Peer Masking as a Reasonable Accommodation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "no peanut butter" analogy isn't really comparable. There's no meaningful effect on other kids if they can't bring peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to school. They have plenty of other lunch options.

I can't actually think of any comparable situation where "reasonable accommodation" has been interpreted to require other students (rather than schools) to take certain actions. I see requiring masks on other kids to be more equivalent to requiring the teacher to give instruction in sign language, and requiring the other kids to learn sign language to accommodate one deaf kid in the class.

Queue all the parents who ONLY can bring peanut butter for their very special kids.

NP. This always comes up and isn’t a thing. They sell pb&j at schools. Peanut butter is not airborne. It was never banned from lunches.

What decade are you living in? A lot of schools are peanut free, and even more classrooms are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never want tell my kid that them not wearing a mask perfectly every day for a whole school year could result in their classmate becoming seriously ill or worse. Kids don't need that kind of emotional burden. And if the kid did get sick, I wouldn't want someone in the class to think it was their fault because they took their mask down that one time or lost it for 15 minutes.

You don’t need to do that. Just explain they’re wearing a mask to provide extra protection and a classmate. It doesn’t need to be that dramatic and I promise kids will accept and understand. Have your kids really never had to do anything to accommodate another person in their life?

Not to this degree, no. I can’t even think of anything comparable that has ever been asked of a kid in school (not being snarky, honestly can’t think of an example). And you must have the kind that just accepts whatever answer you give them without follow up questions. I don’t. Me saying that the class has to wear a mask to protect a kid (when presumably other classes aren’t) would result in “but why? What will happen?” Etc.

the comparable example would be requiring girls to wear shirts that cover their arms, because one boy needs a religious accommodation because his religion believes short sleeves on girls are evil.

Except that religious beliefs aren’t covered by the ADA. 🙄

And no one knows if force masking every child in class is either. First, you have to ask. Then, it's going to be challenged in court.

We know the science is incredibly weak and so I think the religious belief analogy is excellent. Chap Petersen compared it to forced speech too, since many people wear a mask to demonstrate their politics are to the left of AOC.

Pretty clear that your political beliefs are getting in the way when you refer to forced masking, but yes we do know that peer masking is covered by the ADA. This settlement makes it very clear. Sorry you don't like it, but the law is the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peer masking is reasonable because it’s not an undue burden. That is the analysis. If the school provides the class well-fitting masks, it’s no cost to the families, minimal costs to the schools, and at most upsets parents who prefer their kids be maskless but really can’t show actual harm or major burden on them (except maybe in limited circumstances where another child has a disability that prevents them from masking). This is not actually as complicated as people are making it seem.

It’s not complicated as long as you get to make up all the facts!

No actually the PP above - the one who states peer masking is reasonable - has the legal analysis correct (just their terminology is a little off). It's pretty hard for a school to claim that mask requirements are somehow a fundamental alteration to the program (that's the terminology, not undue burden) when all schools in VA already had mask mandates.

The hurdle isn’t whether it’s reasonable, it’s whether it’s deemed necessary even after considering alternative modifications such as one-way masking, staff or teacher masking, ventilation improvements, and social distancing. No one is going to be given peer masking as modification just because they think it would be helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cancer has happened to kids before COVID came along. Our oncologist said it really doesn't change the equation much in terms of school/not school because exposure to ANY germs when the child has no immune system could be deadly. And there are plenty of germs that are not airborne, and I can't imagine parents would trust that masks are worn correctly by the other students. Biden even removed his to cough into his hand!

Even if not 100% effective, masks are safer than not masks when it comes to sending a medically fragile child to school.

But really, I don’t even know why I’m bothering to respond to you. You’re not making good faith arguments, you’re just trying to give yourself cover for the fact that you don’t care if other people’s kids die.

Do you realize that "our oncologist" in the above post indicates that my child is the one with cancer? And I don't need people like you to use him as some prop for their ridiculous political games?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "no peanut butter" analogy isn't really comparable. There's no meaningful effect on other kids if they can't bring peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to school. They have plenty of other lunch options.

