How do you think the fall will be in fcps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS better get their act together by the fall and have kids back 5 days. This is beyond ridiculous.

Governor Northam has a bill at his desk (SB 1303) to require 5 days in-person except in cases of high in-building spread of COVID-19 (which shouldn't happen with masking and widespread vaccination) for fall. Encourage him to sign it. Then FCPS will have to literally break the law to offer less.

He has already indicated he will sign it. There will be 5 days in person (which includes the teachers in person, per the language of the bill) with some sort of virtual option for those students who choose it.

And that will be the downfall for FCPS. Pulling together a virtual that is fair and equal and makes everyone happy.

Maybe but plenty of people are not happy this year either. I think this year was the school year people who wanted in-person 5 days had to suck it up and deal. Next school year it will be the all virtual people who will have to suck it up and deal. It’s not pretty, but I think it is true. And reasonable. Is that compromise - no one 100% happy? “Everyone” will not be happy next year, just like this year.

unfortunately, FCPS will go down to the lowest group which will be DL. So they will plan a whole school year on making things safe for the small group that still wants DL.

This. If the top priority is the SB definition of equality then all planning will have to be done for the DL families first since they need the most accommodation.

The sad thing is, that isn't really the group needing the most support. The special needs and pre-K kids who simply dropped out of the system (Brookings had an article about it, specifically for Virginia), the kids who were for whatever reason unwilling or unable to do DL, kids with IEPs who got no actual accommodations this year - THOSE kids need the most support. Not most of the kids who for whatever reason want to stick with DL next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS better get their act together by the fall and have kids back 5 days. This is beyond ridiculous.

Governor Northam has a bill at his desk (SB 1303) to require 5 days in-person except in cases of high in-building spread of COVID-19 (which shouldn't happen with masking and widespread vaccination) for fall. Encourage him to sign it. Then FCPS will have to literally break the law to offer less.

He has already indicated he will sign it. There will be 5 days in person (which includes the teachers in person, per the language of the bill) with some sort of virtual option for those students who choose it.

And that will be the downfall for FCPS. Pulling together a virtual that is fair and equal and makes everyone happy.

Maybe but plenty of people are not happy this year either. I think this year was the school year people who wanted in-person 5 days had to suck it up and deal. Next school year it will be the all virtual people who will have to suck it up and deal. It’s not pretty, but I think it is true. And reasonable. Is that compromise - no one 100% happy? “Everyone” will not be happy next year, just like this year.

unfortunately, FCPS will go down to the lowest group which will be DL. So they will plan a whole school year on making things safe for the small group that still wants DL.

This. If the top priority is the SB definition of equality then all planning will have to be done for the DL families first since they need the most accommodation.

The sad thing is, that isn't really the group needing the most support. The special needs and pre-K kids who simply dropped out of the system (Brookings had an article about it, specifically for Virginia), the kids who were for whatever reason unwilling or unable to do DL, kids with IEPs who got no actual accommodations this year - THOSE kids need the most support. Not most of the kids who for whatever reason want to stick with DL next year.

Yes...do these DL really need that support and DL or are their parents just paranoid? And living with elderly family shouldn’t count since they can be vaccinated.

I really hope things improve enough to shift the mindset and after a long summer, people will want kids back in school!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors and seniors can get the Pfizer vaccine and need to be back in. K-3 are the lowest transmitters and worst hit by DL and need to be back in.

If FCPS is smart, they will commit to holding vaccine clinics this summer when supply loosens up and getting juniors and seniors vaccines and back 5 days a week, which starts to provide scheduling certainty. Then vaccinate 12-16 as a top priority, hopefully in early fall and put 7-10 back after vaccination.

K-3 goes back full time, and 4-6 follows after a month pause to course correct and make sure mitigation hold.

It’s pretty safe for K-6 if they cohort and 11-12 with the vaccine. But, it’s impossible to see secondary schools fully online until the 12-16 shot is approved.

12 to 16s are not approved for the vaccine.

“Until the vaccine is approved.” Which should be this fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors and seniors can get the Pfizer vaccine and need to be back in. K-3 are the lowest transmitters and worst hit by DL and need to be back in.

If FCPS is smart, they will commit to holding vaccine clinics this summer when supply loosens up and getting juniors and seniors vaccines and back 5 days a week, which starts to provide scheduling certainty. Then vaccinate 12-16 as a top priority, hopefully in early fall and put 7-10 back after vaccination.

K-3 goes back full time, and 4-6 follows after a month pause to course correct and make sure mitigation hold.

It’s pretty safe for K-6 if they cohort and 11-12 with the vaccine. But, it’s impossible to see secondary schools fully online until the 12-16 shot is approved.

This is a crazy proposal not backed in science.

The science says once juniors and seniors are vaccinated, they are fine to be in with less distancing masked. Especially with the Pfizer vaccine, given the data coming out of Israel showing a low likelihood they can asymptomatically transmit.

