Charters: When is yours dropping the outdoor mask mandate?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

IANAL and I am not PP, but everyone here who so confidently and sophisticatedly dismissed the idea of a lawsuit last time with the Catholic schools was incorrect. Threats of litigation can matter - even if the probability of success is low.

I dunno, it seems like there could be an equal protection claim made on the basis that public school kids in DCPS are under one regime, while public school kids in the charter sector are forced to take several medical tests a week to attend school, can't receive unmasked speech therapy, and get excluded from school for 7-10 days because they travelled outside the local area -- all because of the whims of school leaders and contradicting public health officials??

But none of your facts stated here are true...

Yes they are. Some charters require covid tests every week, some charters maintain an indoor mask mandate (thus denying unmasked speech therapy), and some charters still have those damn travel restrictions.

All schools should be testing weekly, nutter. That is a good thing for students/community. Going on record as being anti-testing shows your crazy colors. At this point all charters are test to stay. I don’t know what you are talking about re: speech therapy. Everyone I know at a charter does this privately off campus.

Actually, the CDC now says that screening testing of students (not sure if you know the difference between that and test-to-stay) is unnecessary in communities with low transmission, which applies to DC:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html#screening-testing

But keep trying to insult perfectly reasonable people as "nutters" to make yourself feel better.

(Oh, and I was not the PP you responded to.)

"Forced to take several tests a week to attend school" is absolute nuttery, but fly the dim flag high. First, all schools have opt-out. Second, there is no evidence that testing harms students. Third, the CDC also says: "n K-12 schools, screening testing can help promptly identify and isolate cases, initiate quarantine, and identify clusters to help reduce the risk to in-person education. Decisions regarding screening testing may be made at the state or local level." I guess learn to read?

All schools do not have opt-out. Maybe this isn't your topic.

Name the schools that do not have the opt-out, because according to the DCPCSB they do.

Please show me the statement from DCPCSB that all charters have opt-out.

[Anonymous]

I suspect that LAMB is just going to use this as a method of drawing out the mask mandate until year's end.

[Anonymous]

I would love to hear more about lawsuits filed against LAMB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to hear more about lawsuits filed against LAMB.

It's bad. I'm sure you can search this forum to find many threads. Or even just google.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately the acronym LAMB has other meanings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to hear more about lawsuits filed against LAMB.

It's bad. I'm sure you can search this forum to find many threads. Or even just google.

But lawsuits about COVID stuff?

[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:To answer the question, the outdoor mask mandate will be dropped next week. Unvaccinated kids can test to stay (so especially good for prek parents). Everything else stays (which includes a lot of rules beyond masking).

Which charter?

We're at Two Rivers, and this sounds like us. Except they came back a few days later and said they're keeping the outdoor mask mandate for a little while longer because of recent positive COVID tests of students.

Just two more weeks! Because clearly outdoor transmission is a factor here.

Two Rivers, never change. Keep on completely mishandling COVID and disregarding science.

We need to start a list of shame. Two Rivers is definitely on there in the worst tier. Stokes. LAMB. Which other ones have been really bad?

Mundo seems bad but maybe less so? Yu Ying is off the rails but at least it opened last spring earlier than most (even if on a wackadoo schedule).

Breakthrough has been a bit better than those last two. And Sela also opened early.

Which others?

LAMB at least opened for hybrid last Spring. I think Cap City never opened at all.

LAMB just allowed outdoor unmasking this week. They've said that science is confusing so they will maybe announce next week a timeline for lifting indoor masking, after they poll everyone.

NP. Well, if they are confused by the science, the right thing to do would be to follow CDC guidance. That's why we have experts who write these guidelines, so that random school administrators don't have to try to figure this out on their own.

Exactly, but we have to consider FEELINGS. Feelings about science. Feelings about safety. Feelings about feelings.

Here’s the whole message. Seems LAMB feels the need to develop its own metrics even though the CDC has already done that, and DC Health adopted those guidelines. Truly baffling and disappointing:

LAMB has been working on our process for rolling back COVID restrictions, particularly mask mandates. The city has recently made significant changes to the school requirements and regulations regarding safety measures. These changes reflect a shift in the overall city’s focus from keeping individual students and staff safe in school environments to keeping the overall community at a low “community level.” Each local education agency (LEA) is now responsible for determining how it will approach safety.

