FCPS new info on masks

[Anonymous]

I also think teachers should not have to do virtual if child is out for 10 days. Any other absence would not warrant yhis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS website said they are aware of the new CDC guidance that came out Friday and will update us on Monday. Looks like a 100% turn a round from their January communication in response to the EO. LOL! FCPS looks absolutely idiotic!

No, actually you look like an idiot. They’ve always maintained that they were directed by a LAW to keep schools open and follow the CDC guidelines. The court upheld that. An executive order cannot trump a law. They’ve continued to follow the law (SB1303) directing them to follow CDC guidelines and were prepared to follow the NEW law that allowed parents to elect whether their child wears a mask effective March 1. The CDC guidelines changed YESTERDAY.

What exactly is funny here? There’s no “turnaround.” They’re simply following the law as it changes. The executive order was never a law. Sounds like you need to brush up on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, Champ.

Yes, it changed yesterday. But they knew there were going to be changes, and the changes were being informally telegraphed by the news (and probably by CDC insiders as well) in advance of the formal announcement. Prior planning and foresight SHOULD have resulted in the development of new messaging being prepared in advance. Then you only need minor tweaks if the guidance isn't what you think it would be and can be responsive and agile to the situation. Having to wait until Monday just further demonstrates the school board's lack of planning and vision. It demonstrates yet another failure and that they are being reactionary. I'm sure you contingency plan in your daily life. Can't we expect the same from FCPS?

You’re beyond ridiculous. Do you even have a job or a life? First, if you think FCPS is getting some advance messaging from the CDC, I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. FCPS absolutely took into account that new guidance would be coming out. That’s why there was a line in yesterday’s message acknowledging that and saying they would update. They posted the same on their twitter last night. No one but you expected a school system to waste their time coming up with every possible scenario so that they could be ready with the message minutes after the CDC made their changes. Besides, it’s the weekend. What exactly is the rush? My guess is that unless Scott Brabrand had personally delivered the message to your house with a rose last night, anything else would be an abject failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS website said they are aware of the new CDC guidance that came out Friday and will update us on Monday. Looks like a 100% turn a round from their January communication in response to the EO. LOL! FCPS looks absolutely idiotic!

No, actually you look like an idiot. They’ve always maintained that they were directed by a LAW to keep schools open and follow the CDC guidelines. The court upheld that. An executive order cannot trump a law. They’ve continued to follow the law (SB1303) directing them to follow CDC guidelines and were prepared to follow the NEW law that allowed parents to elect whether their child wears a mask effective March 1. The CDC guidelines changed YESTERDAY.

What exactly is funny here? There’s no “turnaround.” They’re simply following the law as it changes. The executive order was never a law. Sounds like you need to brush up on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, Champ.

Yes, it changed yesterday. But they knew there were going to be changes, and the changes were being informally telegraphed by the news (and probably by CDC insiders as well) in advance of the formal announcement. Prior planning and foresight SHOULD have resulted in the development of new messaging being prepared in advance. Then you only need minor tweaks if the guidance isn't what you think it would be and can be responsive and agile to the situation. Having to wait until Monday just further demonstrates the school board's lack of planning and vision. It demonstrates yet another failure and that they are being reactionary. I'm sure you contingency plan in your daily life. Can't we expect the same from FCPS?

You’re beyond ridiculous. Do you even have a job or a life? First, if you think FCPS is getting some advance messaging from the CDC, I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. FCPS absolutely took into account that new guidance would be coming out. That’s why there was a line in yesterday’s message acknowledging that and saying they would update. They posted the same on their twitter last night. No one but you expected a school system to waste their time coming up with every possible scenario so that they could be ready with the message minutes after the CDC made their changes. Besides, it’s the weekend. What exactly is the rush? My guess is that unless Scott Brabrand had personally delivered the message to your house with a rose last night, anything else would be an abject failure.

Really not that hard. Scenario 1) The guidance keeps schools seperate, like the old guidance. Message remains basically the same. Scenario 2) The guidance specifically states schools don't need to mask anymore. Prepare a message stating masks are optional on Monday. Scenario 2b) The guidance states that buses operated by school systems no longer require masks as well. Simple add onto the message.

I'm asking Brabrand and the school board to do their job, like I do mine. And my job does involve contingency planning. As does my day to day life.

Advance messaging was publicly available on the news. ABC, among other news outlets, were reporting almost a day in advance that the new guidance was going to place the vast majority of the country in a low risk status. So it was pretty easy to predict the needed scenarios. I came up with the above in less than five minutes.

By contrast, when Gov Youngkin signed the EO, FCPS was responding within minutes that they disagreed and were going to pursue legal matters. FCPS, in that case, knew what might be coming and was prepared in advance.

The lack of planning has once again resulted in messaging that isn't clear when you compare the guidance for offramps against the new CDC guidance.

