Chap Petersen mask letter from 2/8 to FCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop with all political phrasing and capitalization like “Forced Masking” and “Forever Maskers.” It’s such political BS and is tearing apart our community. No one wants to mask forever. Some people want science-based end to masking instead of “parent’s rights” political strategy. We also want schools to stay in person and not close due to staffing shortages if there is another highly contagious variant.

+1

x1 billion

What if there's scientific evidence to be found on both sides - WHO says never mask kids under 6, northern Europe doesn't mask kids under 12, UK study found no statistically significant evidence mask mandates worked in school on one side, AAP and CDC on the other. What then?

Politics or parents or something else decides then, right?

[Anonymous]

I agree with his letter but would have phrased it differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his letter but would have phrased it differently.

I suspect he has tried back channels with Braband and it isn't helping. So he is taking it to the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did not get a survey.

Even if you get the survey, it is going to be
(a) wear masks until the end of covid
(b) wear masks until the further notice.


FCPS surveys are a joke

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his letter but would have phrased it differently.

I suspect he has tried back channels with Braband and it isn't helping. So he is taking it to the public.

Nope. He is interested in the public show, not on helping FCPS get some metrics for removing masks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True to his word, Chap has an ammendment to Dunnavant's new in-person law to remove mask mandates.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any regulation, rule, or policy implemented by a school board, school division, school official, or other state or local authority, the parent of any child enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school, or in any school-based early childhood care and education program, may elect for such child to not wear a mask while on school property. A parent making such an election shall not be required to provide a reason or any certification of the child's health or education status. No student shall suffer any adverse disciplinary or academic consequences as a result of this parental election.

(https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+sum+SB739)

Bill has already made it to the Senate floor, past the D controlled education sub-committee. It does not have an emergency clause (which requires 2/3 vote to pass), so it will not go into effect until July. Like SB 1303 last year it may send a message about what should be done, though.

Unlike last year when Del. VanValkenberg changed SB 1303 and added all the loopholes, I don't see the House making this one weaker.

How silly. SB 1303 expires 8/1. And FCPS does not GAF what ChapPeterson thinks should be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with his letter but would have phrased it differently.

I suspect he has tried back channels with Braband and it isn't helping. So he is taking it to the public.

Nope. He is interested in the public show, not on helping FCPS get some metrics for removing masks.

Because traditional metrics are not relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What happens if we have some other new virus emerge? Can schools ever require masks again? Or is there language to protect schools in cases of emergency?

There is in HB1036, another anti-mandate bill, but the ammendment to SB739 has no caveat. However the governor has broad emergency powers and maybe could overrule this temporarily.

That said, I think Chap in this case is swayed by the fact that we have low evidence that school masks mandates work (per, say, the EU's CDC's own school mitigation measure guidance), so even in the case of a new variant a mask mandate won't do much good. Families and teachers can still mask up in the face of some strange airborne virus under this law.

This is why I’m not really sold on a “metric” for ending masks. If the mask mandates aren’t working anyway, and if people can use KF94s etc. to keep THEMSELVES safe regardless of others wearing masks or not, then there’s no need for any kind of mandates and we can all make our own decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True to his word, Chap has an ammendment to Dunnavant's new in-person law to remove mask mandates.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any regulation, rule, or policy implemented by a school board, school division, school official, or other state or local authority, the parent of any child enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school, or in any school-based early childhood care and education program, may elect for such child to not wear a mask while on school property. A parent making such an election shall not be required to provide a reason or any certification of the child's health or education status. No student shall suffer any adverse disciplinary or academic consequences as a result of this parental election.

(https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+sum+SB739)

Bill has already made it to the Senate floor, past the D controlled education sub-committee. It does not have an emergency clause (which requires 2/3 vote to pass), so it will not go into effect until July. Like SB 1303 last year it may send a message about what should be done, though.

Unlike last year when Del. VanValkenberg changed SB 1303 and added all the loopholes, I don't see the House making this one weaker.

