My 2nd grader’s teacher intends to mask all year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just glanced at a few pages of this thread. If anybody is still wondering why we are facing a national teacher shortage, you don’t need to look any further than some of the behavior presented here. Wow. To think that teachers have to put up with this angry, irrational behavior.

It’s simply a mask. It’s the teacher’s prerogative to wear it. It’s not this big of a deal.

Sure. Of course it doesn't have anything to do with pay, increasing administrative burdens, class size, etc. No, it's all about the mask debate.

This isn’t a simple mask debate. This is unreasonable anger and entitlement coming from a parent. Class size, admin burdens, and everything else you mention is absolutely a problem. So is absurd behavior like what is demonstrated here.

If you think OP sounds angry that's on you. She is concerned and you don't think that's valid. Parents were also concerned about school closures, and they were right. As long as you see parents as always wrong, entitled, unreasonable, you will always feel like a victim.

No, I’m not buying this. Disagreeing with ONE angry parent on DCUM isn’t seeing “parents as always wrong, entitled, unreasonable.” Nowhere do I make any statement that REMOTELY makes me one to be a victim, either.

A teacher has a right to wear a mask without invoking the ire of a parent. I have elementary aged kids. I would prefer no masks, but a mask isn’t that much of an issue if a teacher decides to wear one. Is the teacher prepared? Does the teacher track my child’s progress? Does my child get regular and consistent feedback on assignments? All of that is more important.

OP's kid has issues your kid doesn't have, so it is totally reasonable for OP to ask for a room change. Why is that such a BFD to some of you? She isn't asking THIS teacher to unmask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no clear evidence that masks impact children’s speech or social skills. It’s just something that gets repeated because anti-maskers need a justification.

False. There is PLENTIFUL research on the impact of masks on communication; and pre-existing research on the role of faces and learning social skills/emotions/language. Beyond that, masks are an invasive intervention. It's just not true that you can mandate any intervention as long as there is not "clear evidence" against it. (Or whatever evidentiary standard you're using; it's a moving goal post.) Likewise claim that "blind kids learn to speak just fine, masks are not a problem!" is false. It's well known that visually impaired kids need specialized instruction for acquiring language and social skills because of the missing nonverbal cues.

I'm not even going to post the research here because there's so much. Anyone who is interested can search on Google Scholar.

There are also millions of dead people from covid. So what's your point? Teachers should risk their lives and well being for your benefit?

DP: The only point being made by OP and people who understand her point of view is that she has a valid reason to get her child switched to one of the other available classrooms. The does not harm the teacher in any way, shape, or form. This teacher can keep masking as she needs to do, and the child can have an adult model of speech in a different classroom whose facial expressions are fully available to her.

What happens when the OP finds out that the masked teacher is actually the stronger teacher? Would she demand her child be moved back? Or is the lack of a mask simply more important than any other variable?

Why are you setting up straw man arguments about things that didn't happen? You just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing when there is an obvious and easy solution to OP's concern?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who does not care if people in their kids' schools are medically fragile are horrible, horrible people. Same with other school employees who don't wear masks even when they KNOW that their colleagues are imunocompromised. You suck.

I'm sorry, but the general population is not going to wear masks in perpetuity. I'm sure you believe masks are just an "inconvenience" but for many they are not, and since you don't care about that, why should we care what you think?

Did I mention the general public? I specifically said that people who do not care about actual individuals in their actual lives -- in their kids' schools, or their own schools if they are also employees -- SUCK. And they do. They are terrible human beings. Can you imagine if someone said that right to your face? "I don't care about your life or death situation -- I'm not wearing a mask for your sake."????? Or how about if they said it about your child?

This is not the kind of society I want to live in. Those people disgust me. I can't respect them.

Have you tried talking to the people in your life that are making you so angry, vs. just venting on an anonymous forum? Are you afraid to ask them to mask in perpetuity to protect you? Have you tried getting fit-tested for an N95 rather than depend on fitting yourself with a KN95?