I can't actually think of any comparable situation where "reasonable accommodation" has been interpreted to require other students (rather than schools) to take certain actions. I see requiring masks on other kids to be more equivalent to requiring the teacher to give instruction in sign language, and requiring the other kids to learn sign language to accommodate one deaf kid in the class.

Queue all the parents who ONLY can bring peanut butter for their very special kids.

NP. This always comes up and isn’t a thing. They sell pb&j at schools. Peanut butter is not airborne. It was never banned from lunches.

What decade are you living in? A lot of schools are peanut free, and even more classrooms are.

I have one in middle school and one in high school. We have not experienced a peanut free school since preschool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "no peanut butter" analogy isn't really comparable. There's no meaningful effect on other kids if they can't bring peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to school. They have plenty of other lunch options.

I can't actually think of any comparable situation where "reasonable accommodation" has been interpreted to require other students (rather than schools) to take certain actions. I see requiring masks on other kids to be more equivalent to requiring the teacher to give instruction in sign language, and requiring the other kids to learn sign language to accommodate one deaf kid in the class.

Queue all the parents who ONLY can bring peanut butter for their very special kids.

NP. This always comes up and isn’t a thing. They sell pb&j at schools. Peanut butter is not airborne. It was never banned from lunches.

What decade are you living in? A lot of schools are peanut free, and even more classrooms are.

I have one in middle school and one in high school. We have not experienced a peanut free school since preschool.

Then you should limit your comments to your own experiences. You stated that it is never banned and that this isn't a thing. That's just not accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the references to cloth masks and use of the term "forced masking"

Nice when people make it clear who they are

I mean, it is forced masking. Who do you think I am?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son has a mild hearing loss and absolutely is affected by teachers and peers wearing masks. A reasonable accommodation for him is no mask wearing by anyone.

And yet I imagine you would never demand kids not be allowed to mask should they chose to wear one just to accommodate your child. Because we should allow children bodily autonomy over this decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never want tell my kid that them not wearing a mask perfectly every day for a whole school year could result in their classmate becoming seriously ill or worse. Kids don't need that kind of emotional burden. And if the kid did get sick, I wouldn't want someone in the class to think it was their fault because they took their mask down that one time or lost it for 15 minutes.

You don’t need to do that. Just explain they’re wearing a mask to provide extra protection and a classmate. It doesn’t need to be that dramatic and I promise kids will accept and understand. Have your kids really never had to do anything to accommodate another person in their life?

Not to this degree, no. I can’t even think of anything comparable that has ever been asked of a kid in school (not being snarky, honestly can’t think of an example). And you must have the kind that just accepts whatever answer you give them without follow up questions. I don’t. Me saying that the class has to wear a mask to protect a kid (when presumably other classes aren’t) would result in “but why? What will happen?” Etc.

the comparable example would be requiring girls to wear shirts that cover their arms, because one boy needs a religious accommodation because his religion believes short sleeves on girls are evil.

Except that religious beliefs aren’t covered by the ADA. 🙄

And no one knows if force masking every child in class is either. First, you have to ask. Then, it's going to be challenged in court.

We know the science is incredibly weak and so I think the religious belief analogy is excellent. Chap Petersen compared it to forced speech too, since many people wear a mask to demonstrate their politics are to the left of AOC.

Agreed. Forced peer masking seems more like a belief at this point than an actually effective intervention. The reasonable approach is 1-way masking of the vulnerable child, plus other accommodations like a separate lunch space.

So masks are on the one hand so ineffective that no one else should wear them but so effective that 1-way masking is going to fully protect a child with cancer? Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never want tell my kid that them not wearing a mask perfectly every day for a whole school year could result in their classmate becoming seriously ill or worse. Kids don't need that kind of emotional burden. And if the kid did get sick, I wouldn't want someone in the class to think it was their fault because they took their mask down that one time or lost it for 15 minutes.

You don’t need to do that. Just explain they’re wearing a mask to provide extra protection and a classmate. It doesn’t need to be that dramatic and I promise kids will accept and understand. Have your kids really never had to do anything to accommodate another person in their life?

