When will MCPS implement test to stay?

[Anonymous]

DC and Fairfax have announced they will have test to stay. MCPS has their ridiculous modified quarantine policy where kids can stay in school if they sign up for testing. They use the term test to stay but as we have learned first hand, there is virtually no testing. My kid was exposed and tested a week later. It is basically a public relations stunt to get people to sign up for testing so they have a talking point. Now they have a policy where the school has to go virtual if a made up threshold of 5% of kids test positive in a two week period. This just amounts to a defeatist approach. They are potentially allowing sick kids to come to school, and then quarantining mostly healthy kids all because they have no testing. It will lead to both of the bad outcomes that we should be trying to avoid--kids getting sick and unnecessary quarantines--and amounts to throwing one's hands up in the air. It should really enrage parents. What is their problem? What can parents do to effectuate change? Do you think in January they will announce a real test to stay program?

[Anonymous]

Nope. It was disappointing to hear that MCPS is redoubling their efforts on surveillance PCR testing instead of shifting to expand Test-to-Stay. I hope parents will see the problems with this and withdraw consent for testing until they shift models.

[Anonymous]

Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

[Anonymous]

They are paying a consultant $130/hour to advice them on public relations related to the pandemic. Perhaps they should pay a public health expert to advise on actual pandemic strategies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

Is it really lack of buy-in or is it lack of awareness to actually opt-in?

Signing up for testing is not by default - it is by opting in.

[Anonymous]

I wanted my child tested for COVID after a close contact notification from school but the school refused and kept my son at school. I opted in for testing months ago and specifically asked the school administrator to have him tested and the school declined.

That was the beginning of the uptick in cases at my son’s high school - an environment where all students have been eligible for a vaccine. Now there are double digit reports of COVID cases everyday.

I think all students and staff returning to school after winter break should be required to take a test. Same for a close contact - test to stay. That would get COVID positive students and staff out of the building quickly versus giving the opportunity to spread the virus to others.

An extra level of protection would be mandatory vaccinations and boosters but we already saw how that sits with the teacher union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

Is it really lack of buy-in or is it lack of awareness to actually opt-in?

Signing up for testing is not by default - it is by opting in.

Certainly there’s a part of that. But also keep in mind MCPS has been pretty disingenuous when they’ve described why parents should opt-in. They’ve tried to make it sound like there’s a benefit reducing quarantines when in fact it mostly does the opposite. Many parents who did opt-in would not have done so if they really understood how it is used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

Is it really lack of buy-in or is it lack of awareness to actually opt-in?

Signing up for testing is not by default - it is by opting in.

Certainly there’s a part of that. But also keep in mind MCPS has been pretty disingenuous when they’ve described why parents should opt-in. They’ve tried to make it sound like there’s a benefit reducing quarantines when in fact it mostly does the opposite. Many parents who did opt-in would not have done so if they really understood how it is used.

Yup, my kids have been doing the testing since last spring. My vaxxed kid still got quarantined for a week. I asked for test to stay and was told that wasn't an option because....no contractors were available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

Is it really lack of buy-in or is it lack of awareness to actually opt-in?

Signing up for testing is not by default - it is by opting in.

Certainly there’s a part of that. But also keep in mind MCPS has been pretty disingenuous when they’ve described why parents should opt-in. They’ve tried to make it sound like there’s a benefit reducing quarantines when in fact it mostly does the opposite. Many parents who did opt-in would not have done so if they really understood how it is used.

Yup, my kids have been doing the testing since last spring. My vaxxed kid still got quarantined for a week. I asked for test to stay and was told that wasn't an option because....no contractors were available.

Your school should have said “No contractors have been hired by MCPS administrators. The leadership is greatly flawed and cares more about more vacations and personal rejuvenation then keeping COVID positive students and staff out of schools. The ultimate goal is to let schools get to 5% so schools are closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

Is it really lack of buy-in or is it lack of awareness to actually opt-in?

Signing up for testing is not by default - it is by opting in.

PP here- my DC has brought home fliers about testing and I've received numerous emails and voicemails with information about how to opt in. I'm sure despite this campaign there are still some parents that are not aware, but I don't think that is solely what is driving low enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Because test to stay doesn't catch covid or stop it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

Is it really lack of buy-in or is it lack of awareness to actually opt-in?

Signing up for testing is not by default - it is by opting in.

Certainly there’s a part of that. But also keep in mind MCPS has been pretty disingenuous when they’ve described why parents should opt-in. They’ve tried to make it sound like there’s a benefit reducing quarantines when in fact it mostly does the opposite. Many parents who did opt-in would not have done so if they really understood how it is used.

Yup, my kids have been doing the testing since last spring. My vaxxed kid still got quarantined for a week. I asked for test to stay and was told that wasn't an option because....no contractors were available.

Clearly there is more to your story as your child had had a very close contact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they supposed to be piloting an actual test-to-stay program at some schools around thanksgiving? Did they just say that to get parents off their back and then not follow through?

If they are not using the rapid tests that were supposedly provided by the county, they should give them back so that the county can distribute to residents as is being done in other localities. My parents are in a mid-size city and not only have the option to take a rapid test at their county testing sites, the county is also distributing at home rapid tests to residents.

I think the rapid tests from the county were set aside for rapid-testing students that present with symptoms at school.

For test-to-stay, I think the main problem has been getting people to administer the tests. They could have worked on that. McKnight just announced they recently worked to greatly expand their contract for outside support for PCR testing. Why didn't they keep surveillance testing as-is and instead use that money for Test-to-Stay contracts?

Agreed- and why do they need to expand the surveillance testing anyway? Are they really getting more families to enroll? At our ES it has consistently only been around a third of students enrolled, and this is in a neighborhood where masks are still prevalent on the playground. Is MCPS really not taking the hint with lack of buy in?

Is it really lack of buy-in or is it lack of awareness to actually opt-in?

Signing up for testing is not by default - it is by opting in.

Certainly there’s a part of that. But also keep in mind MCPS has been pretty disingenuous when they’ve described why parents should opt-in. They’ve tried to make it sound like there’s a benefit reducing quarantines when in fact it mostly does the opposite. Many parents who did opt-in would not have done so if they really understood how it is used.

Yup, my kids have been doing the testing since last spring. My vaxxed kid still got quarantined for a week. I asked for test to stay and was told that wasn't an option because....no contractors were available.

Clearly there is more to your story as your child had had a very close contact.

My kids had test to stay after they were exposed to a person who tested positive. It was easy and no big deal.