Ah ha... looks like the reporting is definitely a problem at some level. A common test to decide if a kid has an allergy tests for antibodies (IgE). Turns out that having antibodies is poorly related to actually having allergic reactions. A study in the UK took 79 kids with peanut allergies (as determined by antibody tests), and fed them peanuts in a challenge test (a controlled, medical setting so they would be instantly treated for any adverse reaction. 66 of the 79 had no reaction to eating peanuts (83.5%). Another test is a skin prick, but it's also not ideal since a wheal below a certain diameter, while indicative of a vastly lower chance of having an allergic reaction, is also sometimes wrong (<5mm is OK 80% of the time).

Another study of mixed food allergy types reported in the American Association of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology found that more than half given food challenges of the food their parents thought they were allergic to... showed no allergic reaction.

They said that what happens is a kid has some allergic reaction, then the peds doc has an antibody test drawn, and then they are given a laundry list of things the kid is allergic to. Of course most of the things they are "allergic" to they will never have a reaction if they eat.

If a child can not attend regular classes, with reasonable precautions and accommodations, without risking their health (allergy), then they need to be moved to a non-regular class/school.

The school has the responsibility to provide reasonable precautions and accommodations.

Now I wonder what that word "reasonable" means. :hmmm:

well personally, if that child's allergy is so severe that simply breathing peanut on her (hence the washing of mouths) is a possibility for a reaction, her attending a normal school has to be questioned. I am under the opinion that when you, or your child has an illness like that, you first need to take precautions before making everyone else keep you safe. Do blind people make random people on the street lead them to their destination? No, they use a cane.I think in this situation its become an issue because everyone else has become expected to keep this kid healthy it seems.

"Special needs" kids use up decent chunks of edu budgets, actually. Hard to tell, but it looks like over 1/5th of spending is on special needs, and they are no where near 20% of the student population.

How is this extreme take on what other people have to do going to teach the kid to get along in the real world? The kids we know with food allergies (preschool and 1st grade) already know to ask a grown up about what to eat, and they know not to take food from a friend without checking.

This is actually pretty interesting. There was a Danish study that showed that 16% of adult volunteers reported having an allergy, but only 3% actually did. Part of it might also be that there is food intolerance as well as allergy, and the former is not at all the same. The kids with gluten intolerance can eat gluten, but depending on the quantity they might just feel under the weather, have gas, etc. It's not an allergic reaction, they won't keel over and die from eating a cupcake. Also, many kids that have real allergies as little guys grow out of it. Parents change their lifestyle to avoid, and then the kid never eats that food again so they have no idea they've grown out of it.

Looks like the only true test is a double-blind food challenge, any other claim of diagnosis is suspect.

Parents who are aware of allergies, do not move their children for several reasons, there may be social, psychological, because there will be a situation, so that the child loses his self-esteem, which ultimately could lead to a worse upbringing

Nothing wrong with helping a child with special needs.

However, when their "needs" begin to infringe on the rights of others, then it becomes an issue.

"Peanut free" schools for example. One child has the allergy - so now 250 or 500 other kids can't enjoy a PB&J sandwich at lunch? Rights end when they infringe on another person's rights. Its important to realize that in cases like this - either answer infringes on the rights of SOMEBODY - either the kid with the allergy or the kids without. Thus, you have to weigh the "greater good" - and I'd say that the one child having to adjust is less a burden than 500.....

I have to say that I think that "self esteem" is so much nonsense. Every kid in school grows up thinking the sun shines out their bunghole. :)

This is interesting to me because we comment on this at b-day parties, etc all the time because there is always at least one kid, usually a few who have a parent bringing a treat for an allergy kid instead of whatever the cake is, etc. Every single party. Between my sister, wife, brother in law and I we didn't know one kid with a food allergy growing up. Not one. One kid I knew had asthma, and we all thought it was weird (he was my friend, but lots of other kids made fun of him for it).

I have to wonder how many have had challenge testing.

I know how you feel. I grew up on the country.. We never herd of allergies.. Never existed. When I would visit family in the city and seeing there friends that's when I heard of these ailments. I found it strange.

My daughters school has a no peanut policy.. I also hate it. becuase we all eat varieties of nuts. There healthy, I don't understand why my daughter can't enjoy them? I can only have them at home for her. Washing hands should be implemented anyhow.

That is simply untrue. Every district that I have worked in has spent less than 3% of it's yearly budget on special ed earmarks.

Before you ask:

M. Ed awarded May 2001
Temple University
Philadelphia Pa

Diploma and Pa State Teaching Certification available via email on request.

Yeesh, dude. You ever gonna let that drop, I apologized?