LAMB will continue to prioritize safety and equity as we move into this new phase. This means our focus will continue to be on keeping individual students and staff safe. We will be taking the following into account:
We understand that feeling safe is an important part of being safe - for both students and staff - and it is not always easy to ensure everyone feels safe. We continue to have sporadic positive cases in both primary and elementary classrooms, and want to make sure those do not increase.
Following the science is important, but it is not always clear. We are still beginning to understand the long-term effects of COVID, even in mild cases, especially among children.
Mask requirements, in particular, have a wide variety of impacts on adults and students that change depending on age, instructional needs, personal or family risk levels, health history, health care access, and more.
We plan to finalize a schedule and plan for moving to optional masks indoors based on some important feedback from you. Our general approach includes:
Identifying metrics that would initiate an immediate return to wearing masks indoors by classroom, level, and/or the whole school if necessary.
Removing indoor mask requirements first at the elementary level and then the primary level.
Being ready to move back to indoor masking, outdoor masking, or other safety measures should we experience a suspected outbreak in the school or a rise in cases in the community.
To understand how our community feels about indoor masks requirements, we ask that you take this short survey. The survey results will be reported back out to the community along with the detailed plan for rolling back mask requirements. Please complete by Monday, April 4.

wow. reading this is driving me crazy. these arguments are so, so bad.

they're determining that the CDC and city's move to community rates isn't conservative enough so they're making their own metrics?
they're claiming that FEELING safe equates to actual safety?
they believe in this long-covid nonsense as though it is anything other than a regular post-viral syndrome?
their first (and clearly main) priority in a mask policy is re-instituting it?

a school, presumably comprised of people whose positions require that they be the "experts" to children are discarding expert advice in favor of sheer fear and FEELINGS. this poll seems like nothing other than a cover to continue masking forever.

just abject rejection of science

I know. I really like the school otherwise. This is so incredibly frustrating. The parents who want the mandate removed just don’t speak up.

This is certainly true. But I'm not quite sure how to push on the topic without upsetting my DC's teachers and being more obnoxious than anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to hear more about lawsuits filed against LAMB.

It's bad. I'm sure you can search this forum to find many threads. Or even just google.

But lawsuits about COVID stuff?

No, not that I know of.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:To answer the question, the outdoor mask mandate will be dropped next week. Unvaccinated kids can test to stay (so especially good for prek parents). Everything else stays (which includes a lot of rules beyond masking).

Which charter?

We're at Two Rivers, and this sounds like us. Except they came back a few days later and said they're keeping the outdoor mask mandate for a little while longer because of recent positive COVID tests of students.

Just two more weeks! Because clearly outdoor transmission is a factor here.

Two Rivers, never change. Keep on completely mishandling COVID and disregarding science.

We need to start a list of shame. Two Rivers is definitely on there in the worst tier. Stokes. LAMB. Which other ones have been really bad?

Mundo seems bad but maybe less so? Yu Ying is off the rails but at least it opened last spring earlier than most (even if on a wackadoo schedule).

Breakthrough has been a bit better than those last two. And Sela also opened early.

Which others?

LAMB at least opened for hybrid last Spring. I think Cap City never opened at all.

LAMB just allowed outdoor unmasking this week. They've said that science is confusing so they will maybe announce next week a timeline for lifting indoor masking, after they poll everyone.

NP. Well, if they are confused by the science, the right thing to do would be to follow CDC guidance. That's why we have experts who write these guidelines, so that random school administrators don't have to try to figure this out on their own.

Exactly, but we have to consider FEELINGS. Feelings about science. Feelings about safety. Feelings about feelings.

Here’s the whole message. Seems LAMB feels the need to develop its own metrics even though the CDC has already done that, and DC Health adopted those guidelines. Truly baffling and disappointing:

LAMB has been working on our process for rolling back COVID restrictions, particularly mask mandates. The city has recently made significant changes to the school requirements and regulations regarding safety measures. These changes reflect a shift in the overall city’s focus from keeping individual students and staff safe in school environments to keeping the overall community at a low “community level.” Each local education agency (LEA) is now responsible for determining how it will approach safety.

