Boy’s parents fight school over exercise

mcclatchy newspapers

PHILADELPHIA — Jack McLaughlin is a bright, articulate sixth-grader whose main mission these days, along with schoolwork, is keeping his blood sugar under control.

Since his diabetes was diagnosed last year when he was 10, the Chester County, Pa., boy has mastered the tedious process of managing the chronic illness, using a beeper-size, computerized pump that injects insulin into his bloodstream. Counting grams of carbohydrates in order to program the pump with the correct dosage has become as much a part of his daily life as getting dressed and brushing his teeth.

At school, where Jack is one of perhaps a half-dozen diabetic pupils, teachers and the school nurse have pitched in to help. Classmates have accepted the situation — he says they even make bets on his blood-sugar levels — and Jack stays active in sports and other activities.

One unresolved issue, however, has sparked a confrontation between Jack’s parents and the Downingtown Area School District. It has to do with exercise.

The dispute is headed for a hearing to determine whether the 1,500-student school is complying with a federal law that gives students with diabetes and other disabilities the right to an equal education.

Cathy and David McLaughlin, Jack’s parents, say that to maintain his health and the alertness needed to do well in school, he needs physical-education class every morning instead of the usual two days in every six. The exercise, they say, would help counter an after-breakfast sugar spike. It would mean skipping required music and reading-skills classes that alternate with gym.

Jack agrees. When he has gym class, and when he had daily recess in elementary school, he said, “I did feel a lot better. I could tell that. ... I don’t see what the big deal is: If I were to do this, I would not be missing important classes.”

The district proposed other ways to help Jack control his blood sugar, but turned down daily gym, saying the McLaughlins had not shown that Jack needed it to fully participate in school. The McLaughlins filed for a “due-process” hearing, where a state-selected hearing officer will weigh the arguments and issue a decision.

At issue is how to interpret Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires that schools provide “services designed to meet the student’s individual educational needs as adequately as the needs of nondisabled students are met,” according to the federal Department of Education.

The law is a familiar fixture in schools, mandating accommodations so that students with conditions ranging from hearing and sight impairment to epilepsy and asthma can get equal access to education.

The district’s explanation for saying Section 504 does not mandate extra gym classes centers on whether Jack’s health would be imperiled without daily exercise. The McLaughlins say both his academic performance and long-term quality of life would suffer, and contend that the law addresses those concerns as well.

Kelly Darr, an attorney with the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania, said it is widely accepted that Section 504 covers students with diabetes, which affects about 186,000 people younger than 20 in the United States. But the law is vague on specifics.

The accommodation the McLaughlins are seeking is unusual, and Darr would not speculate about whether Section 504 covered it. In general, she said, “the question is this: Is an accommodation needed to put a student on the same footing as his peers? If his parents can show that without exercise he could not receive the same education as his peers, they’ve got a pretty good case.”

An e-mail from district special-education supervisor Michelle Clegg to the McLaughlins said, “There is no medical documentation specifying that additional exercise is necessary during school hours in order for Jack to safely access/participate in the school day.” Clegg added that if additional phys ed was “for purposes of good health” and did not “pose a threat to health if it is denied, it would not be an accommodation under 504.”

In an e-mail to the McLaughlins recently, Clegg said the district had proposed, instead, that Jack take part in the school walking club and intramural sports, that he use homeroom time to walk in the halls or the gym, and that he be allowed to leave any class five minutes early “to walk a longer route to the next class.”

Cathy McLaughlin said that was not acceptable. The exercise would not be intensive enough and sometimes not at the right time of day, she said, and Jack told her that leaving class early “would be embarrassing.”

At a recent school board meeting, she asked the board to encourage school officials to be flexible. “All kids don’t fit in a box,” she said. “If a request is simple and it fits the needs of a child, please, have some compassion.”

District solicitor Guy Donatelli responded that “commenting on an active piece of litigation is ill-advised as far as this board is concerned. So I’m reluctantly advising this board to refrain from commenting in public.”

Gary Scheiner, a certified diabetes educator who is working with Jack McLaughlin, said that “after meals, blood sugars tend to spike up, and it makes diabetics tired, lethargic, and not able to think very clearly. Physical activity helps to blunt that. His performance would be much better.”

There is also a “benefit to consistent activity. If sporadic, it’s much harder to maintain day-to-day blood-sugar management,” he said.

Not everyone agrees that diabetic students should forgo classes for exercise.

Carol Howe, who counsels diabetic children and their families at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s Diabetes Center for Children, said the McLaughlins’ “point of view is valid, but it’s tricky.”

“You can lose focus if you have low sugars and if you have high sugars,” she said. But asking for gym every day, she said, “gives a message that children with diabetes need special treatment, and that is not the case. We counsel that they should go along with the school program.”