ACPS mask policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean "the level of mask discipline required in those circumstances cannot be maintained in schools"? It currently IS being maintained in schools, with high levels of acceptance and adherence by students and staff alike. The only people screeching about how masks need to come off are the people who AREN'T in schools. By and large, teachers and staff in Alexandria schools strongly support masking, especially when they don't know if a child has been vaccinated or not (yes, there is a small number who want to unmask but it is a sificantly small number). As parents, we strongly support masking for the same reason. We have absolutely no confidence that the unmaskers have vaccinated their children; after all, if they were more careful and prudent they wouldn't support unmasking in the first place so it stands to reason that they also would be anti-vaxers.

Yesterday I overheard a few people discussing the possibility of a class action suit aimed at the SB if they move forward with following the EO & SB 739. I believe the speakers were also discussion either the same or a different suit (spelling? law is not my area) Youngkin and all the other bleepers who supported the new legislation. We could firmly get behind that.

The SB for Alexandria has a fiduciary responsibility to keep our children safe. Putting children in harms way by purposefully exposing them to unmasked and unvaccinated children certainly seems to go against that responsibility. If unmasked and unvaccinated children are kept in a different room and if they are not near my children, fine. If not, then we will have a big problem. It is not okay to endanger my children because some anti-vaxer and anti-masker is having an anxiety attack about their kid wearing a mask. Preventing unmasked and unvaccinated children being around mine in school would be a law suit we would fully support in word, action and as much money as it takes.

This take is bad and you should feel bad. If you spent less time claiming people you disagree with are "screeching" and more time actually reading what they wrote, you would see that the PP wrote that cloth masks don't work (which the RCT showed), and the current variants are so transmissible that, effectively, only a continuous airtight seal around the mouth and nose with a KN95 or N95 will stop transmission. That means no cloth masks, period. That means cranking it on so tight that you look like a nurse stepping out of the OR when it comes off. That means never taking it off to scratch your nose. That means never yawning real big and thus breaking the seal but failing to readjust it afterwards to reestablish the seal. And instilling that level of consistency and discipline all the way down to five year olds. For six to seven hours a day.

If you think that's necessary, make that case. But it's obvious that half-hearted cloth masking has no significant effects on transmission in school environments.

This was such beautiful good faith reasoning. Well done.

[Anonymous]

^^agree. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean "the level of mask discipline required in those circumstances cannot be maintained in schools"? It currently IS being maintained in schools, with high levels of acceptance and adherence by students and staff alike. The only people screeching about how masks need to come off are the people who AREN'T in schools. By and large, teachers and staff in Alexandria schools strongly support masking, especially when they don't know if a child has been vaccinated or not (yes, there is a small number who want to unmask but it is a sificantly small number). As parents, we strongly support masking for the same reason. We have absolutely no confidence that the unmaskers have vaccinated their children; after all, if they were more careful and prudent they wouldn't support unmasking in the first place so it stands to reason that they also would be anti-vaxers.

Yesterday I overheard a few people discussing the possibility of a class action suit aimed at the SB if they move forward with following the EO & SB 739. I believe the speakers were also discussion either the same or a different suit (spelling? law is not my area) Youngkin and all the other bleepers who supported the new legislation. We could firmly get behind that.

The SB for Alexandria has a fiduciary responsibility to keep our children safe. Putting children in harms way by purposefully exposing them to unmasked and unvaccinated children certainly seems to go against that responsibility. If unmasked and unvaccinated children are kept in a different room and if they are not near my children, fine. If not, then we will have a big problem. It is not okay to endanger my children because some anti-vaxer and anti-masker is having an anxiety attack about their kid wearing a mask. Preventing unmasked and unvaccinated children being around mine in school would be a law suit we would fully support in word, action and as much money as it takes.

This just makes me so sad. As a mom to a kid with significant speech difficulties, who is really struggling to understand and be understood, the fact that parents out there feel this way are heartbroken. Please don't assume that all kids that unmask have anti-vaxxer, anti-mask parents. My kid is vaccinated, and already had covid, so really isn't a danger to your child. Your attitude and heartlessness towards my kid is terrifying.

You need to advocate for your child and we need to advocate for ours. Your child, if indeed he does have an IEP and a legitimate disability, is the 0.001%. That you cannot see that is ... alarming. I will not endanger my children because of a child like yours whose needs can easily be met in a self-contained classroom. The 0.001% doesn't get to drive what happens to the rest of us.