LAMB will continue to prioritize safety and equity as we move into this new phase. This means our focus will continue to be on keeping individual students and staff safe. We will be taking the following into account:
We understand that feeling safe is an important part of being safe - for both students and staff - and it is not always easy to ensure everyone feels safe. We continue to have sporadic positive cases in both primary and elementary classrooms, and want to make sure those do not increase.
Following the science is important, but it is not always clear. We are still beginning to understand the long-term effects of COVID, even in mild cases, especially among children.
Mask requirements, in particular, have a wide variety of impacts on adults and students that change depending on age, instructional needs, personal or family risk levels, health history, health care access, and more.
We plan to finalize a schedule and plan for moving to optional masks indoors based on some important feedback from you. Our general approach includes:
Identifying metrics that would initiate an immediate return to wearing masks indoors by classroom, level, and/or the whole school if necessary.
Removing indoor mask requirements first at the elementary level and then the primary level.
Being ready to move back to indoor masking, outdoor masking, or other safety measures should we experience a suspected outbreak in the school or a rise in cases in the community.
To understand how our community feels about indoor masks requirements, we ask that you take this short survey. The survey results will be reported back out to the community along with the detailed plan for rolling back mask requirements. Please complete by Monday, April 4.

wow. reading this is driving me crazy. these arguments are so, so bad.

they're determining that the CDC and city's move to community rates isn't conservative enough so they're making their own metrics?
they're claiming that FEELING safe equates to actual safety?
they believe in this long-covid nonsense as though it is anything other than a regular post-viral syndrome?
their first (and clearly main) priority in a mask policy is re-instituting it?

a school, presumably comprised of people whose positions require that they be the "experts" to children are discarding expert advice in favor of sheer fear and FEELINGS. this poll seems like nothing other than a cover to continue masking forever.

just abject rejection of science

I know. I really like the school otherwise. This is so incredibly frustrating. The parents who want the mandate removed just don’t speak up.

This is certainly true. But I'm not quite sure how to push on the topic without upsetting my DC's teachers and being more obnoxious than anything.

Just email Charis and Greg directly.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

IANAL and I am not PP, but everyone here who so confidently and sophisticatedly dismissed the idea of a lawsuit last time with the Catholic schools was incorrect. Threats of litigation can matter - even if the probability of success is low.

I dunno, it seems like there could be an equal protection claim made on the basis that public school kids in DCPS are under one regime, while public school kids in the charter sector are forced to take several medical tests a week to attend school, can't receive unmasked speech therapy, and get excluded from school for 7-10 days because they travelled outside the local area -- all because of the whims of school leaders and contradicting public health officials??

But none of your facts stated here are true...

Yes they are. Some charters require covid tests every week, some charters maintain an indoor mask mandate (thus denying unmasked speech therapy), and some charters still have those damn travel restrictions.

All schools should be testing weekly, nutter. That is a good thing for students/community. Going on record as being anti-testing shows your crazy colors. At this point all charters are test to stay. I don’t know what you are talking about re: speech therapy. Everyone I know at a charter does this privately off campus.

Actually, the CDC now says that screening testing of students (not sure if you know the difference between that and test-to-stay) is unnecessary in communities with low transmission, which applies to DC:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html#screening-testing

But keep trying to insult perfectly reasonable people as "nutters" to make yourself feel better.

(Oh, and I was not the PP you responded to.)

"Forced to take several tests a week to attend school" is absolute nuttery, but fly the dim flag high. First, all schools have opt-out. Second, there is no evidence that testing harms students. Third, the CDC also says: "n K-12 schools, screening testing can help promptly identify and isolate cases, initiate quarantine, and identify clusters to help reduce the risk to in-person education. Decisions regarding screening testing may be made at the state or local level." I guess learn to read?

All schools do not have opt-out. Maybe this isn't your topic.

Name the schools that do not have the opt-out, because according to the DCPCSB they do.

Please show me the statement from DCPCSB that all charters have opt-out.

I entirely believe that whoever said this meant it in good faith, because it doesn't make any sense to make up. So If there is an answer to this - if there's some reason to think that the board doesn't know what's going on - please explain, because if so they obviously need to know.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

IANAL and I am not PP, but everyone here who so confidently and sophisticatedly dismissed the idea of a lawsuit last time with the Catholic schools was incorrect. Threats of litigation can matter - even if the probability of success is low.

