# data[].attributes.body
Who knew there were so many Titles? (reference chapter 4) I can't believe the case mentioned at the top of

page 78! A school actually expelled a student because his mother could not attend mandatory PTA meetings????

Michael, regarding the Baird v. Rose case, I believe that the most important part is the implementation of those

policies governing absenteeism. It would seem to me that lawyers would already make sure that the policies

and procedures stated in school handbooks etc. would be non -discriminatory. As so often happens, it is

in the implementation where there is a downfall.

The other thought that came to mind while reading chapters 3 and 4 is that so often, many think in terms of ADA as a set of rules to make buildings accessible for individuals who need wheelchairs. The opinion is one of putting in ramps and parking spaces, etc. Reading these chapters, helps to broaden one's view of individuals with a broad array of of disabilities, who may be protected under ADA and 504.

Lastly, Charity, I agree with you regarding the possible overuse of 504 identification. After working on my

presentation for this week's class on SLD identification, I'm even more confused about how many of our students have been identified as 504, but have never received what I would consider appropriate interventions,

even in the general education seting.

# data[].attributes.body
Michael, the HIV/AIDS being covered under 504...interesting.

Carrie, The Cross Country article really stung me, yet I see WIAA's point.

The young girl did not actually "run" the race; she participated. So what

do you think could have been done to eliminate the problem with the

whole WIAA? I agree with you on the fact that she should be allowed to

participate, but not be considered a participant.

# data[].attributes.body
I am rather unfamiliar with the 504 process in schools, but there does seem to be a an assumption by some that if a student doesn't qualify for special education, he/she will be able to get support through a 504 plan. In some cases, it seems the "accommodations" that are put in a 504 are many times just "best practice" strategies, indicating that perhaps 504 is overused.

Regarding Baird v Rose, attendance issues have always been an area of complication. We just had a conversation about this today in reference to SWD and CWCS for those that leave school for a period of time for therapy. I agree that consistent procedures and practices are imperative but it can be difficult because so often there are extenuating circumstances that deviate from the normal protocol.

I found the Lake Mills article enlightening and I think this speaks to how far we've come in relation to acceptance of others' differences, despite some of the mandates that may get in the way.

Anyone have some suggestions related to pertinent websites?

# data[].attributes.body
The 504 dialog is very intersting to me since I have had very little or no experience with it up to this time.  The parental responsibilities and how they are expanded is great, especially for those parents special eduation teachers have a difficult time collaborating with (hands off).  The same is true with the "5 Titles" section.  This is very interesting to me.

I agree with Carrie on the student from Lake Mills.  From all of the articles I have read about this, it seems like every accommodation has been made to allow the student participate as a teammate.  Also, the parents were pleased with this as well. The scores would reflect on that of the person helping the student (runner/helper).  The Lake Mills sports handbook states that each student will grow in self-esteem through belonging and participation.  I believe that they followed through on the promise while elevating the profile of the district through its ability and willingness to include every student.

# data[].attributes.body
Sorry for the awkward spacing in advance. I copied and pasted my thoughts from a word document.

In response to Scott’s questions: #1: It is my understanding that a special ed referral needs to precede a 504 placement.  However, the 504 process is still very grey to me. I'm looking forward to clarifying some of my misconceptions in class.

#2 : I agree with your one week lead time prior to implementing the IEP, after the meeting is held. It gives all participants the opportunity to reflect on their thoughts and brainstorm how the plan will fit the needs of the learner; and affords enough time to make adjustments on account of those reflections.

Michael, I wonder if the reason that active drug users would not qualify for a 504 plan is that there are services offered for drug users through other avenues? Once recovering those resources go away, and the 504 plan comes in.

I’m interested in hearing thoughts about the article “A Lake

Mills student with a disability fights to participate in cross country”.  It seems as though the cross country participants are supportive of the student’s involvement and there haven’t been any real uproars with her finish time being ahead of other participants.  From a legal perspective it seems that the officials are on the right track. Civil rights law indicates that schools don’t have to change the essential rules of the game, and they don’t have to do anything that would provide a student with a disability an unfair competitive advantage, but they do need to make reasonable accommodations; i.e. a laser instead of a starter pistol so a deaf runner can compete.  With this interpretation, it seems that the rules are being changed for this student, as it is a running race, and she is not running or walking; instead she is being pushed. My standpoint would be that she should be allowed to participate, but her score should not be recorded as an active competitor. Again, this opinion is from a legal standpoint only… What are your thoughts?

# data[].attributes.body
There were a few sections of the reading I found interesting. First, on pg. 68, the author discusses the fact that illegal drug users are not considered a person with a disability under Section 504 while they are actively using; however, a drug user who is undergoing or has successfully completed rehabilitation is considered protected under the law. Seemingly, addiction would be the disability presented. While I understand the need to keep illegal activities off campus, it seems odd to only provide help and services to students who have, for the most part, successfully recovered from their addiction while not helping them during the most acute part of their struggle.

On page 69, the author explains that students with HIV/AIDS are covered under Section 504. I had never heard this or given it much thought, but I can imagine that in the early 1990s this would have been an area of intense litigation. It would be interesting to learn a bit more about it.

Finally, the little case study on Baird v. Rose on pg. 80 brought up some interesting issues. For a refresher, the case dealt with a student suffering from depression and recovering from a suicide attempt. She was removed from a concert by the director for violating a rarely-enforced absentee policy and brought a suit forward. I believed this case highlighted the importance of having solid procedures and rules in place and enforcing them consistently. It seems a major issue in this case was the lack of consistent enforcement of the absentee policy. By having strong, consistent procedures, rules and consequences, districts can prevent some types of litigation.

I'd be interested to know what the ratio of 504 plans to IEPs is for different districts, and where the bulk of those plans exist (grade level). I am going to look into this in my district as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Sorry, I didn't add anything from the reading that I did. I will go back and add some of my notes. As far as some questions that I have, there are two. I am interested in your thoughts. Question #1, what is your take on whether to advocate for a 504 versus referral for special education. My second question rests with the dates on the placement page. As a matter of opinion, I have suggested special education teachers always make the date of implementation one week from the date the IEP is locked/finalized. DPI references an opinion that if a parent is physically at the meeting and the IEP is finalized and you literally print and are giving the parent a copy, you can set the implementation date as the same date of the meeting. Here is my take on that, regardless of if the parent is there and gets a copy or not...it seems good practice to still roll out the date by a week. One, it offers the parent some reflection time to still have an opportunity to review as the IEP meeting can often involve much discussion. At the same time, it allows time for service providers to prepare for any services that may need some time to put in place. All of this does rely on the fact that the implementation date can't extend beyond the annual date of providing placement. So if teachers wait to long before holding the meeting, that can impact things. Hopefully, this can be avoided by advanced planning. So, any thoughts regarding the two questions I have for the group?