Senate approved the amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True to his word, Chap has an ammendment to Dunnavant's new in-person law to remove mask mandates.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any regulation, rule, or policy implemented by a school board, school division, school official, or other state or local authority, the parent of any child enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school, or in any school-based early childhood care and education program, may elect for such child to not wear a mask while on school property. A parent making such an election shall not be required to provide a reason or any certification of the child's health or education status. No student shall suffer any adverse disciplinary or academic consequences as a result of this parental election.

(https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+sum+SB739)

Bill has already made it to the Senate floor, past the D controlled education sub-committee. It does not have an emergency clause (which requires 2/3 vote to pass), so it will not go into effect until July. Like SB 1303 last year it may send a message about what should be done, though.

Unlike last year when Del. VanValkenberg changed SB 1303 and added all the loopholes, I don't see the House making this one weaker.

Senate approved the amendment.

Had enough votes it may go back with an emergency clause for immediate effectiveness. Stay tuned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True to his word, Chap has an ammendment to Dunnavant's new in-person law to remove mask mandates.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any regulation, rule, or policy implemented by a school board, school division, school official, or other state or local authority, the parent of any child enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school, or in any school-based early childhood care and education program, may elect for such child to not wear a mask while on school property. A parent making such an election shall not be required to provide a reason or any certification of the child's health or education status. No student shall suffer any adverse disciplinary or academic consequences as a result of this parental election.

(https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+sum+SB739)

Bill has already made it to the Senate floor, past the D controlled education sub-committee. It does not have an emergency clause (which requires 2/3 vote to pass), so it will not go into effect until July. Like SB 1303 last year it may send a message about what should be done, though.

Unlike last year when Del. VanValkenberg changed SB 1303 and added all the loopholes, I don't see the House making this one weaker.

Senate approved the amendment.

Had enough votes it may go back with an emergency clause for immediate effectiveness. Stay tuned.

Either way. Game is over, folks. How could any school board justify the cost of continued litigation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True to his word, Chap has an ammendment to Dunnavant's new in-person law to remove mask mandates.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any regulation, rule, or policy implemented by a school board, school division, school official, or other state or local authority, the parent of any child enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school, or in any school-based early childhood care and education program, may elect for such child to not wear a mask while on school property. A parent making such an election shall not be required to provide a reason or any certification of the child's health or education status. No student shall suffer any adverse disciplinary or academic consequences as a result of this parental election.

(https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+sum+SB739)

Bill has already made it to the Senate floor, past the D controlled education sub-committee. It does not have an emergency clause (which requires 2/3 vote to pass), so it will not go into effect until July. Like SB 1303 last year it may send a message about what should be done, though.

Unlike last year when Del. VanValkenberg changed SB 1303 and added all the loopholes, I don't see the House making this one weaker.

Senate approved the amendment.

Had enough votes it may go back with an emergency clause for immediate effectiveness. Stay tuned.

Either way. Game is over, folks. How could any school board justify the cost of continued litigation?

Have you seen what this board spends money on and when?

[Anonymous]

It's almost over. Masks are going to be a personal decision from here on out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True to his word, Chap has an ammendment to Dunnavant's new in-person law to remove mask mandates.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any regulation, rule, or policy implemented by a school board, school division, school official, or other state or local authority, the parent of any child enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school, or in any school-based early childhood care and education program, may elect for such child to not wear a mask while on school property. A parent making such an election shall not be required to provide a reason or any certification of the child's health or education status. No student shall suffer any adverse disciplinary or academic consequences as a result of this parental election.

(https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+sum+SB739)

Bill has already made it to the Senate floor, past the D controlled education sub-committee. It does not have an emergency clause (which requires 2/3 vote to pass), so it will not go into effect until July. Like SB 1303 last year it may send a message about what should be done, though.

Unlike last year when Del. VanValkenberg changed SB 1303 and added all the loopholes, I don't see the House making this one weaker.

Senate approved the amendment.

Had enough votes it may go back with an emergency clause for immediate effectiveness. Stay tuned.

Whoah. Whoah. Whoah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's almost over. Masks are going to be a personal decision from here on out.

Please may it be so.