While the gesture of a rose would be sweet, all I am asking is for them to do their job. I don't think that is beyond ridiculous. Even on a weekend, if necessary (but it shouldn't have been in this case had they been prepared, or more appropriately, had the anticipated message been one they wanted to deliver and was aligned with their beliefs).

[Anonymous]

FCPS knew this was coming. They just want to be the ones to say we’ve officially met the threshold level and give us “permission” to be mask free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS website said they are aware of the new CDC guidance that came out Friday and will update us on Monday. Looks like a 100% turn a round from their January communication in response to the EO. LOL! FCPS looks absolutely idiotic!

No, actually you look like an idiot. They’ve always maintained that they were directed by a LAW to keep schools open and follow the CDC guidelines. The court upheld that. An executive order cannot trump a law. They’ve continued to follow the law (SB1303) directing them to follow CDC guidelines and were prepared to follow the NEW law that allowed parents to elect whether their child wears a mask effective March 1. The CDC guidelines changed YESTERDAY.

What exactly is funny here? There’s no “turnaround.” They’re simply following the law as it changes. The executive order was never a law. Sounds like you need to brush up on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, Champ.

Yes, it changed yesterday. But they knew there were going to be changes, and the changes were being informally telegraphed by the news (and probably by CDC insiders as well) in advance of the formal announcement. Prior planning and foresight SHOULD have resulted in the development of new messaging being prepared in advance. Then you only need minor tweaks if the guidance isn't what you think it would be and can be responsive and agile to the situation. Having to wait until Monday just further demonstrates the school board's lack of planning and vision. It demonstrates yet another failure and that they are being reactionary. I'm sure you contingency plan in your daily life. Can't we expect the same from FCPS?

You’re beyond ridiculous. Do you even have a job or a life? First, if you think FCPS is getting some advance messaging from the CDC, I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. FCPS absolutely took into account that new guidance would be coming out. That’s why there was a line in yesterday’s message acknowledging that and saying they would update. They posted the same on their twitter last night. No one but you expected a school system to waste their time coming up with every possible scenario so that they could be ready with the message minutes after the CDC made their changes. Besides, it’s the weekend. What exactly is the rush? My guess is that unless Scott Brabrand had personally delivered the message to your house with a rose last night, anything else would be an abject failure.

Really not that hard. Scenario 1) The guidance keeps schools seperate, like the old guidance. Message remains basically the same. Scenario 2) The guidance specifically states schools don't need to mask anymore. Prepare a message stating masks are optional on Monday. Scenario 2b) The guidance states that buses operated by school systems no longer require masks as well. Simple add onto the message.

I'm asking Brabrand and the school board to do their job, like I do mine. And my job does involve contingency planning. As does my day to day life.

Advance messaging was publicly available on the news. ABC, among other news outlets, were reporting almost a day in advance that the new guidance was going to place the vast majority of the country in a low risk status. So it was pretty easy to predict the needed scenarios. I came up with the above in less than five minutes.

By contrast, when Gov Youngkin signed the EO, FCPS was responding within minutes that they disagreed and were going to pursue legal matters. FCPS, in that case, knew what might be coming and was prepared in advance.

The lack of planning has once again resulted in messaging that isn't clear when you compare the guidance for offramps against the new CDC guidance.

While the gesture of a rose would be sweet, all I am asking is for them to do their job. I don't think that is beyond ridiculous. Even on a weekend, if necessary (but it shouldn't have been in this case had they been prepared, or more appropriately, had the anticipated message been one they wanted to deliver and was aligned with their beliefs).

+1 and Loudoun has been unmasked for a week already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think teachers should not have to do virtual if child is out for 10 days. Any other absence would not warrant yhis.

Other absences aren’t for 10 days when the student is mostly healthy. So you want kids to fall behind? Kids out for 10 days need support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think teachers should not have to do virtual if child is out for 10 days. Any other absence would not warrant yhis.

Other absences aren’t for 10 days when the student is mostly healthy. So you want kids to fall behind? Kids out for 10 days need support.

Do away with both the 10 days and the stream in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think teachers should not have to do virtual if child is out for 10 days. Any other absence would not warrant yhis.

Other absences aren’t for 10 days when the student is mostly healthy. So you want kids to fall behind? Kids out for 10 days need support.

Do away with both the 10 days and the stream in.

If you chose not to vaccinate your kids, consequence is 10 days out. If you are vaccinated, then you can stay. If you chose to not vaccinate then why should teachers be providing double instruction because of your choice? It makes those who are in school receive less instruction/lower quality instruction because you chose the anti-social/anxiety laden route. Why should my kid suffer from poor instruction because your choices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think teachers should not have to do virtual if child is out for 10 days. Any other absence would not warrant yhis.

Other absences aren’t for 10 days when the student is mostly healthy. So you want kids to fall behind? Kids out for 10 days need support.

Do away with both the 10 days and the stream in.

