No more masks at VA privates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite privates will most certainly add language to their contracts that patents and students must abide by their rules regarding the health and welfare of those on school grounds. Any parent who is a Trumplican or QAnon type can leave the decent privates and go to one of the crap ones, or home school, or suck it up at their designated public. This is actual an awesome opportunity to get those loonies out of the good private schools. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If the EO is the law, the school MUST provide an opt out. Some people don’t seem to understand how the law works. Private schools are not above or independent of all laws. I’m not sure what people are missing about that concept. You can put that language in a contract and someone can claim they signed under duress or that it’s unenforceable because it’s not legal.

I think many privates (like ours) are in a panic not knowing what to do. This is a very good time to have an excellent in-house counsel.

Wrong. It does not apply to private enterprises such a private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite privates will most certainly add language to their contracts that patents and students must abide by their rules regarding the health and welfare of those on school grounds. Any parent who is a Trumplican or QAnon type can leave the decent privates and go to one of the crap ones, or home school, or suck it up at their designated public. This is actual an awesome opportunity to get those loonies out of the good private schools. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If the EO is the law, the school MUST provide an opt out. Some people don’t seem to understand how the law works. Private schools are not above or independent of all laws. I’m not sure what people are missing about that concept. You can put that language in a contract and someone can claim they signed under duress or that it’s unenforceable because it’s not legal.

I think many privates (like ours) are in a panic not knowing what to do. This is a very good time to have an excellent in-house counsel.

Wrong. It does not apply to private enterprises such a private schools.

Except the mask mandate applied to all k-12 schools and that’s what he seems to undo. The language of Youngkin’s EO very broad and he appears to be trying to prohibit any school, public or private, from requiring masks.

“A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite privates will most certainly add language to their contracts that patents and students must abide by their rules regarding the health and welfare of those on school grounds. Any parent who is a Trumplican or QAnon type can leave the decent privates and go to one of the crap ones, or home school, or suck it up at their designated public. This is actual an awesome opportunity to get those loonies out of the good private schools. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If the EO is the law, the school MUST provide an opt out. Some people don’t seem to understand how the law works. Private schools are not above or independent of all laws. I’m not sure what people are missing about that concept. You can put that language in a contract and someone can claim they signed under duress or that it’s unenforceable because it’s not legal.

I think many privates (like ours) are in a panic not knowing what to do. This is a very good time to have an excellent in-house counsel.

Wrong. It does not apply to private enterprises such a private schools.

Except the mask mandate applied to all k-12 schools and that’s what he seems to undo. The language of Youngkin’s EO very broad and he appears to be trying to prohibit any school, public or private, from requiring masks.

“A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.”

It’s ambiguous. It depends on the meaning of “other” in “or any other state authority”. If that phrase modifies all the nouns, then they all have to be state authorities (public teachers, public schools, public school districts etc). If it only modifies Dept of Ed, then maybe it’s different. 2.5 days into Youngkin’s term, I am thoroughly unimpressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite privates will most certainly add language to their contracts that patents and students must abide by their rules regarding the health and welfare of those on school grounds. Any parent who is a Trumplican or QAnon type can leave the decent privates and go to one of the crap ones, or home school, or suck it up at their designated public. This is actual an awesome opportunity to get those loonies out of the good private schools. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If the EO is the law, the school MUST provide an opt out. Some people don’t seem to understand how the law works. Private schools are not above or independent of all laws. I’m not sure what people are missing about that concept. You can put that language in a contract and someone can claim they signed under duress or that it’s unenforceable because it’s not legal.

I think many privates (like ours) are in a panic not knowing what to do. This is a very good time to have an excellent in-house counsel.

Wrong. It does not apply to private enterprises such a private schools.

Except the mask mandate applied to all k-12 schools and that’s what he seems to undo. The language of Youngkin’s EO very broad and he appears to be trying to prohibit any school, public or private, from requiring masks.

“A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.”

But the PTA isn’t mentioned… mwahaaaaa!

[Anonymous]

Also, it doesn’t cover non-binary children.
Do they have to mask?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite privates will most certainly add language to their contracts that patents and students must abide by their rules regarding the health and welfare of those on school grounds. Any parent who is a Trumplican or QAnon type can leave the decent privates and go to one of the crap ones, or home school, or suck it up at their designated public. This is actual an awesome opportunity to get those loonies out of the good private schools. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If the EO is the law, the school MUST provide an opt out. Some people don’t seem to understand how the law works. Private schools are not above or independent of all laws. I’m not sure what people are missing about that concept. You can put that language in a contract and someone can claim they signed under duress or that it’s unenforceable because it’s not legal.

I think many privates (like ours) are in a panic not knowing what to do. This is a very good time to have an excellent in-house counsel.

Wrong. It does not apply to private enterprises such a private schools.

Except the mask mandate applied to all k-12 schools and that’s what he seems to undo. The language of Youngkin’s EO very broad and he appears to be trying to prohibit any school, public or private, from requiring masks.

“A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.”

It’s ambiguous. It depends on the meaning of “other” in “or any other state authority”. If that phrase modifies all the nouns, then they all have to be state authorities (public teachers, public schools, public school districts etc). If it only modifies Dept of Ed, then maybe it’s different. 2.5 days into Youngkin’s term, I am thoroughly unimpressed.

