Here is the full settlement: https://www.acluva.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/seaman_v._virginia_settlement_agreement_fully_executed.pdf

I can't cut and paste from it, but it makes clear that this is not some kind of right to reinstitute 100% masking based on an unsupported allegation that the child is "immunocompromised" or whatever. Kids in Virginia still have rights NOT to mask - both under Virginia law and the ADA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a student in your child’s class has cancer, you’re not willing to have your kid mask?

My child is deaf. Your child will not wear a mask so my child can read her lips. Cancer student should stay home.

Just stop with this cruelty. Please.

Reasonable accommodations are always case-by-case. Some schools may have masked and unmasked classes to accommodate different kids as needed. But, generally, a child with a disability has a right be be in the least restrictive environment so sending kids home for their education is a last resort if there are no other alternatives.

Anonymous wrote:They still have to show that it is a reasonable accommodation. All this does is give them the right to make that argument; not to actually win the argument.

Exactly. And Texas has won at the appellate level that it's not.

Anonymous wrote:Disgusted that posters are suggesting medically fragile kids should isolate at home rather than be in the classroom with a basic level of precaution through masking by peers.

Disgusted that you're forcing kids with autism and speech delays to mask, with consequent harms to speech and social-emotional development.

Anonymous wrote:Disgusted that posters are suggesting medically fragile kids should isolate at home rather than be in the classroom with a basic level of precaution through masking by peers.

It's not a "basic level of precaution". It's unscientific nonsense, and hurts other children. People need to see faces.

If you want to live in a dystopian masked world, no one is stopping you from moving to China.

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't this only apply to the students that are plaintiffs in the lawsuit?

Yes, but ultimately the school districts and DOE aren’t going to want to litigate this issue again so they’re probably going to apply it across the board.

Monday’s settlement clarifies that schools must make accommodations under federal disability law if a child with a disability requires peer and teacher masking. The settlement requires the Virginia Department of Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to send guidance to school districts and post that guidance on the COVID-19 Special Education Resources webpage.

Anonymous wrote:So, if a student in your child’s class has cancer, you’re not willing to have your kid mask?

My child is deaf. Your child will not wear a mask so my child can read her lips. Cancer student should stay home.

Anonymous wrote:Disgusted that posters are suggesting medically fragile kids should isolate at home rather than be in the classroom with a basic level of precaution through masking by peers.

What happened before COVID? Is a cloth mask really even protecting them (all the random control trials say NO)?

You all are pushing for lifetime forced child masking (COVID is never going away). GTHO.

If my child's class tried to force mask my child, they're moving to another class as the order said. Hopefully the AG would bring a suit then that masking cannot be a reasonable accommodation too, as Texas did and won.

We all know which way the US Supreme Court is deciding the forced child masking question when it reaches them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if a student in your child’s class has cancer, you’re not willing to have your kid mask?

So if a student in your child’s class has a behavior disorder, you’re not willing to have your child’s learning interrupted to deal with the other child’s outburst? Sounds like you don’t care about other children’s needs.

My kid sometimes has disruptive behavior. I can tell you a few things about it. One, the behavior was made MUCH worse by covid school closures and masking. So, you have yourself to blame for that one. Two, the goal of accommodations is to reduce the disruption, partially for the sake of the other kids. If we hadn't been able to reduce it, then I would have (very sadly) agreed to an alternative placement. The interest of the rest of the classroom is always relevant when dealing with disruptive behaviors.

Anonymous wrote:Disgusted that posters are suggesting medically fragile kids should isolate at home rather than be in the classroom with a basic level of precaution through masking by peers.

I agree with the PP. The medically fragile kid can wear an N95. That's what I would do as a parent.

They still have to show that it is a reasonable accommodation. All this does is give them the right to make that argument; not to actually win the argument.

Anonymous wrote:Disgusted that posters are suggesting medically fragile kids should isolate at home rather than be in the classroom with a basic level of precaution through masking by peers.

If this were enforced, many of the kids would be in a cloth mask. I know mine would. What good does that do the medically fragile child?

Doesn't this only apply to the students that are plaintiffs in the lawsuit?

Disgusted that posters are suggesting medically fragile kids should isolate at home rather than be in the classroom with a basic level of precaution through masking by peers.

What do they do for lunch?

Does the medically fragile child need to eat in a private room?