FWIW, the parents I know IRL with medically fragile children were not willing to send them to school even when there was a mask mandate anyway. It's not good enough when they are that high risk.

It's not ME. I work with someone medically fragile. I cannot get over the a-holes who don't care and don't mask. They don't wear a mask for the sake of someone they actually know and see on a daily basis. It's mind boggling to me. I really think people like that are sociopaths or possibly low-IQ. Definitely not the best.

it's too much to ask. there have been immunocompromised people in the workplace prior to covid. shoot, pre-covid my brother returned to work after having his entire immune system rebooted with a stem cell transplant. don't think anyone at his job was masking to demostrate how much they cared about him. it just ... wasn't a thing. ps he got covid and was fine.

Yes, the key point is "PRIOR TO COVID." That means, PRIOR to a virus circulating that could harm them or kill them, they did not wear masks. That's like saying about a burning building, "I ran into that building just last week and didn't get burned. Don't be so precious about going in now."

Like I said, these people are likely low-IQ.....

Are you under the impression there were no potentially deadly respiratory infections circulating prior to covid? Talk about low IQ ….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who does not care if people in their kids' schools are medically fragile are horrible, horrible people. Same with other school employees who don't wear masks even when they KNOW that their colleagues are imunocompromised. You suck.

I'm sorry, but the general population is not going to wear masks in perpetuity. I'm sure you believe masks are just an "inconvenience" but for many they are not, and since you don't care about that, why should we care what you think?

Did I mention the general public? I specifically said that people who do not care about actual individuals in their actual lives -- in their kids' schools, or their own schools if they are also employees -- SUCK. And they do. They are terrible human beings. Can you imagine if someone said that right to your face? "I don't care about your life or death situation -- I'm not wearing a mask for your sake."????? Or how about if they said it about your child?

This is not the kind of society I want to live in. Those people disgust me. I can't respect them.

Have you tried talking to the people in your life that are making you so angry, vs. just venting on an anonymous forum? Are you afraid to ask them to mask in perpetuity to protect you? Have you tried getting fit-tested for an N95 rather than depend on fitting yourself with a KN95?

FWIW, the parents I know IRL with medically fragile children were not willing to send them to school even when there was a mask mandate anyway. It's not good enough when they are that high risk.

It's not ME. I work with someone medically fragile. I cannot get over the a-holes who don't care and don't mask. They don't wear a mask for the sake of someone they actually know and see on a daily basis. It's mind boggling to me. I really think people like that are sociopaths or possibly low-IQ. Definitely not the best.

it's too much to ask. there have been immunocompromised people in the workplace prior to covid. shoot, pre-covid my brother returned to work after having his entire immune system rebooted with a stem cell transplant. don't think anyone at his job was masking to demostrate how much they cared about him. it just ... wasn't a thing. ps he got covid and was fine.

Yes, the key point is "PRIOR TO COVID." That means, PRIOR to a virus circulating that could harm them or kill them, they did not wear masks. That's like saying about a burning building, "I ran into that building just last week and didn't get burned. Don't be so precious about going in now."

Like I said, these people are likely low-IQ.....

Are you under the impression there were no potentially deadly respiratory infections circulating prior to covid? Talk about low IQ ….

Who knows. But we know for sure there is one circulating now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no clear evidence that masks impact children’s speech or social skills. It’s just something that gets repeated because anti-maskers need a justification.

False. There is PLENTIFUL research on the impact of masks on communication; and pre-existing research on the role of faces and learning social skills/emotions/language. Beyond that, masks are an invasive intervention. It's just not true that you can mandate any intervention as long as there is not "clear evidence" against it. (Or whatever evidentiary standard you're using; it's a moving goal post.) Likewise claim that "blind kids learn to speak just fine, masks are not a problem!" is false. It's well known that visually impaired kids need specialized instruction for acquiring language and social skills because of the missing nonverbal cues.