I dunno, it seems like there could be an equal protection claim made on the basis that public school kids in DCPS are under one regime, while public school kids in the charter sector are forced to take several medical tests a week to attend school, can't receive unmasked speech therapy, and get excluded from school for 7-10 days because they travelled outside the local area -- all because of the whims of school leaders and contradicting public health officials??

But none of your facts stated here are true...

Yes they are. Some charters require covid tests every week, some charters maintain an indoor mask mandate (thus denying unmasked speech therapy), and some charters still have those damn travel restrictions.

All schools should be testing weekly, nutter. That is a good thing for students/community. Going on record as being anti-testing shows your crazy colors. At this point all charters are test to stay. I don’t know what you are talking about re: speech therapy. Everyone I know at a charter does this privately off campus.

Actually, the CDC now says that screening testing of students (not sure if you know the difference between that and test-to-stay) is unnecessary in communities with low transmission, which applies to DC:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html#screening-testing

But keep trying to insult perfectly reasonable people as "nutters" to make yourself feel better.

(Oh, and I was not the PP you responded to.)

"Forced to take several tests a week to attend school" is absolute nuttery, but fly the dim flag high. First, all schools have opt-out. Second, there is no evidence that testing harms students. Third, the CDC also says: "n K-12 schools, screening testing can help promptly identify and isolate cases, initiate quarantine, and identify clusters to help reduce the risk to in-person education. Decisions regarding screening testing may be made at the state or local level." I guess learn to read?

All schools do not have opt-out. Maybe this isn't your topic.

Name the schools that do not have the opt-out, because according to the DCPCSB they do.

Please show me the statement from DCPCSB that all charters have opt-out.

I entirely believe that whoever said this meant it in good faith, because it doesn't make any sense to make up. So If there is an answer to this - if there's some reason to think that the board doesn't know what's going on - please explain, because if so they obviously need to know.

what are you saying, as it is unclear. Someone from Sela just said they don't have opt-out. The person saying that schools all have opt-out is therefore lying. People lie on this board all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charters are banding together to form their own science that appeases their COVID fear mongering community and continuing indoor masking.

LA just announced masks not required indoors. It will be funny when a handful of charter in DC are the only schools worldwide still insisting on this.

And by worldwide, it really will be worldwide. I can't wait for our charter to be one of only, say, 12 schools worldwide still participating in an indoor school mask mandate. What a privileged and elite group!

Germany is still masking elementary school kids, but they also have more than ten times the case rate as DC right now. Clearly, their medical-grade mask mandate (no cloth masks since late 2020) and all their other crazy restrictions didn't prevent this surge.

Even during this surge, Germany does not require children under the age of 6 to mask. At all, even if unvaccinated, even on public transportation or at school.

Are there Asian countries that require children under 6 to mask at school? I really think the US generally, and DC specifically, is unique in masking preschool and kindergarten age children. It is so weird.

Ummm. Japan; Korea; Hong Kong...

Are 5 and unders required to mask in these countries? I honestly don’t know. Obviously older kids do and masking is more normalized in these countries due to years of masking against other viruses. But that’s not the same as masking 3 and 4 year olds, as we do here.

I wish someone would do a global study on masking kids at school. It shouldn’t even be that hard to collect data. It would be so helpful to have real comparative data on the issue.

It would be even more helpful to just have a randomized controlled trial to find out if masks in schools make a meaningful difference or not. It would be entirely feasible, but they are not doing that because they know they wouldn't get the results they want.

They did one in Spain - google it - found no difference in group that used masks vs. group that didn't.

I am aware of that study, but it is not an RCT. It is a good study though, and a large one, with a much more useful control group than all the hopelessly confounded observational studies they did in the US. What they found is that the older age group (6+) who wore masks actually had more in-school spread than the younger kids who were unmasked. As always with Covid, age is the most important factor.

+1

I'd love to see people come together to agree that, at a minimum, ECE kids shouldn't be masked unless they have a risk factor. I don't even mean "they can mask if they want", but an actual recommendation that if a child under 6 is otherwise healthy, it would be better for them not to mask in order to support language acquisition and social skill development. I think kids in this group are getting screwed out of important developmental experiences because of this temporary insanity.

