In article >, sf wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:28:26 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> >The school she was at wasn't as prestigious, but it seemed more suitable
> >for her diabetes.
>
> I can understand why the transfer to the other school was denied on
> the basis of diabetes,

I'm not sure that I agree. If there was a shred of truth in the
argument, it should have been considered. This was just a claw and a
grab to get the kid in a school with higher test scores. The school was
in a different district, so the original school district would have lost
the ADA. Not good in a district with declining enrollment, and this
school was the worst.


> but I don't understand why you said the
> original school was *more* suitable

There were three type I diabetics at the the school. All the staff were
trained to recognize symptoms and know what to do. The principal was a
former EMT.


>... was it closer to her house and

It was two blocks further, that was the whole argument. The principal
said that if there was a medical emergency, the parents weren't the
first call. The kid needed to go to the hospital. It was a block away
from the original school, two miles from the desired school. The home
was pretty much in the middle of the two schools, which were both on a
residential street, the one I've lived on for the last thirty years, and
the travel time for two blocks is not significant.


> her stay at home mom?


I don't remember saying that. Even so, stay at homes are home less
often than the staff in the emergency room are on duty.


> Did the original school have a low SES
> population and therefore had more peripheral services - such as a full
> time nurse?

The district has a full time nurse who is very knowledgeable about type
I diabetes. She serves five schools, though. Don't know what the rest
of your sentence means.