The science say K-6 can be back safely, they can cohort, making it even safer and K-3 are the riskiest group. It’s hardest to learn And the childcare need is real. It makes most sense to pilot 4 days a week K-3 this year and go K-6 fully back next year, but start 3-6 as hybrid. Pause to correct, then push 3-6 in. Set date given up front, not when it “feels safe”.

You might not like it, but the biggest issue is 7-10. Can’t be vaccinated, can’t cohort, larger spreaders, overcrowded schools. A model where this age goes concurrent , or switches to concurrent when community transmission is high makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors and seniors can get the Pfizer vaccine and need to be back in. K-3 are the lowest transmitters and worst hit by DL and need to be back in.

If FCPS is smart, they will commit to holding vaccine clinics this summer when supply loosens up and getting juniors and seniors vaccines and back 5 days a week, which starts to provide scheduling certainty. Then vaccinate 12-16 as a top priority, hopefully in early fall and put 7-10 back after vaccination.

K-3 goes back full time, and 4-6 follows after a month pause to course correct and make sure mitigation hold.

It’s pretty safe for K-6 if they cohort and 11-12 with the vaccine. But, it’s impossible to see secondary schools fully online until the 12-16 shot is approved.

This is a crazy proposal not backed in science.

The science says once juniors and seniors are vaccinated, they are fine to be in with less distancing masked. Especially with the Pfizer vaccine, given the data coming out of Israel showing a low likelihood they can asymptomatically transmit.

The science say K-6 can be back safely, they can cohort, making it even safer and K-3 are the riskiest group. It’s hardest to learn And the childcare need is real. It makes most sense to pilot 4 days a week K-3 this year and go K-6 fully back next year, but start 3-6 as hybrid. Pause to correct, then push 3-6 in. Set date given up front, not when it “feels safe”.

You might not like it, but the biggest issue is 7-10. Can’t be vaccinated, can’t cohort, larger spreaders, overcrowded schools. A model where this age goes concurrent , or switches to concurrent when community transmission is high makes sense.

So how are thousands of kids of all ages back in school and doing fine? Even kids right down the street from public schools. And 7th graders and 10th graders!
People have lost their minds. NOVA public schools aren’t special. It’s time to get back.

[Anonymous]

That's an overwhelming legislative victory. The bill went from a joke on these boards to an avalanche of support. Really impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors and seniors can get the Pfizer vaccine and need to be back in. K-3 are the lowest transmitters and worst hit by DL and need to be back in.

If FCPS is smart, they will commit to holding vaccine clinics this summer when supply loosens up and getting juniors and seniors vaccines and back 5 days a week, which starts to provide scheduling certainty. Then vaccinate 12-16 as a top priority, hopefully in early fall and put 7-10 back after vaccination.

K-3 goes back full time, and 4-6 follows after a month pause to course correct and make sure mitigation hold.

It’s pretty safe for K-6 if they cohort and 11-12 with the vaccine. But, it’s impossible to see secondary schools fully online until the 12-16 shot is approved.

This is a crazy proposal not backed in science.

The science says once juniors and seniors are vaccinated, they are fine to be in with less distancing masked. Especially with the Pfizer vaccine, given the data coming out of Israel showing a low likelihood they can asymptomatically transmit.

The science say K-6 can be back safely, they can cohort, making it even safer and K-3 are the riskiest group. It’s hardest to learn And the childcare need is real. It makes most sense to pilot 4 days a week K-3 this year and go K-6 fully back next year, but start 3-6 as hybrid. Pause to correct, then push 3-6 in. Set date given up front, not when it “feels safe”.

You might not like it, but the biggest issue is 7-10. Can’t be vaccinated, can’t cohort, larger spreaders, overcrowded schools. A model where this age goes concurrent , or switches to concurrent when community transmission is high makes sense.

So how are thousands of kids of all ages back in school and doing fine? Even kids right down the street from public schools. And 7th graders and 10th graders!
People have lost their minds. NOVA public schools aren’t special. It’s time to get back.

It is. I’m just pointing out that maybe the answer isn’t “hybrid” or fully”. Maybe there is a middle path. And vaccinated kids and ES kids should not be forced into hybrid just because 6-10 is.

[Anonymous]

It seems absolutely batshit crazy to not be in 5 days per week (with masks) in late August/early Sept. if the projected trajectory does not get significantly upended by new viral strains that are resistant to vaccination or much deadlier etc.

But right now we are looking at 60%+ community immunity at that time, with more and more getting vaccinated each day, which includes ALL of the highest risk population at that point and infection numbers that are the same if not lower than August 2020, so likely about 50 or so per day.

Like I said, barring a radical shift in the mortality rates, etc on this virus, what is the logic for not being in 5 days per week? Who is being protected by that at that point? I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems absolutely batshit crazy to not be in 5 days per week (with masks) in late August/early Sept. if the projected trajectory does not get significantly upended by new viral strains that are resistant to vaccination or much deadlier etc.