Yep, my child has an IEP. Yep, I've tried to advocate for this repeatedly. And, ACPS has repeatedly denied my request. All speech therapy needs to happen with both parties masked, no exceptions. And just because a child has an IEP does not mean they belong in a self-contained classroom. In fact, it's actively discouraged, it's called inclusion. Look it up.

ACPS should provide virtual speech therapy so both the teacher and student can be unmasked as an accommodation.

You might be trying to be helpful, but kids don't only speak and need to be understood during speech therapy sessions. They actually need to communicate and be understood all of the time.

Sweetie, there are more than one of us replying to you. Why on earth would you deny virtual speech therapy and virtual classes for your child? That's crazy. You would completely achieve your goal of your child being able to see the mouth and face.

And above about the IEP. Self-contained classrooms are known to be better than inclusion for virtually every special education student because the student gets one-on-one treatment. Many parents like you don't want your children in self-contained classrooms, you want inclusion, so that you feel better about your child's disability. Oddly you and the school systems are aligned even if the reasoning is diametrically opposed. If you read the literature it is all very carefully couched. School systems, you're right, would prefer all students in inclusion settings because it is significantly cheaper. You get to save face and the school district gets to save money.

~SPED Teacher (for another district)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean "the level of mask discipline required in those circumstances cannot be maintained in schools"? It currently IS being maintained in schools, with high levels of acceptance and adherence by students and staff alike. The only people screeching about how masks need to come off are the people who AREN'T in schools. By and large, teachers and staff in Alexandria schools strongly support masking, especially when they don't know if a child has been vaccinated or not (yes, there is a small number who want to unmask but it is a sificantly small number). As parents, we strongly support masking for the same reason. We have absolutely no confidence that the unmaskers have vaccinated their children; after all, if they were more careful and prudent they wouldn't support unmasking in the first place so it stands to reason that they also would be anti-vaxers.

Yesterday I overheard a few people discussing the possibility of a class action suit aimed at the SB if they move forward with following the EO & SB 739. I believe the speakers were also discussion either the same or a different suit (spelling? law is not my area) Youngkin and all the other bleepers who supported the new legislation. We could firmly get behind that.

The SB for Alexandria has a fiduciary responsibility to keep our children safe. Putting children in harms way by purposefully exposing them to unmasked and unvaccinated children certainly seems to go against that responsibility. If unmasked and unvaccinated children are kept in a different room and if they are not near my children, fine. If not, then we will have a big problem. It is not okay to endanger my children because some anti-vaxer and anti-masker is having an anxiety attack about their kid wearing a mask. Preventing unmasked and unvaccinated children being around mine in school would be a law suit we would fully support in word, action and as much money as it takes.

This take is bad and you should feel bad. If you spent less time claiming people you disagree with are "screeching" and more time actually reading what they wrote, you would see that the PP wrote that cloth masks don't work (which the RCT showed), and the current variants are so transmissible that, effectively, only a continuous airtight seal around the mouth and nose with a KN95 or N95 will stop transmission. That means no cloth masks, period. That means cranking it on so tight that you look like a nurse stepping out of the OR when it comes off. That means never taking it off to scratch your nose. That means never yawning real big and thus breaking the seal but failing to readjust it afterwards to reestablish the seal. And instilling that level of consistency and discipline all the way down to five year olds. For six to seven hours a day.

If you think that's necessary, make that case. But it's obvious that half-hearted cloth masking has no significant effects on transmission in school environments.

This was such beautiful good faith reasoning. Well done.

What a bunch of hooey. ACPS distributes free surgical-grade masks and KN95s to every student and staff member. My kid has scads of them. They were handed out in advisory and then he gets more any time he goes to the office to ask for more. He says no one is wearing cloth masks at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean "the level of mask discipline required in those circumstances cannot be maintained in schools"? It currently IS being maintained in schools, with high levels of acceptance and adherence by students and staff alike. The only people screeching about how masks need to come off are the people who AREN'T in schools. By and large, teachers and staff in Alexandria schools strongly support masking, especially when they don't know if a child has been vaccinated or not (yes, there is a small number who want to unmask but it is a sificantly small number). As parents, we strongly support masking for the same reason. We have absolutely no confidence that the unmaskers have vaccinated their children; after all, if they were more careful and prudent they wouldn't support unmasking in the first place so it stands to reason that they also would be anti-vaxers.