But the problem is that even with that Spanish study, people will come back to you and say "but these kids need to stay masked to protect vulnerable adults." And then if you point out that vulnerable adults can protect themselves by vaccinating, they get very squirrely.

We really are going to keep masking little kids to protect unvaccinated adults. We're really going to do it.

So let me get this straight…this theoretical “it may harm social/language development” take is supposed to trump the actual documented findings of the known risk to children who contract covid? How in the heck does that work?

I partially blame the CDC for kowtowing to this adamant group of privileged, white liberals pushing to drop masks. It’s moronic to drop masks in schools because someone changed the way they color the map. The case counts in DC are beginning to tick back up again; ~90/100k is not a low case count, pediatric vaccine rates are not great, and vaccines are less effective against these variants.

Workplaces can do what they want, but schools are supposed to have more equitable, safe access because education is a protected right. School is not some optional thing you can choose to skip or shop around for.

Unmasking students puts vulnerable kids at risk. Yes, wearing one mask helps, but it alone is not enough — when everyone masks, it increases safety substantially, reducing the viral load a child may be exposed to if a classmate is positive and reducing particle concentration in the classroom. If our charter goes mask optional, my high-risk child has to go back to virtual — which is not in any way shape or form a FAPE quality alternative.

We ban peanuts in school to protect a small minority of students. Parents of high-risk children are begging schools to keep mask policies in place so their children can continue to access an education, and we as a society can’t be bothered.

[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:Charters are banding together to form their own science that appeases their COVID fear mongering community and continuing indoor masking.

LA just announced masks not required indoors. It will be funny when a handful of charter in DC are the only schools worldwide still insisting on this.

And by worldwide, it really will be worldwide. I can't wait for our charter to be one of only, say, 12 schools worldwide still participating in an indoor school mask mandate. What a privileged and elite group!

Germany is still masking elementary school kids, but they also have more than ten times the case rate as DC right now. Clearly, their medical-grade mask mandate (no cloth masks since late 2020) and all their other crazy restrictions didn't prevent this surge.

Even during this surge, Germany does not require children under the age of 6 to mask. At all, even if unvaccinated, even on public transportation or at school.

Are there Asian countries that require children under 6 to mask at school? I really think the US generally, and DC specifically, is unique in masking preschool and kindergarten age children. It is so weird.

Ummm. Japan; Korea; Hong Kong...

Are 5 and unders required to mask in these countries? I honestly don’t know. Obviously older kids do and masking is more normalized in these countries due to years of masking against other viruses. But that’s not the same as masking 3 and 4 year olds, as we do here.

I wish someone would do a global study on masking kids at school. It shouldn’t even be that hard to collect data. It would be so helpful to have real comparative data on the issue.

It would be even more helpful to just have a randomized controlled trial to find out if masks in schools make a meaningful difference or not. It would be entirely feasible, but they are not doing that because they know they wouldn't get the results they want.

They did one in Spain - google it - found no difference in group that used masks vs. group that didn't.

I am aware of that study, but it is not an RCT. It is a good study though, and a large one, with a much more useful control group than all the hopelessly confounded observational studies they did in the US. What they found is that the older age group (6+) who wore masks actually had more in-school spread than the younger kids who were unmasked. As always with Covid, age is the most important factor.

+1

I'd love to see people come together to agree that, at a minimum, ECE kids shouldn't be masked unless they have a risk factor. I don't even mean "they can mask if they want", but an actual recommendation that if a child under 6 is otherwise healthy, it would be better for them not to mask in order to support language acquisition and social skill development. I think kids in this group are getting screwed out of important developmental experiences because of this temporary insanity.

But the problem is that even with that Spanish study, people will come back to you and say "but these kids need to stay masked to protect vulnerable adults." And then if you point out that vulnerable adults can protect themselves by vaccinating, they get very squirrely.

We really are going to keep masking little kids to protect unvaccinated adults. We're really going to do it.

So let me get this straight…this theoretical “it may harm social/language development” take is supposed to trump the actual documented findings of the known risk to children who contract covid? How in the heck does that work?