I simply googled and the federal funding seems higher (they said ~20%). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special..._United_States
Course States pay the bulk of edu costs, so that likely explains the disparity. Looks like for most states fed spending is under 10% of total budget (with a few states in the high teens).

This link:
http://www.specialed.us/Parents/ASMT...SEF/BRIEF8.PDF
(seems to be over 10 years out of date, however)

seems to suggest that ~12.5% of kids are eligible for "special education," and nearly twice that for "compensatory education" (I'm completely unfamiliar with that term).

This link shows special ed and total school budgets (a column on left side),a and they all work out to high teens pushing 20% of total budget by school district.
http://www.boston.com/news/education...ool_districts/

California spends ~17% of total edu spending on special ed and has a low special ed enrollment %:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf...ecialEdJTF.pdf

Seems really hard to find a "average" number, or even a current study. The average special ed kid has a cost multiplier around 2 according to everything I see on the web (~1.9X, some show just over 2). Dunno how many have "real" special ed needs (downs, real autism (vs Asperger's or mild ASD), etc) vs kids that might be placed in special ed, but we might not consider truly disabled. I read one article just now that said that districts with a "bounty" system to identify special ed kids proactively had much higher growth rates of spending.

The disparity you see is at the district level. The state allots certain funding with the expectation that it be used on special education, but it is largely up to the individual boards and administrators as to where that money actually goes. It isn't too far different than a guy from the state walking in the door and dropping a sack of money (with a dollar symbol on it, of course) in front of the school board, who then divide it up and spend it on what they really want.

I worked in two different districts, and I can tell you that this money goes to things that you can see in plain sight; mostly at Friday night home games. Artificial turf fields, state-of-the-art practice facilities, fancy team helmets and logos and large coaching staffs are now the norm in public ed. Meanwhile, the people who the money is meant for struggle with antiquated facilities, understaffed classrooms and a lack of truly qualified personnel. The last of those is a result of the first two; finding special ed teachers, specifically good ones, is a struggle because very few people want to work in the field. Frankly, the job sucks, and they know it.

When it comes down to it, school districts waste a lot of money. If the funding was actually spent on what it was intended for, you'd see improvement.

More on-topic, a friend of my daughter has a tree nut allergy, apparently. I have no idea if it is "real" (meaning a challenge test, since I never asked). We were at a party last weekend, and her mom told the other mom about it, then since the girl knows me pretty well, she asked if I could be the grownup that Alexandra could ask if she had any questions. I said sure, then asked a few questions of mom so I'd know how to answer :)

Anyway, for this girl, peanuts are fine, just not tree nuts. As a result, her mom sorta pushes peanuts since it's a "nut" (not really) that her daughter CAN eat, whereas other allergy kids can't. So she revels in eating peanut stuff, and brings peanut treats to replace possible tree-nut treats. In this example (OP post), she'd be intentionally armed with a deadly weapon in school, lol. Course so would my daughter given her love of PBJ, or PB, banana, and honey sandwiches.

I know in my son's preschool class that we used to make an effort on snack day or party days to have something for allergy kids even when we know they keep special treats for them at school in case of parties, but the teachers ended up not using it because they could not be sure without the say-so of the right parents (and what if something was contaminated? Yikes!).

I think the responsibility should be 100% on the parents of the kid in question, plus the kid. Any additional effort on the part of the other kids is inappropriate, IMHO (and ultimately not something the kid with allergies should count on, anyway, it's a false sense of security).

So they (a district) make a claim to the State that they have XXXX students that qualify for SpecEd, then receive the money that might be 17% of their total budget...

then blow it on sports crap, and other non-special ed needs? (assuming I understand correctly)

Wow. That sucks.

It's too bad those kids don't get to enjoy peanuts and everyone has to bend over backwards for the sake of just one person.

If only there were some way to make schools more like stores and diners and things. Y'know, where there are just so many that there's something for everyone, everywhere, in every price range. A kind of market, you might say, butfor schools. One that would be free of the public sector.:hmmm:

Nah, that would never work. Better to let the state handle it by throwing resources and proper legislation for good educational standards at the problem while we sit around scratching our heads and wondering why it isn't working. They'll get it right some day, I'm sure.


Alright, I'm done being a sarcastic ass for the moment (nobody panic, I'm sure the mood will strike me again soon). Seriously though, this kind of issue where the schools are doing something that not everyone approves of comes up often enough that one would think people would just naturally be agitating for a broader range of choices in schools.

And it's not like anyone is happy with the current US school system, anyway. The unions are never happy, the kids are never happy, the parents are never happy, our educational standing on an international level certainly isn't happy. But instead of actually doing anything about it we spend all our time arguing over who should get to tell whose kids how to learn what or whatnot.