I'm not even going to post the research here because there's so much. Anyone who is interested can search on Google Scholar.

There are also millions of dead people from covid. So what's your point? Teachers should risk their lives and well being for your benefit?

DP: The only point being made by OP and people who understand her point of view is that she has a valid reason to get her child switched to one of the other available classrooms. The does not harm the teacher in any way, shape, or form. This teacher can keep masking as she needs to do, and the child can have an adult model of speech in a different classroom whose facial expressions are fully available to her.

What happens when the OP finds out that the masked teacher is actually the stronger teacher? Would she demand her child be moved back? Or is the lack of a mask simply more important than any other variable?

Why are you setting up straw man arguments about things that didn't happen? You just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing when there is an obvious and easy solution to OP's concern?

It’s a valid question. If the OP is going to burden the administration and two teachers with a schedule change, then that action is simply stating that the mask is the hill to die on. It is *the* defining, important characteristic for the OP. Classroom environment, teaching methods, etc., are less important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just glanced at a few pages of this thread. If anybody is still wondering why we are facing a national teacher shortage, you don’t need to look any further than some of the behavior presented here. Wow. To think that teachers have to put up with this angry, irrational behavior.

It’s simply a mask. It’s the teacher’s prerogative to wear it. It’s not this big of a deal.

Sure. Of course it doesn't have anything to do with pay, increasing administrative burdens, class size, etc. No, it's all about the mask debate.

This isn’t a simple mask debate. This is unreasonable anger and entitlement coming from a parent. Class size, admin burdens, and everything else you mention is absolutely a problem. So is absurd behavior like what is demonstrated here.

If you think OP sounds angry that's on you. She is concerned and you don't think that's valid. Parents were also concerned about school closures, and they were right. As long as you see parents as always wrong, entitled, unreasonable, you will always feel like a victim.

No, I’m not buying this. Disagreeing with ONE angry parent on DCUM isn’t seeing “parents as always wrong, entitled, unreasonable.” Nowhere do I make any statement that REMOTELY makes me one to be a victim, either.

A teacher has a right to wear a mask without invoking the ire of a parent. I have elementary aged kids. I would prefer no masks, but a mask isn’t that much of an issue if a teacher decides to wear one. Is the teacher prepared? Does the teacher track my child’s progress? Does my child get regular and consistent feedback on assignments? All of that is more important.

I mean listen to yourself. You think the teacher has "invoked OPs iré" because OP is concerned about the impact of masks. This is about you not being able to tolerate concerns about masks. OP does not sound angry to me at all. But maybe that's because I haven't politicized masking the way you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no clear evidence that masks impact children’s speech or social skills. It’s just something that gets repeated because anti-maskers need a justification.

False. There is PLENTIFUL research on the impact of masks on communication; and pre-existing research on the role of faces and learning social skills/emotions/language. Beyond that, masks are an invasive intervention. It's just not true that you can mandate any intervention as long as there is not "clear evidence" against it. (Or whatever evidentiary standard you're using; it's a moving goal post.) Likewise claim that "blind kids learn to speak just fine, masks are not a problem!" is false. It's well known that visually impaired kids need specialized instruction for acquiring language and social skills because of the missing nonverbal cues.

I'm not even going to post the research here because there's so much. Anyone who is interested can search on Google Scholar.

There are also millions of dead people from covid. So what's your point? Teachers should risk their lives and well being for your benefit?

DP: The only point being made by OP and people who understand her point of view is that she has a valid reason to get her child switched to one of the other available classrooms. The does not harm the teacher in any way, shape, or form. This teacher can keep masking as she needs to do, and the child can have an adult model of speech in a different classroom whose facial expressions are fully available to her.

What happens when the OP finds out that the masked teacher is actually the stronger teacher? Would she demand her child be moved back? Or is the lack of a mask simply more important than any other variable?