Yesterday I overheard a few people discussing the possibility of a class action suit aimed at the SB if they move forward with following the EO & SB 739. I believe the speakers were also discussion either the same or a different suit (spelling? law is not my area) Youngkin and all the other bleepers who supported the new legislation. We could firmly get behind that.

The SB for Alexandria has a fiduciary responsibility to keep our children safe. Putting children in harms way by purposefully exposing them to unmasked and unvaccinated children certainly seems to go against that responsibility. If unmasked and unvaccinated children are kept in a different room and if they are not near my children, fine. If not, then we will have a big problem. It is not okay to endanger my children because some anti-vaxer and anti-masker is having an anxiety attack about their kid wearing a mask. Preventing unmasked and unvaccinated children being around mine in school would be a law suit we would fully support in word, action and as much money as it takes.

This just makes me so sad. As a mom to a kid with significant speech difficulties, who is really struggling to understand and be understood, the fact that parents out there feel this way are heartbroken. Please don't assume that all kids that unmask have anti-vaxxer, anti-mask parents. My kid is vaccinated, and already had covid, so really isn't a danger to your child. Your attitude and heartlessness towards my kid is terrifying.

You need to advocate for your child and we need to advocate for ours. Your child, if indeed he does have an IEP and a legitimate disability, is the 0.001%. That you cannot see that is ... alarming. I will not endanger my children because of a child like yours whose needs can easily be met in a self-contained classroom. The 0.001% doesn't get to drive what happens to the rest of us.

Yep, my child has an IEP. Yep, I've tried to advocate for this repeatedly. And, ACPS has repeatedly denied my request. All speech therapy needs to happen with both parties masked, no exceptions. And just because a child has an IEP does not mean they belong in a self-contained classroom. In fact, it's actively discouraged, it's called inclusion. Look it up.

ACPS should provide virtual speech therapy so both the teacher and student can be unmasked as an accommodation.

You might be trying to be helpful, but kids don't only speak and need to be understood during speech therapy sessions. They actually need to communicate and be understood all of the time.

Sweetie, there are more than one of us replying to you. Why on earth would you deny virtual speech therapy and virtual classes for your child? That's crazy. You would completely achieve your goal of your child being able to see the mouth and face.

And above about the IEP. Self-contained classrooms are known to be better than inclusion for virtually every special education student because the student gets one-on-one treatment. Many parents like you don't want your children in self-contained classrooms, you want inclusion, so that you feel better about your child's disability. Oddly you and the school systems are aligned even if the reasoning is diametrically opposed. If you read the literature it is all very carefully couched. School systems, you're right, would prefer all students in inclusion settings because it is significantly cheaper. You get to save face and the school district gets to save money.

~SPED Teacher (for another district)

Aww, sweetie, I hope you get Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean "the level of mask discipline required in those circumstances cannot be maintained in schools"? It currently IS being maintained in schools, with high levels of acceptance and adherence by students and staff alike. The only people screeching about how masks need to come off are the people who AREN'T in schools. By and large, teachers and staff in Alexandria schools strongly support masking, especially when they don't know if a child has been vaccinated or not (yes, there is a small number who want to unmask but it is a sificantly small number). As parents, we strongly support masking for the same reason. We have absolutely no confidence that the unmaskers have vaccinated their children; after all, if they were more careful and prudent they wouldn't support unmasking in the first place so it stands to reason that they also would be anti-vaxers.

Yesterday I overheard a few people discussing the possibility of a class action suit aimed at the SB if they move forward with following the EO & SB 739. I believe the speakers were also discussion either the same or a different suit (spelling? law is not my area) Youngkin and all the other bleepers who supported the new legislation. We could firmly get behind that.

The SB for Alexandria has a fiduciary responsibility to keep our children safe. Putting children in harms way by purposefully exposing them to unmasked and unvaccinated children certainly seems to go against that responsibility. If unmasked and unvaccinated children are kept in a different room and if they are not near my children, fine. If not, then we will have a big problem. It is not okay to endanger my children because some anti-vaxer and anti-masker is having an anxiety attack about their kid wearing a mask. Preventing unmasked and unvaccinated children being around mine in school would be a law suit we would fully support in word, action and as much money as it takes.

This just makes me so sad. As a mom to a kid with significant speech difficulties, who is really struggling to understand and be understood, the fact that parents out there feel this way are heartbroken. Please don't assume that all kids that unmask have anti-vaxxer, anti-mask parents. My kid is vaccinated, and already had covid, so really isn't a danger to your child. Your attitude and heartlessness towards my kid is terrifying.