It never ends. Should there be prayer in schools? Should there be a dress code? Is it ok to teach this, is it not okay to teach that? Are the standardized tests biased? Are the teachers paid enough? Would more pay help? Can we afford that? Which schools are underfunded? Which ones are overfunded? Why? Are the intelligent-designers idiots? Are the secularists morally bankrupt? And yes, should kids wash their hands more often? Et cetera et cetera. Back and forth. Over and over.

So why? For the love of God, or for the lack of it if that's your choice, will someone please tell me why we insist on this mandated institutionalization of public education? Why do people look at me like I've just grown a third head when I suggest privatization, or partial privatization, or even a voucher plan?

I could go on, but I'm sure we'll all agree this post is long enough for now.

The other oddball thing in the US is that people with kids pay lower taxes (since you get a deduction, and if poor enough a "credit" for paying taxes you never paid (ie: a handout).

Ditto state income taxes if the state has them.

What is the end purpose of public education?Personally, I think the entire goal should be a competent electorate. Past that, I don't see the compelling government interest. It's not like people graduating from public schools are considered capable of skilled jobs, they then need to seek real training (either on the job with a trade, or college).

Clearly overall it fails at this (the recent thread about the % that fail the citizenship test (when realistically there is no reason for anyone to leave HS without getting an "A" on that simple test).

Personally, I don't think those of us with kids should get a tax break at all (some of us already don't for federal). My state spends ~80% of the budget on edu, but that includes the U. Still, there is no reason I should get a break (except that I don't use public edu, since we send the kids to a good school, instead).

I'm against vouchers in general, because I see it as a handout. I'd be fine with a 100% deduction for tuition, though. To even be remotely fair, if a state did a voucher system, it should eliminate all standard deductions for kids. If you're gonna get a hand out for tuition, then you should at least pony up the same taxes as a guy who has no kids who is paying for you.

Why don't we just completely stop funding education? I don't just mean the vile public institutions, but even the noble and sacred private ones as well. This mean that now you are directly responsible for little Johnny's education; after all, he's your kid. For any institution to survive would probably mean a several hundred percent increase in tution, since private and charter schools also currently receive substantial government subsidies.

What that now means is that if little Johnny's dream is to become a lawyer, it is his parent's job to make sure he can pass the collegiate entrance exam. No, of course not everyone is comfortable teaching every subject, but the free market solves that problem too. With legions of now unemployed educators milling about, tutors in every concievable subject will be readily available for private work. Of course, the best and most experienced ones will likely be very, very expensive, as they will be setting their own prices, but that is the law of the jungle. For others, there will certainly be some correspondence school flunkie willing to work for a pittance.

The end result is a society where far, far fewer people go to college. The ones that do will naturally be of much higher quality than what we see now. As a college professor who home schools his children, this gives me the best of all worlds both at home and work. And so I welcome this brave new world where always the strongest thrive. After all, as a career educator now working at the collegiate level, I am both uniquely qualified and of sufficient financial means to ensure that my children will rise to the top. As to your [globally speaking] children, they are neither my problem, nor my concern.

takeda, is most of the subsidy for religious schools? I seem to remember a situation where a parochial system got subsidy because if they shut down, the city would have to absorb all the kids, so XXX bucks a head subsidy was a savings. I also think that the majority of private schools are religious (virtually every church in town has a school, but there are only 3-4 secular schools. Of course every single religious school is subsidized by a tax break (I'd end all tax exempt status for churches, period).

I'd be curious what subsidy secular private schools get. I know our school has a speech therapist that comes like 1 day a week from the city, but past that there is nothing obvious. Our tuition is already nearly twice was APS spends per kid.

I can't speak for every private or charter school, but all of the charters that I know of are actually grouped with the local school district. For example, all charters in Philadelphia are actually funded by the School District of Philadelphia.

My first year teaching was spent in a non-religious private school. Our textbooks, various teaching aids, some salary and equipment (smartboards, overheads, etc) were purchased through state subsidies. The rest was covered by tuition and fundraising. Again, I don't know about every single school out there, but I am under the impression that this is the norm.

You are right about religious school receiving substatial subsidies. Of course, that doesn't seem to be keeping them open in this part of the country, but the problems with priests and young boys seem to play a major part in that.

Seriously? You don't see the value in state funding of education? By extension, an educated population? Your answer, in one graph:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...-schooling.jpg

source.

Go ahead and move to Haiti, the privately funded education utopian state. Let me know how that works out for you. ;)

Don't I wish. I wore the same Home jersey for 3 years and only got new pads my senior year. Luckily we had a lot of helmet decals (somebody bought a lot like 15 years ago). My team still plays On grass, and practices oh some old field out back. We also Just got new bleachers after 30 years because our old ones were unsafe. I dunno. maybe its because were a division 6 team in MI.

http://michigan-football.com/f/suttonby.htm