If you chose not to vaccinate your kids, consequence is 10 days out. If you are vaccinated, then you can stay. If you chose to not vaccinate then why should teachers be providing double instruction because of your choice? It makes those who are in school receive less instruction/lower quality instruction because you chose the anti-social/anxiety laden route. Why should my kid suffer from poor instruction because your choices?

If you test positive it’s 10 days out, regardless of vaccination status.

ES Teacher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think teachers should not have to do virtual if child is out for 10 days. Any other absence would not warrant yhis.

Other absences aren’t for 10 days when the student is mostly healthy. So you want kids to fall behind? Kids out for 10 days need support.

Do away with both the 10 days and the stream in.

If you chose not to vaccinate your kids, consequence is 10 days out. If you are vaccinated, then you can stay. If you chose to not vaccinate then why should teachers be providing double instruction because of your choice? It makes those who are in school receive less instruction/lower quality instruction because you chose the anti-social/anxiety laden route. Why should my kid suffer from poor instruction because your choices?

If you test positive it’s 10 days out, regardless of vaccination status.

ES Teacher

Thought it was 5 days out, 5 days masked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS's whole legal argument is that they are following CDC guidelines.

So, if they want to be consistent, they need to send out a notice saying no masks are needed inside by anyone starting today (not Tues), per CDC guidelines.

But, I don't know what they are saying in the ACLU lawsuit. That would be the only reason they stick to March 1st.

They always told us parents that they had to follow CDC guidelines...so let's see them do that. Or was that just cover for some other agenda?

That ACLU lawsuit should be getting more attention than it is, because they're wanting to expand the requirements for a school to accommodate a student with a disability to bring able to require their peers to accommodate the disability (masks for class or school of immunocompromised student). The implications aren't limited to Covid.

Quite disturbing. My child's bodily autonomy cannot be part of a schools ADA or whatever accomodations.. That's simply not reasonable.

You must be a man. “Bodily autonomy” means nothing to the other half of the population. Welcome.

Agree. My child hasn't been allowed to bring a snack containing peanuts, tree nuts, dairy, or wheat all year because a classmate is allergic. It's a pain in the ass but we go along with it. I think FCPS likes this lawsuit because they were looking for an excuse to end the virtual program and this provides it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think teachers should not have to do virtual if child is out for 10 days. Any other absence would not warrant yhis.

Other absences aren’t for 10 days when the student is mostly healthy. So you want kids to fall behind? Kids out for 10 days need support.

Do away with both the 10 days and the stream in.

If you chose not to vaccinate your kids, consequence is 10 days out. If you are vaccinated, then you can stay. If you chose to not vaccinate then why should teachers be providing double instruction because of your choice? It makes those who are in school receive less instruction/lower quality instruction because you chose the anti-social/anxiety laden route. Why should my kid suffer from poor instruction because your choices?

If you test positive it’s 10 days out, regardless of vaccination status.

ES Teacher

Yes, Fcps needs to drop the 10 day isolation. Cdc only recommends 5. People should also stop testing their kids it’s a waste of resources. Hopefully cdc will change that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS's whole legal argument is that they are following CDC guidelines.

So, if they want to be consistent, they need to send out a notice saying no masks are needed inside by anyone starting today (not Tues), per CDC guidelines.

But, I don't know what they are saying in the ACLU lawsuit. That would be the only reason they stick to March 1st.

They always told us parents that they had to follow CDC guidelines...so let's see them do that. Or was that just cover for some other agenda?

That ACLU lawsuit should be getting more attention than it is, because they're wanting to expand the requirements for a school to accommodate a student with a disability to bring able to require their peers to accommodate the disability (masks for class or school of immunocompromised student). The implications aren't limited to Covid.

Quite disturbing. My child's bodily autonomy cannot be part of a schools ADA or whatever accomodations.. That's simply not reasonable.

You must be a man. “Bodily autonomy” means nothing to the other half of the population. Welcome.

Agree. My child hasn't been allowed to bring a snack containing peanuts, tree nuts, dairy, or wheat all year because a classmate is allergic. It's a pain in the ass but we go along with it. I think FCPS likes this lawsuit because they were looking for an excuse to end the virtual program and this provides it.

Forcing a face covering is hardly the same.

If the child is that fragile I don’t know why a parent would let their child’s life hang on the consistent usage of the correct mask in the correct fashion by 15-76ish (depending on grade level) children all day for 180 days every year.

Such a child would have been dead already from any number of respiratory illnesses. Covid 19 isn’t the first one to ever exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think teachers should not have to do virtual if child is out for 10 days. Any other absence would not warrant yhis.

Other absences aren’t for 10 days when the student is mostly healthy. So you want kids to fall behind? Kids out for 10 days need support.

We have students who leave for a month or go away for a week. It is about the same.

[Anonymous]

The stream in/check in was also for students out for Covid related absence (ie close contact). Now that they can be vaccinated, they don’t need to be out if close contact. Or if their family has it. So it should just be for kids actually sick with Covid but it should be eliminated completely now.