Covid at SFS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the dashboard is good, transparent and tells us the extremely conservative metrics set by the school and the medical advisory team are being met. the testing and safety protocols are working.

You are delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original post - I do think it would be more transparent if SFS announced all cases of on-campus individuals (admin, faculty, contractors, students) to the entire community, with no identifying detail other than division, date of positive test, and last date on campus. Our other child's K-8 does this, and then individuals with high potential for direct exposure receive additional communication. My very large office building does this too.

There is no expectation that there will be zero cases, but that when there are cases, the response is appropriate. Being transparent, while maintaining confidentiality shows good leadership. Communication is key to both comfort and compliance.

Before hybrid learning started again at the US, they shared that info when a Meriwether Godsey employee was diagnosed with covid. I assumed that they would do something similar in the future -- but apparently not.

The two biggest issues for me with Sidwell's plans are 1) that the definition of "close contact" for notifying those who came in contact with an infected person is insufficient; it doesn't require telling students who are in the same class with infected students, because they are 6 feet apart and wearing masks. But in reality spending 80 minutes in the same room with an infected person is a risk no matter what PPE is used or what air filtration. And 2), the US does not have cohorts at all -- students attend their normal classes, and teachers teach multiple different classes. You mix with whatever group of people that your schedule implies, and teachers are a common contact between groups. I was really put off with the tone of the email announcing a return to hybrid learning -- it was essentially, "Guess what, guys! We found out we don't have to comply with public health orders! Dude!"

Yet there are parents who want to push for even more as evidenced by the email last night. It seems that some parents are ok with rising cases.

Last time the squeaky wheel approach worked, so if you don't agree with the email - you might want to reach out to let the school know.

The email was offensive. The parents behind it harvested email addresses from the school directory, in violation of school policy, and then spammed everyone. There is a small cabal of Karens who think they know better than epidemiologists, infections disease experts and an administrator from the top COVD hospital in DC.

If that was offensive, you have a rough road ahead of you. Why does SFS have such aggressively paranoid parents? The school has been open for 2 weeks, and no one tested positive this weekend.

I just ignored it and am not signing, but I understand their desperation to get their kids back. This is a sad situation for students.

[Anonymous]

it is offensive in that a group of parents think they can go against the handbook guidelines, harvest email addresses, while not having the courage to put their real names to the letter. At least the two upper school students who sent around the open letters about the school's policy towards teachers were brave enough to use their real names. The parents behind this letter are coward Karens. Step up, use your real names

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it is offensive in that a group of parents think they can go against the handbook guidelines, harvest email addresses, while not having the courage to put their real names to the letter. At least the two upper school students who sent around the open letters about the school's policy towards teachers were brave enough to use their real names. The parents behind this letter are coward Karens. Step up, use your real names

Karens is an offensive term to women; the letter was not offensive at all. If you don't like it, ignore it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it is offensive in that a group of parents think they can go against the handbook guidelines, harvest email addresses, while not having the courage to put their real names to the letter. At least the two upper school students who sent around the open letters about the school's policy towards teachers were brave enough to use their real names. The parents behind this letter are coward Karens. Step up, use your real names

Hilarious!

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but throwing shade at coward Karens for staying anonymous - while writing anonymously.

Please rail against this some more!

The irony -if not hypocrisy - makes me giggle.

Signed,
Laughing on the Sidelines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The email was offensive. The parents behind it harvested email addresses from the school directory, in violation of school policy, and then spammed everyone. There is a small cabal of Karens who think they know better than epidemiologists, infections disease experts and an administrator from the top COVD hospital in DC.

Just in case I get Covid and need to go to the ER, which is the top Covid hospital in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it is offensive in that a group of parents think they can go against the handbook guidelines, harvest email addresses, while not having the courage to put their real names to the letter. At least the two upper school students who sent around the open letters about the school's policy towards teachers were brave enough to use their real names. The parents behind this letter are coward Karens. Step up, use your real names

Karens is an offensive term to women; the letter was not offensive at all. If you don't like it, ignore it.