Not to this degree, no. I can’t even think of anything comparable that has ever been asked of a kid in school (not being snarky, honestly can’t think of an example). And you must have the kind that just accepts whatever answer you give them without follow up questions. I don’t. Me saying that the class has to wear a mask to protect a kid (when presumably other classes aren’t) would result in “but why? What will happen?” Etc.

the comparable example would be requiring girls to wear shirts that cover their arms, because one boy needs a religious accommodation because his religion believes short sleeves on girls are evil.

Except that religious beliefs aren’t covered by the ADA. 🙄

And no one knows if force masking every child in class is either. First, you have to ask. Then, it's going to be challenged in court.

We know the science is incredibly weak and so I think the religious belief analogy is excellent. Chap Petersen compared it to forced speech too, since many people wear a mask to demonstrate their politics are to the left of AOC.

Agreed. Forced peer masking seems more like a belief at this point than an actually effective intervention. The reasonable approach is 1-way masking of the vulnerable child, plus other accommodations like a separate lunch space.

So masks are on the one hand so ineffective that no one else should wear them but so effective that 1-way masking is going to fully protect a child with cancer? Got it.

1-way masking means you’re not forcing anyone else to do it. If masking works one way should be good enough for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never want tell my kid that them not wearing a mask perfectly every day for a whole school year could result in their classmate becoming seriously ill or worse. Kids don't need that kind of emotional burden. And if the kid did get sick, I wouldn't want someone in the class to think it was their fault because they took their mask down that one time or lost it for 15 minutes.

You don’t need to do that. Just explain they’re wearing a mask to provide extra protection and a classmate. It doesn’t need to be that dramatic and I promise kids will accept and understand. Have your kids really never had to do anything to accommodate another person in their life?

Not to this degree, no. I can’t even think of anything comparable that has ever been asked of a kid in school (not being snarky, honestly can’t think of an example). And you must have the kind that just accepts whatever answer you give them without follow up questions. I don’t. Me saying that the class has to wear a mask to protect a kid (when presumably other classes aren’t) would result in “but why? What will happen?” Etc.

the comparable example would be requiring girls to wear shirts that cover their arms, because one boy needs a religious accommodation because his religion believes short sleeves on girls are evil.

Except that religious beliefs aren’t covered by the ADA. 🙄

And no one knows if force masking every child in class is either. First, you have to ask. Then, it's going to be challenged in court.

We know the science is incredibly weak and so I think the religious belief analogy is excellent. Chap Petersen compared it to forced speech too, since many people wear a mask to demonstrate their politics are to the left of AOC.

Agreed. Forced peer masking seems more like a belief at this point than an actually effective intervention. The reasonable approach is 1-way masking of the vulnerable child, plus other accommodations like a separate lunch space.

So masks are on the one hand so ineffective that no one else should wear them but so effective that 1-way masking is going to fully protect a child with cancer? Got it.

NP here, nothing is going to “fully protect” a child with cancer in a congregate school setting. Because kids are not going to be hermits outside of school and invariably will come to school contagious with viruses, which are often highly contagious before symptoms start. One way masking with a well fitted mask protects the wearer. More so than relying on the hygiene and 100% mask adherence of 6 year olds. But still, 1 way masking will not be 100% effective.

My kids brought home RSV and COVID last year while in 100% mandated masked classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never want tell my kid that them not wearing a mask perfectly every day for a whole school year could result in their classmate becoming seriously ill or worse. Kids don't need that kind of emotional burden. And if the kid did get sick, I wouldn't want someone in the class to think it was their fault because they took their mask down that one time or lost it for 15 minutes.

You don’t need to do that. Just explain they’re wearing a mask to provide extra protection and a classmate. It doesn’t need to be that dramatic and I promise kids will accept and understand. Have your kids really never had to do anything to accommodate another person in their life?

Not to this degree, no. I can’t even think of anything comparable that has ever been asked of a kid in school (not being snarky, honestly can’t think of an example). And you must have the kind that just accepts whatever answer you give them without follow up questions. I don’t. Me saying that the class has to wear a mask to protect a kid (when presumably other classes aren’t) would result in “but why? What will happen?” Etc.

the comparable example would be requiring girls to wear shirts that cover their arms, because one boy needs a religious accommodation because his religion believes short sleeves on girls are evil.