Why are you setting up straw man arguments about things that didn't happen? You just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing when there is an obvious and easy solution to OP's concern?

It’s a valid question. If the OP is going to burden the administration and two teachers with a schedule change, then that action is simply stating that the mask is the hill to die on. It is *the* defining, important characteristic for the OP. Classroom environment, teaching methods, etc., are less important.

I mean MCEA themselves lobbied for removing the mask mandate. They know it is a problem. This is not our f&cling imaginations.

[Anonymous]

Note that OP acknowledges the teacher's concerns as valid. But her concerns, no they can"t possibly be valid. Only teachers can have valid concerns. But she's the angry one. Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no clear evidence that masks impact children’s speech or social skills. It’s just something that gets repeated because anti-maskers need a justification.

False. There is PLENTIFUL research on the impact of masks on communication; and pre-existing research on the role of faces and learning social skills/emotions/language. Beyond that, masks are an invasive intervention. It's just not true that you can mandate any intervention as long as there is not "clear evidence" against it. (Or whatever evidentiary standard you're using; it's a moving goal post.) Likewise claim that "blind kids learn to speak just fine, masks are not a problem!" is false. It's well known that visually impaired kids need specialized instruction for acquiring language and social skills because of the missing nonverbal cues.

I'm not even going to post the research here because there's so much. Anyone who is interested can search on Google Scholar.

There are also millions of dead people from covid. So what's your point? Teachers should risk their lives and well being for your benefit?

DP: The only point being made by OP and people who understand her point of view is that she has a valid reason to get her child switched to one of the other available classrooms. The does not harm the teacher in any way, shape, or form. This teacher can keep masking as she needs to do, and the child can have an adult model of speech in a different classroom whose facial expressions are fully available to her.

What happens when the OP finds out that the masked teacher is actually the stronger teacher? Would she demand her child be moved back? Or is the lack of a mask simply more important than any other variable?

Why are you setting up straw man arguments about things that didn't happen? You just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing when there is an obvious and easy solution to OP's concern?

It’s a valid question. If the OP is going to burden the administration and two teachers with a schedule change, then that action is simply stating that the mask is the hill to die on. It is *the* defining, important characteristic for the OP. Classroom environment, teaching methods, etc., are less important.

I mean MCEA themselves lobbied for removing the mask mandate. They know it is a problem. This is not our f&cling imaginations.

Removing a mandate simply means masks aren’t required. People can still opt to wear them. All this means is that MCEA supports choice, which includes the choice to wear one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no clear evidence that masks impact children’s speech or social skills. It’s just something that gets repeated because anti-maskers need a justification.

False. There is PLENTIFUL research on the impact of masks on communication; and pre-existing research on the role of faces and learning social skills/emotions/language. Beyond that, masks are an invasive intervention. It's just not true that you can mandate any intervention as long as there is not "clear evidence" against it. (Or whatever evidentiary standard you're using; it's a moving goal post.) Likewise claim that "blind kids learn to speak just fine, masks are not a problem!" is false. It's well known that visually impaired kids need specialized instruction for acquiring language and social skills because of the missing nonverbal cues.

I'm not even going to post the research here because there's so much. Anyone who is interested can search on Google Scholar.

There are also millions of dead people from covid. So what's your point? Teachers should risk their lives and well being for your benefit?

DP: The only point being made by OP and people who understand her point of view is that she has a valid reason to get her child switched to one of the other available classrooms. The does not harm the teacher in any way, shape, or form. This teacher can keep masking as she needs to do, and the child can have an adult model of speech in a different classroom whose facial expressions are fully available to her.

What happens when the OP finds out that the masked teacher is actually the stronger teacher? Would she demand her child be moved back? Or is the lack of a mask simply more important than any other variable?

Why are you setting up straw man arguments about things that didn't happen? You just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing when there is an obvious and easy solution to OP's concern?

