FCPS Masking Update

[Anonymous]

My prediction:

Sometime between now and March 1, another email will come saying that the masks would be optional as of March 1 due to lower COVID numbers. The FCPS just doesn’t want to accept the defeat right away but I don’t think they would keep digging in.

[Anonymous]

Why are posts being deleted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It means they are going to sue. And for now, stay masked.

Only if they want more egg on their face.

[Anonymous]

I am sure they are crossing their fingers their own metrics get met by March 1 and/or CDC does something they can couch as meeting their metrics by then to go along with the law.

And you know what? I don’t really care. It’s fine if they want to save a little face, perfectly natural. NBD.

[Anonymous]

“Understand their legal obligation” to me means they understand they will have to comply. But they are hopeful that by March 1 transmission continues to decrease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I called FCPS. The woman made it very clear that the email means children are to remain masked until the School Board tells us they can unmask sometime in the future.

That's not what the email says. They didn't want to admit defeat so they intentionally garbled together the law vs. rule distinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Understand their legal obligation” to me means they understand they will have to comply. But they are hopeful that by March 1 transmission continues to decrease.

+1. It’s really not hard to understand. The problem is so many here have a vendetta against FCPS that they try to make everything a conspiracy or scandal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nowhere did they say masking will be optional March 1. I read this as they are preparing a lawsuit.

See, I read it as the opposite, that they recognize the law allows parents to opt out and they will not fight that.

This is how I read it too. And, I read it as kids can opt out of masks immediately. E02 allows it right now. They won't fight it!

[Anonymous]

TL;DR

We are finally writing you to acknowledge that our legal team says it's pointless to continue the lawsuit. So, we are hoping and praying that either the CDC revises their guidelines next week or that we that numbers of covid cases drop by next week so that we can say we lifted the mask requirement for any reason other than the law that just passed that's going to require us to do it by March 1.

We want more grace and patience to continue doing things our way for our agenda.

SB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nowhere did they say masking will be optional March 1. I read this as they are preparing a lawsuit.

See, I read it as the opposite, that they recognize the law allows parents to opt out and they will not fight that.

Agree. They are not saying they will fight it, but they want to keep up the scare tactics to kerp people masking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR

We are finally writing you to acknowledge that our legal team says it's pointless to continue the lawsuit. So, we are hoping and praying that either the CDC revises their guidelines next week or that we that numbers of covid cases drop by next week so that we can say we lifted the mask requirement for any reason other than the law that just passed that's going to require us to do it by March 1.

We want more grace and patience to continue doing things our way for our agenda.

SB

Precisely.

And add: "this year can't end soon enough!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nowhere did they say masking will be optional March 1. I read this as they are preparing a lawsuit.

See, I read it as the opposite, that they recognize the law allows parents to opt out and they will not fight that.

Agree. They are not saying they will fight it, but they want to keep up the scare tactics to kerp people masking.

Come on. Why is everyone acting like they have a vested interest in kids masking? It's not like Brabrand and the SB stands to benefit. They're just overly cautiuos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are posts being deleted?

Mine was deleted too. I don’t think I said anything problematic. I don’t recall if I quoted someone and if that person had said something problematic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nowhere did they say masking will be optional March 1. I read this as they are preparing a lawsuit.

See, I read it as the opposite, that they recognize the law allows parents to opt out and they will not fight that.

Agree. They are not saying they will fight it, but they want to keep up the scare tactics to kerp people masking.

Come on. Why is everyone acting like they have a vested interest in kids masking? It's not like Brabrand and the SB stands to benefit. They're just overly cautiuos.

I think it’s political for the school board. They don’t want to let the Rs get a win.
Let’s clean house in 2023 with the exception of McLaughlin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nowhere did they say masking will be optional March 1. I read this as they are preparing a lawsuit.

See, I read it as the opposite, that they recognize the law allows parents to opt out and they will not fight that.

Agree. They are not saying they will fight it, but they want to keep up the scare tactics to kerp people masking.

Come on. Why is everyone acting like they have a vested interest in kids masking? It's not like Brabrand and the SB stands to benefit. They're just overly cautiuos.

FCPS admin has a vested interest in sticking to the 😷 masking guidelines of the CDC because their argument in the lawsuit (still ongoing) re: local control is based on FCPS following CDC as a higher authority.

Teachers have a vested interest in FCPS keeping kids masked because they are with kids all day.

Si yes, FCOS would want to keep kids masked as long as possible. Not forever, but longer than others would say is "necessary".