Time to start the FemaleParent@SFS Instagram.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it is offensive in that a group of parents think they can go against the handbook guidelines, harvest email addresses, while not having the courage to put their real names to the letter. At least the two upper school students who sent around the open letters about the school's policy towards teachers were brave enough to use their real names. The parents behind this letter are coward Karens. Step up, use your real names

Agree. They should be embarrassed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it is offensive in that a group of parents think they can go against the handbook guidelines, harvest email addresses, while not having the courage to put their real names to the letter. At least the two upper school students who sent around the open letters about the school's policy towards teachers were brave enough to use their real names. The parents behind this letter are coward Karens. Step up, use your real names

Agree. They should be embarrassed.

Not against handbook guidelines at all. No idea who these people are but they weren’t soliciting anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original post - I do think it would be more transparent if SFS announced all cases of on-campus individuals (admin, faculty, contractors, students) to the entire community, with no identifying detail other than division, date of positive test, and last date on campus. Our other child's K-8 does this, and then individuals with high potential for direct exposure receive additional communication. My very large office building does this too.

There is no expectation that there will be zero cases, but that when there are cases, the response is appropriate. Being transparent, while maintaining confidentiality shows good leadership. Communication is key to both comfort and compliance.

Before hybrid learning started again at the US, they shared that info when a Meriwether Godsey employee was diagnosed with covid. I assumed that they would do something similar in the future -- but apparently not.

The two biggest issues for me with Sidwell's plans are 1) that the definition of "close contact" for notifying those who came in contact with an infected person is insufficient; it doesn't require telling students who are in the same class with infected students, because they are 6 feet apart and wearing masks. But in reality spending 80 minutes in the same room with an infected person is a risk no matter what PPE is used or what air filtration. And 2), the US does not have cohorts at all -- students attend their normal classes, and teachers teach multiple different classes. You mix with whatever group of people that your schedule implies, and teachers are a common contact between groups. I was really put off with the tone of the email announcing a return to hybrid learning -- it was essentially, "Guess what, guys! We found out we don't have to comply with public health orders! Dude!"

FYI the cohort model is dated thinking on best practices for prevention of spread.

[Anonymous]

So the word going around upper school is that the kid who tested positive last week is in the 11-12th grade group, was on campus but that the administration DID NOT notify anyone who was in classes or contact with this person. If that is true that destroys any credibility the administration or the MAT has in their ability to keep students safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the word going around upper school is that the kid who tested positive last week is in the 11-12th grade group, was on campus but that the administration DID NOT notify anyone who was in classes or contact with this person. If that is true that destroys any credibility the administration or the MAT has in their ability to keep students safe.

And is yet one more reason why the school needs to return to all virtual ASAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the word going around upper school is that the kid who tested positive last week is in the 11-12th grade group, was on campus but that the administration DID NOT notify anyone who was in classes or contact with this person. If that is true that destroys any credibility the administration or the MAT has in their ability to keep students safe.

The student was never on campus after being exposed. No one was at risk. That said, there should have been a communication to the families in the cohort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the word going around upper school is that the kid who tested positive last week is in the 11-12th grade group, was on campus but that the administration DID NOT notify anyone who was in classes or contact with this person. If that is true that destroys any credibility the administration or the MAT has in their ability to keep students safe.

And is yet one more reason why the school needs to return to all virtual ASAP

Go away, please. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the word going around upper school is that the kid who tested positive last week is in the 11-12th grade group, was on campus but that the administration DID NOT notify anyone who was in classes or contact with this person. If that is true that destroys any credibility the administration or the MAT has in their ability to keep students safe.

The student was never on campus after being exposed. No one was at risk. That said, there should have been a communication to the families in the cohort.

They can't have 100% confidence that student was never on campus when they were possibly contagious. Unbelievably irresponsible of the administration, sending kids and staff to school flying blind like this is like playing Russian roulette. It shouldn't be that way, the school should have much more robust testing and tracing in place, but the leadership is not there. It is why we keep our kids on DL as much as we wanted them to be able to go back on to campus.

And why those parents who want to keep hybrid going after thanksgiving in the middle of the worst phase of the pandemic are so irresponsible.