It’s a valid question. If the OP is going to burden the administration and two teachers with a schedule change, then that action is simply stating that the mask is the hill to die on. It is *the* defining, important characteristic for the OP. Classroom environment, teaching methods, etc., are less important.

I mean MCEA themselves lobbied for removing the mask mandate. They know it is a problem. This is not our f&cling imaginations.

Removing a mandate simply means masks aren’t required. People can still opt to wear them. All this means is that MCEA supports choice, which includes the choice to wear one.

You keep believing that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no clear evidence that masks impact children’s speech or social skills. It’s just something that gets repeated because anti-maskers need a justification.

False. There is PLENTIFUL research on the impact of masks on communication; and pre-existing research on the role of faces and learning social skills/emotions/language. Beyond that, masks are an invasive intervention. It's just not true that you can mandate any intervention as long as there is not "clear evidence" against it. (Or whatever evidentiary standard you're using; it's a moving goal post.) Likewise claim that "blind kids learn to speak just fine, masks are not a problem!" is false. It's well known that visually impaired kids need specialized instruction for acquiring language and social skills because of the missing nonverbal cues.

I'm not even going to post the research here because there's so much. Anyone who is interested can search on Google Scholar.

There are also millions of dead people from covid. So what's your point? Teachers should risk their lives and well being for your benefit?

DP: The only point being made by OP and people who understand her point of view is that she has a valid reason to get her child switched to one of the other available classrooms. The does not harm the teacher in any way, shape, or form. This teacher can keep masking as she needs to do, and the child can have an adult model of speech in a different classroom whose facial expressions are fully available to her.

What happens when the OP finds out that the masked teacher is actually the stronger teacher? Would she demand her child be moved back? Or is the lack of a mask simply more important than any other variable?

Why are you setting up straw man arguments about things that didn't happen? You just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing when there is an obvious and easy solution to OP's concern?

It’s a valid question. If the OP is going to burden the administration and two teachers with a schedule change, then that action is simply stating that the mask is the hill to die on. It is *the* defining, important characteristic for the OP. Classroom environment, teaching methods, etc., are less important.

I mean MCEA themselves lobbied for removing the mask mandate. They know it is a problem. This is not our f&cling imaginations.

Removing a mandate simply means masks aren’t required. People can still opt to wear them. All this means is that MCEA supports choice, which includes the choice to wear one.

You keep believing that

Um… what else should I believe? Are you suggesting that MCEA is somehow anti-mask and doesn’t want teachers wearing them? Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no clear evidence that masks impact children’s speech or social skills. It’s just something that gets repeated because anti-maskers need a justification.

False. There is PLENTIFUL research on the impact of masks on communication; and pre-existing research on the role of faces and learning social skills/emotions/language. Beyond that, masks are an invasive intervention. It's just not true that you can mandate any intervention as long as there is not "clear evidence" against it. (Or whatever evidentiary standard you're using; it's a moving goal post.) Likewise claim that "blind kids learn to speak just fine, masks are not a problem!" is false. It's well known that visually impaired kids need specialized instruction for acquiring language and social skills because of the missing nonverbal cues.

I'm not even going to post the research here because there's so much. Anyone who is interested can search on Google Scholar.

There are also millions of dead people from covid. So what's your point? Teachers should risk their lives and well being for your benefit?

DP: The only point being made by OP and people who understand her point of view is that she has a valid reason to get her child switched to one of the other available classrooms. The does not harm the teacher in any way, shape, or form. This teacher can keep masking as she needs to do, and the child can have an adult model of speech in a different classroom whose facial expressions are fully available to her.

What happens when the OP finds out that the masked teacher is actually the stronger teacher? Would she demand her child be moved back? Or is the lack of a mask simply more important than any other variable?

Why are you setting up straw man arguments about things that didn't happen? You just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing when there is an obvious and easy solution to OP's concern?