I partially blame the CDC for kowtowing to this adamant group of privileged, white liberals pushing to drop masks. It’s moronic to drop masks in schools because someone changed the way they color the map. The case counts in DC are beginning to tick back up again; ~90/100k is not a low case count, pediatric vaccine rates are not great, and vaccines are less effective against these variants.

Workplaces can do what they want, but schools are supposed to have more equitable, safe access because education is a protected right. School is not some optional thing you can choose to skip or shop around for.

Unmasking students puts vulnerable kids at risk. Yes, wearing one mask helps, but it alone is not enough — when everyone masks, it increases safety substantially, reducing the viral load a child may be exposed to if a classmate is positive and reducing particle concentration in the classroom. If our charter goes mask optional, my high-risk child has to go back to virtual — which is not in any way shape or form a FAPE quality alternative.

We ban peanuts in school to protect a small minority of students. Parents of high-risk children are begging schools to keep mask policies in place so their children can continue to access an education, and we as a society can’t be bothered.

The effect of school mask mandates on COVID spread in schools is somewhere between zero and minimal. The evidence just isn't there. If you sent your kid to school when COVID rates were significantly higher and there was masking but you don't think it's safe to send them when it's lower and their classmates aren't masking, you do not accurately perceive risk.

We have public health institutions because doing health policy on a school by school or workplace but workplace basis is not feasible. I should not have to persuade parents that masking forever is not an ok outcome for my kid with a speech IEP in order to get them to follow the public health guidance that nearly everyone else is already following.

But if there are charters that do accept this argument - and there may be - the smallest thing they can do is be upfront with parents about it and give them a chance to make an informed choice for next year. Maybe there's a constituency for a perpetually masking school. But for parents who want to go to a school that follows public health guidelines, tell us so we can leave.

[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:Charters are banding together to form their own science that appeases their COVID fear mongering community and continuing indoor masking.

LA just announced masks not required indoors. It will be funny when a handful of charter in DC are the only schools worldwide still insisting on this.

And by worldwide, it really will be worldwide. I can't wait for our charter to be one of only, say, 12 schools worldwide still participating in an indoor school mask mandate. What a privileged and elite group!

Germany is still masking elementary school kids, but they also have more than ten times the case rate as DC right now. Clearly, their medical-grade mask mandate (no cloth masks since late 2020) and all their other crazy restrictions didn't prevent this surge.

Even during this surge, Germany does not require children under the age of 6 to mask. At all, even if unvaccinated, even on public transportation or at school.

Are there Asian countries that require children under 6 to mask at school? I really think the US generally, and DC specifically, is unique in masking preschool and kindergarten age children. It is so weird.

Ummm. Japan; Korea; Hong Kong...

Are 5 and unders required to mask in these countries? I honestly don’t know. Obviously older kids do and masking is more normalized in these countries due to years of masking against other viruses. But that’s not the same as masking 3 and 4 year olds, as we do here.

I wish someone would do a global study on masking kids at school. It shouldn’t even be that hard to collect data. It would be so helpful to have real comparative data on the issue.

It would be even more helpful to just have a randomized controlled trial to find out if masks in schools make a meaningful difference or not. It would be entirely feasible, but they are not doing that because they know they wouldn't get the results they want.

They did one in Spain - google it - found no difference in group that used masks vs. group that didn't.

I am aware of that study, but it is not an RCT. It is a good study though, and a large one, with a much more useful control group than all the hopelessly confounded observational studies they did in the US. What they found is that the older age group (6+) who wore masks actually had more in-school spread than the younger kids who were unmasked. As always with Covid, age is the most important factor.

+1

I'd love to see people come together to agree that, at a minimum, ECE kids shouldn't be masked unless they have a risk factor. I don't even mean "they can mask if they want", but an actual recommendation that if a child under 6 is otherwise healthy, it would be better for them not to mask in order to support language acquisition and social skill development. I think kids in this group are getting screwed out of important developmental experiences because of this temporary insanity.

But the problem is that even with that Spanish study, people will come back to you and say "but these kids need to stay masked to protect vulnerable adults." And then if you point out that vulnerable adults can protect themselves by vaccinating, they get very squirrely.

We really are going to keep masking little kids to protect unvaccinated adults. We're really going to do it.

So let me get this straight…this theoretical “it may harm social/language development” take is supposed to trump the actual documented findings of the known risk to children who contract covid? How in the heck does that work?