You need to advocate for your child and we need to advocate for ours. Your child, if indeed he does have an IEP and a legitimate disability, is the 0.001%. That you cannot see that is ... alarming. I will not endanger my children because of a child like yours whose needs can easily be met in a self-contained classroom. The 0.001% doesn't get to drive what happens to the rest of us.

Yep, my child has an IEP. Yep, I've tried to advocate for this repeatedly. And, ACPS has repeatedly denied my request. All speech therapy needs to happen with both parties masked, no exceptions. And just because a child has an IEP does not mean they belong in a self-contained classroom. In fact, it's actively discouraged, it's called inclusion. Look it up.

ACPS should provide virtual speech therapy so both the teacher and student can be unmasked as an accommodation.

You might be trying to be helpful, but kids don't only speak and need to be understood during speech therapy sessions. They actually need to communicate and be understood all of the time.

Sweetie, there are more than one of us replying to you. Why on earth would you deny virtual speech therapy and virtual classes for your child? That's crazy. You would completely achieve your goal of your child being able to see the mouth and face.

And above about the IEP. Self-contained classrooms are known to be better than inclusion for virtually every special education student because the student gets one-on-one treatment. Many parents like you don't want your children in self-contained classrooms, you want inclusion, so that you feel better about your child's disability. Oddly you and the school systems are aligned even if the reasoning is diametrically opposed. If you read the literature it is all very carefully couched. School systems, you're right, would prefer all students in inclusion settings because it is significantly cheaper. You get to save face and the school district gets to save money.

~SPED Teacher (for another district)

Aww, sweetie, I hope you get Covid.

LOL. If you don't have the brainpower to refute then you must mock. Your parents must be so proud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean "the level of mask discipline required in those circumstances cannot be maintained in schools"? It currently IS being maintained in schools, with high levels of acceptance and adherence by students and staff alike. The only people screeching about how masks need to come off are the people who AREN'T in schools. By and large, teachers and staff in Alexandria schools strongly support masking, especially when they don't know if a child has been vaccinated or not (yes, there is a small number who want to unmask but it is a sificantly small number). As parents, we strongly support masking for the same reason. We have absolutely no confidence that the unmaskers have vaccinated their children; after all, if they were more careful and prudent they wouldn't support unmasking in the first place so it stands to reason that they also would be anti-vaxers.

Yesterday I overheard a few people discussing the possibility of a class action suit aimed at the SB if they move forward with following the EO & SB 739. I believe the speakers were also discussion either the same or a different suit (spelling? law is not my area) Youngkin and all the other bleepers who supported the new legislation. We could firmly get behind that.

The SB for Alexandria has a fiduciary responsibility to keep our children safe. Putting children in harms way by purposefully exposing them to unmasked and unvaccinated children certainly seems to go against that responsibility. If unmasked and unvaccinated children are kept in a different room and if they are not near my children, fine. If not, then we will have a big problem. It is not okay to endanger my children because some anti-vaxer and anti-masker is having an anxiety attack about their kid wearing a mask. Preventing unmasked and unvaccinated children being around mine in school would be a law suit we would fully support in word, action and as much money as it takes.

This take is bad and you should feel bad. If you spent less time claiming people you disagree with are "screeching" and more time actually reading what they wrote, you would see that the PP wrote that cloth masks don't work (which the RCT showed), and the current variants are so transmissible that, effectively, only a continuous airtight seal around the mouth and nose with a KN95 or N95 will stop transmission. That means no cloth masks, period. That means cranking it on so tight that you look like a nurse stepping out of the OR when it comes off. That means never taking it off to scratch your nose. That means never yawning real big and thus breaking the seal but failing to readjust it afterwards to reestablish the seal. And instilling that level of consistency and discipline all the way down to five year olds. For six to seven hours a day.

If you think that's necessary, make that case. But it's obvious that half-hearted cloth masking has no significant effects on transmission in school environments.

This was such beautiful good faith reasoning. Well done.

What a bunch of hooey. ACPS distributes free surgical-grade masks and KN95s to every student and staff member. My kid has scads of them. They were handed out in advisory and then he gets more any time he goes to the office to ask for more. He says no one is wearing cloth masks at school.

