No more masks at VA privates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has any private NOVA school asked parents, teachers, and students what they think about this EO? Decisions for the school community shouldn’t be made in a vacuum nor by those who are the loudest. Instead of listening only to those screaming, it would be beneficial to hear from everyone, not just a select few.

That’s not how it works. The way the EO is written it is not discretionary and all parents must be allowed to opt out their child. Asking the community what they want doesn’t matter if the law covers private schools, which I believe it does.

I think many private schools in NOVA are now trying to determine whether the EO or the state law Virginia Bill 1303 governs them. If EO governs, you must allow opt out. If Virginia Bill 1303 trumps the EO there is more wiggle room. Note that law was not intended as a mask mandate but instead as a directive for public school boards to open schools and stay open by pushing schools to stay open following cdc guidelines. This leaves much to interpretation. ACPS, FCPS and APS are arguing Virginia Bill 1303 is a mask mandate and overrides the EO. Youngkin says the EO rules.

But for private schools where do they fall? They’re not under the public school board umbrella. Our private has been saying it’s following CDC guidelines and require masks. But if privates don’t fall under Virginia Bill 1303 then perhaps a private can’t claim it as the overriding rule now and they’re forced to abide by the EO. Which law governs? I don’t know.

The bizarre part about this whole thing is that I thought Republicans favored allowing private entities make their own decisions. Why are they inserting themselves into how private schools determine their masking guidelines? Next we’ll have the GOP deciding private school curriculum too.

As someone who voted Republican until Trump, the GOP is full of hypocrisies, this being only the latest of the bunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Northam passed a LAW requiring schools to follow CDC guidance. Youngkin had an EO regarding masks. I don't think the EO can override the law. I guess the question is whether the EO can be said to comply with CDC guidance, but I think it's pretty clear it doesn't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

I think it should be up to the kids and the teachers who are there every day and will suffer the consequences of getting covid. The kids don't care about wearing masks. They're used to it and would much prefer wearing masks than being virtual. It is the idiot parents who have turned this into some political and culture war. The timing is nuts.

BI asking for feedback from the students, parents, teachers, and staff.

[Anonymous]

Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our private - the best in the state of VA - just sent out an announcement today that the mask requirement will continue and will be strictly enforced. Take that you PoS trumplicans with your pathetic Governor Youngkin.

And which school, pray tell, is that? If you leave it up to the board, I expect you will have dozens claiming the mantle of "best in the commonwealth".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

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

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

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

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Read the law SB 1303 which is in effect until August 2022 -" the bill requires each school board to provide such in-person instruction in a manner in which it adheres, to the maximum extent practicable, to any currently applicable mitigation strategies for early childhood care and education programs and elementary and secondary schools to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 that have been provided by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." Or just follow TX and FL schools and enforce masking as a dress code requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

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

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Read the law SB 1303 which is in effect until August 2022 -" the bill requires each school board to provide such in-person instruction in a manner in which it adheres, to the maximum extent practicable, to any currently applicable mitigation strategies for early childhood care and education programs and elementary and secondary schools to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 that have been provided by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." Or just follow TX and FL schools and enforce masking as a dress code requirement.

There is now a lawsuit asking the court to decide which governs, the state law or the EO.

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/parents-from-chesapeake-sue-youngkin-saying-school-mask-order-conflicts-with-state-law/article_d5de105c-4e45-531f-b49b-0953420dfdf8.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

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

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

[Anonymous]

When an executive order from the governor explicitly forbids barring students on the basis of masks, a mask mandate is no longer “to the extent practicable”; nor is requiring masks as a “uniform” going to get around the clear prohibition on banning students for masks.

I’ll be the first one at the courthouse if my school dare try to prevent my student from attending school beside he’s not wearing a pointless cloth rag on his face.

And I hope Youngkin calls out the National Guard to force schools to admit these students just as was done during the civil rights era. Fix bayonets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

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

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

1. Nothing about masks in my contact.

2. Just try the “private contract” argument when you want to ban kids on the basis of race. You can’t private contract your way out of legal authority

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

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

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

1. Nothing about masks in my contact.

2. Just try the “private contract” argument when you want to ban kids on the basis of race. You can’t private contract your way out of legal authority

Being stupid isn’t a protected class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

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

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Read the law SB 1303 which is in effect until August 2022 -" the bill requires each school board to provide such in-person instruction in a manner in which it adheres, to the maximum extent practicable, to any currently applicable mitigation strategies for early childhood care and education programs and elementary and secondary schools to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 that have been provided by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." Or just follow TX and FL schools and enforce masking as a dress code requirement.

And how many hundreds — thousands — of laws on the books (e.g. laws specifying operating hours for businesses or conditions for restaurants) were overruled by executive fiat over the last 2 years?

Clearly the precedent is there that laws on the books can and will be overridden by executive order when a compelling interest is at stake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When an executive order from the governor explicitly forbids barring students on the basis of masks, a mask mandate is no longer “to the extent practicable”; nor is requiring masks as a “uniform” going to get around the clear prohibition on banning students for masks.

I’ll be the first one at the courthouse if my school dare try to prevent my student from attending school beside he’s not wearing a pointless cloth rag on his face.

And I hope Youngkin calls out the National Guard to force schools to admit these students just as was done during the civil rights era. Fix bayonets.

Please go polish your brain cell with your old face rag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

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

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

1. Nothing about masks in my contact.

2. Just try the “private contract” argument when you want to ban kids on the basis of race. You can’t private contract your way out of legal authority

Being stupid isn’t a protected class.

Stupid like wearing a rag on your face for a microscopic virus with flu-like severity for old people and statistically no threat to children?