Except that religious beliefs aren’t covered by the ADA. 🙄

And no one knows if force masking every child in class is either. First, you have to ask. Then, it's going to be challenged in court.

We know the science is incredibly weak and so I think the religious belief analogy is excellent. Chap Petersen compared it to forced speech too, since many people wear a mask to demonstrate their politics are to the left of AOC.

Agreed. Forced peer masking seems more like a belief at this point than an actually effective intervention. The reasonable approach is 1-way masking of the vulnerable child, plus other accommodations like a separate lunch space.

So masks are on the one hand so ineffective that no one else should wear them but so effective that 1-way masking is going to fully protect a child with cancer? Got it.

NP here, nothing is going to “fully protect” a child with cancer in a congregate school setting. Because kids are not going to be hermits outside of school and invariably will come to school contagious with viruses, which are often highly contagious before symptoms start. One way masking with a well fitted mask protects the wearer. More so than relying on the hygiene and 100% mask adherence of 6 year olds. But still, 1 way masking will not be 100% effective.

My kids brought home RSV and COVID last year while in 100% mandated masked classrooms.

So you're saying that 6 year old can't achieve 100% mask adherence but the 6 year old with cancer has to somehow do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never want tell my kid that them not wearing a mask perfectly every day for a whole school year could result in their classmate becoming seriously ill or worse. Kids don't need that kind of emotional burden. And if the kid did get sick, I wouldn't want someone in the class to think it was their fault because they took their mask down that one time or lost it for 15 minutes.

You don’t need to do that. Just explain they’re wearing a mask to provide extra protection and a classmate. It doesn’t need to be that dramatic and I promise kids will accept and understand. Have your kids really never had to do anything to accommodate another person in their life?

Not to this degree, no. I can’t even think of anything comparable that has ever been asked of a kid in school (not being snarky, honestly can’t think of an example). And you must have the kind that just accepts whatever answer you give them without follow up questions. I don’t. Me saying that the class has to wear a mask to protect a kid (when presumably other classes aren’t) would result in “but why? What will happen?” Etc.

the comparable example would be requiring girls to wear shirts that cover their arms, because one boy needs a religious accommodation because his religion believes short sleeves on girls are evil.

Except that religious beliefs aren’t covered by the ADA. 🙄

And no one knows if force masking every child in class is either. First, you have to ask. Then, it's going to be challenged in court.

We know the science is incredibly weak and so I think the religious belief analogy is excellent. Chap Petersen compared it to forced speech too, since many people wear a mask to demonstrate their politics are to the left of AOC.

Agreed. Forced peer masking seems more like a belief at this point than an actually effective intervention. The reasonable approach is 1-way masking of the vulnerable child, plus other accommodations like a separate lunch space.

So masks are on the one hand so ineffective that no one else should wear them but so effective that 1-way masking is going to fully protect a child with cancer? Got it.

NP here, nothing is going to “fully protect” a child with cancer in a congregate school setting. Because kids are not going to be hermits outside of school and invariably will come to school contagious with viruses, which are often highly contagious before symptoms start. One way masking with a well fitted mask protects the wearer. More so than relying on the hygiene and 100% mask adherence of 6 year olds. But still, 1 way masking will not be 100% effective.

My kids brought home RSV and COVID last year while in 100% mandated masked classrooms.

So you're saying that 6 year old can't achieve 100% mask adherence but the 6 year old with cancer has to somehow do this?

I wouldn’t send an extremely vulnerable 6 year old into a school building no matter who is supposed to be masking. I’ve seen how they wear masks.

[Anonymous]

I would my self have a meltdown (48 year old man)

[Anonymous]

I simply don't get it. School-aged kids can mask. Teaching them community responsibility is a good thing. Teaching them to care about other students, their families and staff is a good thing. If a child has SN and cannot wear one, it's one thing but given how many viruses are going around right now, it makes sense. It's funny how the same parents screaming about learning loss when kids get sick are the same refusing masks and wanting accommodations for their kids when they are out sick. I don't get why people enjoy being sick. We've been so much healthier by masking, only eating outdoors, etc.