Your position seems to be that the status quo is no big deal, but that's not responsive to the point being made. The original point wasn't that high-quality masks don't exist, it was that making them effective in a school environment would require a draconian and self-defeating effort. But since you're not actually committing to a specific policy, perhaps you could clarify your position by answering some questions:

1. Do you think your child's mask (and that of everyone else) was worn with an airtight seal for the whole day? Because that's the only way to make it effective. Otherwise you're just breathing around the filter medium. That would also mean that no one in school has a beard or stubble.
2. Do you think the KN95 should be mandatory and cloth masks disallowed? If not, why not? If so, what is your plan to provide 2-3 per week per student and for how long?
3. If you do think they should be mandated, would you require they be worn with an airtight seal at all times? If not, why would you mandate something you know won't be effective? If so, how do you plan to ensure that students don't have beards or stubble that would render the masks useless?
4. Do you think indoor lunch should ever be permitted?

I am of the opinion that policies should be designed to work, not just appear to work in order to satisfy a general feeling that something should be done. If those in favor of a policy retreat from the very things that would make it effective, it is incumbent upon them to explain why ineffective half-measures are somehow worth the effort. Otherwise the policy should be discarded.

[Anonymous]

Do you not understand that the masks are being provided already? Do you not understand that there is no shortage of masks and that ACPS has enough to continue with its current coverage through the end of the school year? Do you not understand that all of your counterarguments have already been addressed and that they are not germane to the discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean "the level of mask discipline required in those circumstances cannot be maintained in schools"? It currently IS being maintained in schools, with high levels of acceptance and adherence by students and staff alike. The only people screeching about how masks need to come off are the people who AREN'T in schools. By and large, teachers and staff in Alexandria schools strongly support masking, especially when they don't know if a child has been vaccinated or not (yes, there is a small number who want to unmask but it is a sificantly small number). As parents, we strongly support masking for the same reason. We have absolutely no confidence that the unmaskers have vaccinated their children; after all, if they were more careful and prudent they wouldn't support unmasking in the first place so it stands to reason that they also would be anti-vaxers.

Yesterday I overheard a few people discussing the possibility of a class action suit aimed at the SB if they move forward with following the EO & SB 739. I believe the speakers were also discussion either the same or a different suit (spelling? law is not my area) Youngkin and all the other bleepers who supported the new legislation. We could firmly get behind that.

The SB for Alexandria has a fiduciary responsibility to keep our children safe. Putting children in harms way by purposefully exposing them to unmasked and unvaccinated children certainly seems to go against that responsibility. If unmasked and unvaccinated children are kept in a different room and if they are not near my children, fine. If not, then we will have a big problem. It is not okay to endanger my children because some anti-vaxer and anti-masker is having an anxiety attack about their kid wearing a mask. Preventing unmasked and unvaccinated children being around mine in school would be a law suit we would fully support in word, action and as much money as it takes.

This just makes me so sad. As a mom to a kid with significant speech difficulties, who is really struggling to understand and be understood, the fact that parents out there feel this way are heartbroken. Please don't assume that all kids that unmask have anti-vaxxer, anti-mask parents. My kid is vaccinated, and already had covid, so really isn't a danger to your child. Your attitude and heartlessness towards my kid is terrifying.

You need to advocate for your child and we need to advocate for ours. Your child, if indeed he does have an IEP and a legitimate disability, is the 0.001%. That you cannot see that is ... alarming. I will not endanger my children because of a child like yours whose needs can easily be met in a self-contained classroom. The 0.001% doesn't get to drive what happens to the rest of us.

Yep, my child has an IEP. Yep, I've tried to advocate for this repeatedly. And, ACPS has repeatedly denied my request. All speech therapy needs to happen with both parties masked, no exceptions. And just because a child has an IEP does not mean they belong in a self-contained classroom. In fact, it's actively discouraged, it's called inclusion. Look it up.

ACPS should provide virtual speech therapy so both the teacher and student can be unmasked as an accommodation.

You might be trying to be helpful, but kids don't only speak and need to be understood during speech therapy sessions. They actually need to communicate and be understood all of the time.

I am the PP. That’s fair and I am sorry. I think the general mask requirement is appropriate but public schools are still required to provide a free and adequate education despite the masks. For your child, I would presume that would require a good deal of outside the box thinking. I am sorry for you since I know first ACPS fails to do that and really failed special needs students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sweetie, there are more than one of us replying to you. Why on earth would you deny virtual speech therapy and virtual classes for your child? That's crazy. You would completely achieve your goal of your child being able to see the mouth and face.