I’m the one who posted the quote from the EO and had the same thought. Very poorly drafted and hard to figure out what “other” modifies. Given his intent to eliminate the mask mandate that covered public and private schools, it may be the intent was more broad. Then again, he seems to be primarily going after public schools generally as intended targets. Ugh, what a mess already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite privates will most certainly add language to their contracts that patents and students must abide by their rules regarding the health and welfare of those on school grounds. Any parent who is a Trumplican or QAnon type can leave the decent privates and go to one of the crap ones, or home school, or suck it up at their designated public. This is actual an awesome opportunity to get those loonies out of the good private schools. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If the EO is the law, the school MUST provide an opt out. Some people don’t seem to understand how the law works. Private schools are not above or independent of all laws. I’m not sure what people are missing about that concept. You can put that language in a contract and someone can claim they signed under duress or that it’s unenforceable because it’s not legal.

I think many privates (like ours) are in a panic not knowing what to do. This is a very good time to have an excellent in-house counsel.

Wrong. It does not apply to private enterprises such a private schools.

Except the mask mandate applied to all k-12 schools and that’s what he seems to undo. The language of Youngkin’s EO very broad and he appears to be trying to prohibit any school, public or private, from requiring masks.

“A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.”

It’s ambiguous. It depends on the meaning of “other” in “or any other state authority”. If that phrase modifies all the nouns, then they all have to be state authorities (public teachers, public schools, public school districts etc). If it only modifies Dept of Ed, then maybe it’s different. 2.5 days into Youngkin’s term, I am thoroughly unimpressed.

For your second proposed interpretation to be correct, I think the ending would have to be “… school districts, or the Dept of Ed or any other state authority.”

[Anonymous]

Glen Youngkin is an entitled idiot, a fool and a pompous wanker all rolled into one. His kids were in the close with mine for years. Seriously he isn’t smart regardless of how well he has been marketed to the fools in VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congressional?

No way, not Congressional. Kids are definitely still masked there.

Not sure if it’s OP’s school but ILS in Alexandria has not been masking this year (plenty of maskless photos on their social media pages).

Congressional is quite strict about masking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Catholic schools will do away with masks if they haven’t already.

I agree its in line with the Bishop's stance on masks a Church - optional.

BI sent an email last night asking parents their preference saying the diocese is considering what to do. I will be livid if they lift the mask mandate with the rate of infections being so high right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Glen Youngkin is an entitled idiot, a fool and a pompous wanker all rolled into one. His kids were in the close with mine for years. Seriously he isn’t smart regardless of how well he has been marketed to the fools in VA.

I agree. He only won because his opponent was weak

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Catholic schools will do away with masks if they haven’t already.

I agree its in line with the Bishop's stance on masks a Church - optional.

BI sent an email last night asking parents their preference saying the diocese is considering what to do. I will be livid if they lift the mask mandate with the rate of infections being so high right now.

That’s great news that BI is giving parents a voice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Glen Youngkin is an entitled idiot, a fool and a pompous wanker all rolled into one. His kids were in the close with mine for years. Seriously he isn’t smart regardless of how well he has been marketed to the fools in VA.

Sure they were

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite privates will most certainly add language to their contracts that patents and students must abide by their rules regarding the health and welfare of those on school grounds. Any parent who is a Trumplican or QAnon type can leave the decent privates and go to one of the crap ones, or home school, or suck it up at their designated public. This is actual an awesome opportunity to get those loonies out of the good private schools. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If the EO is the law, the school MUST provide an opt out. Some people don’t seem to understand how the law works. Private schools are not above or independent of all laws. I’m not sure what people are missing about that concept. You can put that language in a contract and someone can claim they signed under duress or that it’s unenforceable because it’s not legal.

I think many privates (like ours) are in a panic not knowing what to do. This is a very good time to have an excellent in-house counsel.

Wrong. It does not apply to private enterprises such a private schools.

Except the mask mandate applied to all k-12 schools and that’s what he seems to undo. The language of Youngkin’s EO very broad and he appears to be trying to prohibit any school, public or private, from requiring masks.

“A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.”

It’s ambiguous. It depends on the meaning of “other” in “or any other state authority”. If that phrase modifies all the nouns, then they all have to be state authorities (public teachers, public schools, public school districts etc). If it only modifies Dept of Ed, then maybe it’s different. 2.5 days into Youngkin’s term, I am thoroughly unimpressed.

For your second proposed interpretation to be correct, I think the ending would have to be “… school districts, or the Dept of Ed or any other state authority.”

Lol no. Private schools can do what they want. EO are meaningless. Governors EOs are highly questionable for public schools give the structure that give final authority to legislature. Private schools are outside of the governor’s contour or authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glen Youngkin is an entitled idiot, a fool and a pompous wanker all rolled into one. His kids were in the close with mine for years. Seriously he isn’t smart regardless of how well he has been marketed to the fools in VA.

I agree. He only won because his opponent was weak

Well, there are a lot of self-described liberals who as it turns out really like union busting/punishing labor, so they felt a bond with Dollar Store Ron Desantis. He might make it illegal to be trans in public and deem all vaccinations to be hate crimes, but dammit he put those lazy Union thugs in their place!