But right now we are looking at 60%+ community immunity at that time, with more and more getting vaccinated each day, which includes ALL of the highest risk population at that point and infection numbers that are the same if not lower than August 2020, so likely about 50 or so per day.

Like I said, barring a radical shift in the mortality rates, etc on this virus, what is the logic for not being in 5 days per week? Who is being protected by that at that point? I don't get it.

I have a feeling teachers will want masks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems absolutely batshit crazy to not be in 5 days per week (with masks) in late August/early Sept. if the projected trajectory does not get significantly upended by new viral strains that are resistant to vaccination or much deadlier etc.

But right now we are looking at 60%+ community immunity at that time, with more and more getting vaccinated each day, which includes ALL of the highest risk population at that point and infection numbers that are the same if not lower than August 2020, so likely about 50 or so per day.

Like I said, barring a radical shift in the mortality rates, etc on this virus, what is the logic for not being in 5 days per week? Who is being protected by that at that point? I don't get it.

I have a feeling teachers will want masks.

DP. Masks are fine with me. Less than 5 days a week is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems absolutely batshit crazy to not be in 5 days per week (with masks) in late August/early Sept. if the projected trajectory does not get significantly upended by new viral strains that are resistant to vaccination or much deadlier etc.

But right now we are looking at 60%+ community immunity at that time, with more and more getting vaccinated each day, which includes ALL of the highest risk population at that point and infection numbers that are the same if not lower than August 2020, so likely about 50 or so per day.

Like I said, barring a radical shift in the mortality rates, etc on this virus, what is the logic for not being in 5 days per week? Who is being protected by that at that point? I don't get it.

I have a feeling teachers will want masks.

DP. Masks are fine with me. Less than 5 days a week is not.

That’s fine I’m a parent and I want masks until herd immunity. Which for secondary schools probably comes about this time next year, when those kids are vaxxed. Kids may be less likely to get seriously ill. But, we don’t know the long term effects. And if kids start going down, schools shut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems absolutely batshit crazy to not be in 5 days per week (with masks) in late August/early Sept. if the projected trajectory does not get significantly upended by new viral strains that are resistant to vaccination or much deadlier etc.

But right now we are looking at 60%+ community immunity at that time, with more and more getting vaccinated each day, which includes ALL of the highest risk population at that point and infection numbers that are the same if not lower than August 2020, so likely about 50 or so per day.

Like I said, barring a radical shift in the mortality rates, etc on this virus, what is the logic for not being in 5 days per week? Who is being protected by that at that point? I don't get it.

I have a feeling teachers will want masks.

DP. Masks are fine with me. Less than 5 days a week is not.

That’s fine I’m a parent and I want masks until herd immunity. Which for secondary schools probably comes about this time next year, when those kids are vaxxed. Kids may be less likely to get seriously ill. But, we don’t know the long term effects. And if kids start going down, schools shut.

noone knows long term effects of the vaccine, either. It's not fair to force it on kids when it's perfectly safe to be in school without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems absolutely batshit crazy to not be in 5 days per week (with masks) in late August/early Sept. if the projected trajectory does not get significantly upended by new viral strains that are resistant to vaccination or much deadlier etc.

But right now we are looking at 60%+ community immunity at that time, with more and more getting vaccinated each day, which includes ALL of the highest risk population at that point and infection numbers that are the same if not lower than August 2020, so likely about 50 or so per day.

Like I said, barring a radical shift in the mortality rates, etc on this virus, what is the logic for not being in 5 days per week? Who is being protected by that at that point? I don't get it.

I have a feeling teachers will want masks.

Fine, that's fine. As long as they are in. Masks still make sense at 60% community immunity. Wholesale keeping kids home 3 days a week to make sure no one has contact with more than 12 people is not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Juniors and seniors can get the Pfizer vaccine and need to be back in. K-3 are the lowest transmitters and worst hit by DL and need to be back in.

If FCPS is smart, they will commit to holding vaccine clinics this summer when supply loosens up and getting juniors and seniors vaccines and back 5 days a week, which starts to provide scheduling certainty. Then vaccinate 12-16 as a top priority, hopefully in early fall and put 7-10 back after vaccination.

K-3 goes back full time, and 4-6 follows after a month pause to course correct and make sure mitigation hold.

It’s pretty safe for K-6 if they cohort and 11-12 with the vaccine. But, it’s impossible to see secondary schools fully online until the 12-16 shot is approved.

12 to 16s are not approved for the vaccine.

“Until the vaccine is approved.” Which should be this fall.

Young people don't need the vaccine considering their nearly non-existent risk. Especially considering that long-term effects are unknown.

[Anonymous]

We'll be 5 days a week in the fall. Deaths and hospitalizations are about to plummet.