And above about the IEP. Self-contained classrooms are known to be better than inclusion for virtually every special education student because the student gets one-on-one treatment. Many parents like you don't want your children in self-contained classrooms, you want inclusion, so that you feel better about your child's disability. Oddly you and the school systems are aligned even if the reasoning is diametrically opposed. If you read the literature it is all very carefully couched. School systems, you're right, would prefer all students in inclusion settings because it is significantly cheaper. You get to save face and the school district gets to save money.

~SPED Teacher (for another district)

Thank you, Lord, Baby Jesus you do not teach here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sweetie, there are more than one of us replying to you. Why on earth would you deny virtual speech therapy and virtual classes for your child? That's crazy. You would completely achieve your goal of your child being able to see the mouth and face.

And above about the IEP. Self-contained classrooms are known to be better than inclusion for virtually every special education student because the student gets one-on-one treatment. Many parents like you don't want your children in self-contained classrooms, you want inclusion, so that you feel better about your child's disability. Oddly you and the school systems are aligned even if the reasoning is diametrically opposed. If you read the literature it is all very carefully couched. School systems, you're right, would prefer all students in inclusion settings because it is significantly cheaper. You get to save face and the school district gets to save money.

~SPED Teacher (for another district)

Thank you, Lord, Baby Jesus you do not teach here.

Except she's right. Your insistence on inclusion quite actually condemns your child to not achieving full potential. If that's what you want then you should be happy because that's what you're getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sweetie, there are more than one of us replying to you. Why on earth would you deny virtual speech therapy and virtual classes for your child? That's crazy. You would completely achieve your goal of your child being able to see the mouth and face.

And above about the IEP. Self-contained classrooms are known to be better than inclusion for virtually every special education student because the student gets one-on-one treatment. Many parents like you don't want your children in self-contained classrooms, you want inclusion, so that you feel better about your child's disability. Oddly you and the school systems are aligned even if the reasoning is diametrically opposed. If you read the literature it is all very carefully couched. School systems, you're right, would prefer all students in inclusion settings because it is significantly cheaper. You get to save face and the school district gets to save money.

~SPED Teacher (for another district)

Thank you, Lord, Baby Jesus you do not teach here.

Except she's right. Your insistence on inclusion quite actually condemns your child to not achieving full potential. If that's what you want then you should be happy because that's what you're getting.

And the school system keeps saving money. Everyone's happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you not understand that the masks are being provided already? Do you not understand that there is no shortage of masks and that ACPS has enough to continue with its current coverage through the end of the school year? Do you not understand that all of your counterarguments have already been addressed and that they are not germane to the discussion?

The only germane point to the discussion is if they are being worn properly, with an airtight seal around the face, consistently. It's telling that you'll focus on every point but that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sweetie, there are more than one of us replying to you. Why on earth would you deny virtual speech therapy and virtual classes for your child? That's crazy. You would completely achieve your goal of your child being able to see the mouth and face.

And above about the IEP. Self-contained classrooms are known to be better than inclusion for virtually every special education student because the student gets one-on-one treatment. Many parents like you don't want your children in self-contained classrooms, you want inclusion, so that you feel better about your child's disability. Oddly you and the school systems are aligned even if the reasoning is diametrically opposed. If you read the literature it is all very carefully couched. School systems, you're right, would prefer all students in inclusion settings because it is significantly cheaper. You get to save face and the school district gets to save money.

~SPED Teacher (for another district)

Thank you, Lord, Baby Jesus you do not teach here.

Except she's right. Your insistence on inclusion quite actually condemns your child to not achieving full potential. If that's what you want then you should be happy because that's what you're getting.

You are disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sweetie, there are more than one of us replying to you. Why on earth would you deny virtual speech therapy and virtual classes for your child? That's crazy. You would completely achieve your goal of your child being able to see the mouth and face.

And above about the IEP. Self-contained classrooms are known to be better than inclusion for virtually every special education student because the student gets one-on-one treatment. Many parents like you don't want your children in self-contained classrooms, you want inclusion, so that you feel better about your child's disability. Oddly you and the school systems are aligned even if the reasoning is diametrically opposed. If you read the literature it is all very carefully couched. School systems, you're right, would prefer all students in inclusion settings because it is significantly cheaper. You get to save face and the school district gets to save money.

~SPED Teacher (for another district)

Thank you, Lord, Baby Jesus you do not teach here.

Except she's right. Your insistence on inclusion quite actually condemns your child to not achieving full potential. If that's what you want then you should be happy because that's what you're getting.

HFS you're talking about a kid with a speech impediment, right??