It’s a valid question. If the OP is going to burden the administration and two teachers with a schedule change, then that action is simply stating that the mask is the hill to die on. It is *the* defining, important characteristic for the OP. Classroom environment, teaching methods, etc., are less important.

I mean MCEA themselves lobbied for removing the mask mandate. They know it is a problem. This is not our f&cling imaginations.

Removing a mandate simply means masks aren’t required. People can still opt to wear them. All this means is that MCEA supports choice, which includes the choice to wear one.

You keep believing that

Your post doesn’t even make any sense. It would be illegal for mcps to prohibit masking. Nor would it want to - you do know there is a teacher shortage? OP should be glad if her teacher has taught before or has a certificate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no clear evidence that masks impact children’s speech or social skills. It’s just something that gets repeated because anti-maskers need a justification.

False. There is PLENTIFUL research on the impact of masks on communication; and pre-existing research on the role of faces and learning social skills/emotions/language. Beyond that, masks are an invasive intervention. It's just not true that you can mandate any intervention as long as there is not "clear evidence" against it. (Or whatever evidentiary standard you're using; it's a moving goal post.) Likewise claim that "blind kids learn to speak just fine, masks are not a problem!" is false. It's well known that visually impaired kids need specialized instruction for acquiring language and social skills because of the missing nonverbal cues.

I'm not even going to post the research here because there's so much. Anyone who is interested can search on Google Scholar.

There are also millions of dead people from covid. So what's your point? Teachers should risk their lives and well being for your benefit?

DP: The only point being made by OP and people who understand her point of view is that she has a valid reason to get her child switched to one of the other available classrooms. The does not harm the teacher in any way, shape, or form. This teacher can keep masking as she needs to do, and the child can have an adult model of speech in a different classroom whose facial expressions are fully available to her.

What happens when the OP finds out that the masked teacher is actually the stronger teacher? Would she demand her child be moved back? Or is the lack of a mask simply more important than any other variable?

Why are you setting up straw man arguments about things that didn't happen? You just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing when there is an obvious and easy solution to OP's concern?

It’s a valid question. If the OP is going to burden the administration and two teachers with a schedule change, then that action is simply stating that the mask is the hill to die on. It is *the* defining, important characteristic for the OP. Classroom environment, teaching methods, etc., are less important.

I mean MCEA themselves lobbied for removing the mask mandate. They know it is a problem. This is not our f&cling imaginations.

Removing a mandate simply means masks aren’t required. People can still opt to wear them. All this means is that MCEA supports choice, which includes the choice to wear one.

You keep believing that

Um… what else should I believe? Are you suggesting that MCEA is somehow anti-mask and doesn’t want teachers wearing them? Source?

. Have you ever considered looking at this issue outside of the pro-mask vs anti-mask binary so many posters here seem stuck on? That some of us can believe masks are sometimes necessary, and of course people should have the choice to wear them, but they have real downsides? I don't have the links, but I remember reading MCEA was talking about needing to end the mask mandate even during the omicron surge (of course they recommended waiting until the surge was over). I got the impression a lot of teachers were having a real hard time with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no clear evidence that masks impact children’s speech or social skills. It’s just something that gets repeated because anti-maskers need a justification.

False. There is PLENTIFUL research on the impact of masks on communication; and pre-existing research on the role of faces and learning social skills/emotions/language. Beyond that, masks are an invasive intervention. It's just not true that you can mandate any intervention as long as there is not "clear evidence" against it. (Or whatever evidentiary standard you're using; it's a moving goal post.) Likewise claim that "blind kids learn to speak just fine, masks are not a problem!" is false. It's well known that visually impaired kids need specialized instruction for acquiring language and social skills because of the missing nonverbal cues.

I'm not even going to post the research here because there's so much. Anyone who is interested can search on Google Scholar.

There are also millions of dead people from covid. So what's your point? Teachers should risk their lives and well being for your benefit?

