serious risk from everything, everywhere and should be kept at home in a sterile bubble for the rest of his lfe.

How the hell did he make it to school age in the first place ?

It also stands to reason...on her reasoning...that, as his mother,taking him out of the house every day and leaving him alone anywhere to face certain death is extremely negligent and she should be put in prison for child abuse.

I mean come on...do these people THINK about what they're saying ?

*rolls eyes*

Captain Haddock said...

"I mean come on...do these people THINK about what they're saying" ?

NO .. They're Americans and therein lies the problem ..

They've been born & raised to believe that everything which happens in a Hollywood production is real life ..

So, in consequence, they live their lives as if they were characters from that world ..

The most worrying aspect is that there are morons living here, who only too readily wish to emulate them ..

Mjolinir said...

Further to my last.
There seems to be some confusion in the D Mail story Julia cites -as to use of //Clorox wipes approved by the school board, for our children's faces//- which doesn't conform the the Maker's guidance.

However, yhat does include-
//Use to sanitize/deodorize hard, nonporous surfaces. Wipe surface; use enough wipes for treated surface to remain visibly wet for 30 seconds. Let surface dry. For highly soiled surfaces, clean excess dirt first.
For surfaces that may come in contact with food, a potable rinse is required.// - and skin contact with the liquid/inhaling the fumes (which contain alcohol) is supposed to be avoided.

Zaphod said...

The interesting thing about this post is that Julia is sitting on the fence! :-)

Assuming that the Mail report is fairly factual, (and that's a big caveat), then the child should not be at a regular school.

It's tragic, but the stated risk is too great, and the disruption to others is unacceptable. Also, the other children cannot be relied on to not retaliate.

selsey.steve said...

When I was in primary school, many years ago, we had a lad in our class who was always kept in at break time because he was allergic to something or other. After school, whatever ailed him seemed to disappear because he joined in with all of our street games on the way home. He got all the scrapes and bumps that we all got and was involved in at least one good fist-fight I remember.
I know for a fact that he grew to adulthood without any trouble.
Blame the parents for this nonsense at school.

blueknight said...

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1639351

Pigpen said...

Even reading Peanuts can bring on an attack.

I blame Snoopy.

Clarissa said...

Having worked with people who have peanut allergies I know that they tend to be very careful about what they eat and always carry an EpiPen (or equivalent) around with them.

In the end it comes down to the sufferer checking their environment as best they can and being prepared for the worst. By closeting potential hazards away from a child then that child won't learn how to cope once it is in the wider world where people simply aren't going to bend over backwards to accommodate one person.

Captain Haddock said...

"By closeting potential hazards away from a child then that child won't learn how to cope once it is in the wider world where people simply aren't going to bend over backwards to accommodate one person" ..

Possibly not .. but they seem more than keen to bend over forwards..

Hexe said...

Kiddie smuggles in peanut delicacy and either eats clumsily or otherwise ends up smearing peanut on suffering kid or where they sit/touch -- maybe even just to check whether the allergy is real and what happens.

So no, inclusion here is risking the sick childs' life and the other kids' sanity.

WV: goriests

JuliaM said...

"It is about time those with "disabilities" accepted they were different."

Exactly. When did conformity and lack of separate identity become the goal, anyway?

"Sensible risk management should not and need not go to extremes."

Shakespeare was right - 'first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'...

"I must say I'm sceptical that any child can be killed merely by touching a dab of "peanut oil". "

For extreme allergies, it seems it is medically possible. Which, as you say, makes the world too dangerous for full inclusion in it.

"If you can't fit in with that, then it is you who isn't mainstream."

So many people seem to want to deny reality.

JuliaM said...

"The interesting thing about this post is that Julia is sitting on the fence!"

I really am quite torn by this!

"Blame the parents for this nonsense at school."

And the lawyers.

"Even reading Peanuts can bring on an attack.

I blame Snoopy."


:D

"...I know that they tend to be very careful about what they eat and always carry an EpiPen (or equivalent) around with them."

At six, she's presumably too young? And perhaps the school is reluctant to train their teachers to act in an emergency (again due to the risk of being sued)?

I know this issue has been raised in UK schools too, and teachers are VERY reluctant to act as doctors.

JuliaM said...

"Kiddie smuggles in peanut delicacy and either eats clumsily or otherwise ends up smearing peanut on suffering kid or where they sit/touch -- maybe even just to check whether the allergy is real and what happens."

I wonder if anyone's considered that scenario? Kids being kids, it isn't outside the bounds of possibility...

Anonymous said...

As a parent of a two-year old with Coeliacs and having worked at the sharp end of Nursery care (I'd say Christmas lunch being interrupted by paramedics qualifies as reasonably sharp) I absolutely agree that if the child's allergies are this severe they simply shouldn't be in mainstream schooling.

When I take take my little one to playgroups, all the staff know she is allergic, and she herself is normally very sensible about having her own food and not 'tummyache food' that other people are having. But beyond that, what can you do? We were in the doctor's not that long ago and a local mum who knows her and knows she is allergic was horrified when her boy randomly shared a sweet with her. But I just said can't be helped, you can't take a pop at a two year old boy for sharing his sweeties with other kids!

The bottom line is that if an allergy is that severe then precautions need to be taken for the child which cannot be compatible with their place in mainstream schooling. It simply isn't possible to eliminate all contact with such a common ingredient in such an environment, so the parents will have to make other arrangements for the child's safety. Professor Nutbutter's Primary School?

DSD

JuliaM said...

"But I just said can't be helped, you can't take a pop at a two year old boy for sharing his sweeties with other kids!"

Quite! Why take that chance, and whine that if that chance isn't given they will be denied a 'normal' childhood, when nothing could be more normal than sharing food?

Sadly, circumstance has already decided that this child's life will not be normal, no matter what the parents do.