I partially blame the CDC for kowtowing to this adamant group of privileged, white liberals pushing to drop masks. It’s moronic to drop masks in schools because someone changed the way they color the map. The case counts in DC are beginning to tick back up again; ~90/100k is not a low case count, pediatric vaccine rates are not great, and vaccines are less effective against these variants.

Workplaces can do what they want, but schools are supposed to have more equitable, safe access because education is a protected right. School is not some optional thing you can choose to skip or shop around for.

Unmasking students puts vulnerable kids at risk. Yes, wearing one mask helps, but it alone is not enough — when everyone masks, it increases safety substantially, reducing the viral load a child may be exposed to if a classmate is positive and reducing particle concentration in the classroom. If our charter goes mask optional, my high-risk child has to go back to virtual — which is not in any way shape or form a FAPE quality alternative.

We ban peanuts in school to protect a small minority of students. Parents of high-risk children are begging schools to keep mask policies in place so their children can continue to access an education, and we as a society can’t be bothered.

LOL at this entire post if it weren't so sad.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to start suing these charters.

For what exactly?

Well, you can probably find individual cases of children that can demonstrate that they are harmed by having to mask for two years of their development. For example, kids with speech delays whose speech therapists can document that the mask hinders progress. Particularly when the CDC and DC Health don't support the school's bizarre public health measures.

Demonstrating injury for legal purposes is most unlikely, particularly given there is no science that supports your theory of harm.

It's not worth debating the point of science supporting the theory of harm. Every expert would have said that it does harm prior to March 2020.

But the threat of litigation would very likely pave the way for doing mask optional.

Hahhaha. Obliviously not a lawyer.

IANAL and I am not PP, but everyone here who so confidently and sophisticatedly dismissed the idea of a lawsuit last time with the Catholic schools was incorrect. Threats of litigation can matter - even if the probability of success is low.

I dunno, it seems like there could be an equal protection claim made on the basis that public school kids in DCPS are under one regime, while public school kids in the charter sector are forced to take several medical tests a week to attend school, can't receive unmasked speech therapy, and get excluded from school for 7-10 days because they travelled outside the local area -- all because of the whims of school leaders and contradicting public health officials??

But none of your facts stated here are true...

Yes they are. Some charters require covid tests every week, some charters maintain an indoor mask mandate (thus denying unmasked speech therapy), and some charters still have those damn travel restrictions.

All schools should be testing weekly, nutter. That is a good thing for students/community. Going on record as being anti-testing shows your crazy colors. At this point all charters are test to stay. I don’t know what you are talking about re: speech therapy. Everyone I know at a charter does this privately off campus.

Actually, the CDC now says that screening testing of students (not sure if you know the difference between that and test-to-stay) is unnecessary in communities with low transmission, which applies to DC:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html#screening-testing

But keep trying to insult perfectly reasonable people as "nutters" to make yourself feel better.

(Oh, and I was not the PP you responded to.)

"Forced to take several tests a week to attend school" is absolute nuttery, but fly the dim flag high. First, all schools have opt-out. Second, there is no evidence that testing harms students. Third, the CDC also says: "n K-12 schools, screening testing can help promptly identify and isolate cases, initiate quarantine, and identify clusters to help reduce the risk to in-person education. Decisions regarding screening testing may be made at the state or local level." I guess learn to read?

All schools do not have opt-out. Maybe this isn't your topic.

Name the schools that do not have the opt-out, because according to the DCPCSB they do.

Please show me the statement from DCPCSB that all charters have opt-out.

I entirely believe that whoever said this meant it in good faith, because it doesn't make any sense to make up. So If there is an answer to this - if there's some reason to think that the board doesn't know what's going on - please explain, because if so they obviously need to know.

what are you saying, as it is unclear. Someone from Sela just said they don't have opt-out. The person saying that schools all have opt-out is therefore lying. People lie on this board all the time.

Umm. We're at Sela, at there absolutely is opt-out. You have to request from Josh/Ryan. We would never opt-out, but we know people who have, because there people who are very vocal about it. The problem from their dim perspective is that Sela is test-to-stay, so if you opt-out you can't test back in until you quarantine. That's their choice -and their problem.