DP: The only point being made by OP and people who understand her point of view is that she has a valid reason to get her child switched to one of the other available classrooms. The does not harm the teacher in any way, shape, or form. This teacher can keep masking as she needs to do, and the child can have an adult model of speech in a different classroom whose facial expressions are fully available to her.

What happens when the OP finds out that the masked teacher is actually the stronger teacher? Would she demand her child be moved back? Or is the lack of a mask simply more important than any other variable?

Why are you setting up straw man arguments about things that didn't happen? You just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing when there is an obvious and easy solution to OP's concern?

It’s a valid question. If the OP is going to burden the administration and two teachers with a schedule change, then that action is simply stating that the mask is the hill to die on. It is *the* defining, important characteristic for the OP. Classroom environment, teaching methods, etc., are less important.

I mean MCEA themselves lobbied for removing the mask mandate. They know it is a problem. This is not our f&cling imaginations.

Removing a mandate simply means masks aren’t required. People can still opt to wear them. All this means is that MCEA supports choice, which includes the choice to wear one.

You keep believing that

Your post doesn’t even make any sense. It would be illegal for mcps to prohibit masking. Nor would it want to - you do know there is a teacher shortage? OP should be glad if her teacher has taught before or has a certificate.

I never said anything about prohibiting masking. Some of you are really out of your minds, honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no clear evidence that masks impact children’s speech or social skills. It’s just something that gets repeated because anti-maskers need a justification.

False. There is PLENTIFUL research on the impact of masks on communication; and pre-existing research on the role of faces and learning social skills/emotions/language. Beyond that, masks are an invasive intervention. It's just not true that you can mandate any intervention as long as there is not "clear evidence" against it. (Or whatever evidentiary standard you're using; it's a moving goal post.) Likewise claim that "blind kids learn to speak just fine, masks are not a problem!" is false. It's well known that visually impaired kids need specialized instruction for acquiring language and social skills because of the missing nonverbal cues.

I'm not even going to post the research here because there's so much. Anyone who is interested can search on Google Scholar.

There are also millions of dead people from covid. So what's your point? Teachers should risk their lives and well being for your benefit?

DP: The only point being made by OP and people who understand her point of view is that she has a valid reason to get her child switched to one of the other available classrooms. The does not harm the teacher in any way, shape, or form. This teacher can keep masking as she needs to do, and the child can have an adult model of speech in a different classroom whose facial expressions are fully available to her.

What happens when the OP finds out that the masked teacher is actually the stronger teacher? Would she demand her child be moved back? Or is the lack of a mask simply more important than any other variable?

Why are you setting up straw man arguments about things that didn't happen? You just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing when there is an obvious and easy solution to OP's concern?

It’s a valid question. If the OP is going to burden the administration and two teachers with a schedule change, then that action is simply stating that the mask is the hill to die on. It is *the* defining, important characteristic for the OP. Classroom environment, teaching methods, etc., are less important.

I mean MCEA themselves lobbied for removing the mask mandate. They know it is a problem. This is not our f&cling imaginations.

Removing a mandate simply means masks aren’t required. People can still opt to wear them. All this means is that MCEA supports choice, which includes the choice to wear one.

You keep believing that

Um… what else should I believe? Are you suggesting that MCEA is somehow anti-mask and doesn’t want teachers wearing them? Source?

. Have you ever considered looking at this issue outside of the pro-mask vs anti-mask binary so many posters here seem stuck on? That some of us can believe masks are sometimes necessary, and of course people should have the choice to wear them, but they have real downsides? I don't have the links, but I remember reading MCEA was talking about needing to end the mask mandate even during the omicron surge (of course they recommended waiting until the surge was over). I got the impression a lot of teachers were having a real hard time with them.

But acknowledging downsides can be done while also acknowledging benefits. Hence, teachers and students have choice. My whole argument is that people currently have choice. Above, you acknowledge that “people should have the choice to wear them.” Therefore, I’m not sure why you are disagreeing with me.