Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS's whole legal argument is that they are following CDC guidelines.

So, if they want to be consistent, they need to send out a notice saying no masks are needed inside by anyone starting today (not Tues), per CDC guidelines.

But, I don't know what they are saying in the ACLU lawsuit. That would be the only reason they stick to March 1st.

They always told us parents that they had to follow CDC guidelines...so let's see them do that. Or was that just cover for some other agenda?

That ACLU lawsuit should be getting more attention than it is, because they're wanting to expand the requirements for a school to accommodate a student with a disability to bring able to require their peers to accommodate the disability (masks for class or school of immunocompromised student). The implications aren't limited to Covid.

Quite disturbing. My child's bodily autonomy cannot be part of a schools ADA or whatever accomodations.. That's simply not reasonable.

You must be a man. “Bodily autonomy” means nothing to the other half of the population. Welcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS's whole legal argument is that they are following CDC guidelines.

So, if they want to be consistent, they need to send out a notice saying no masks are needed inside by anyone starting today (not Tues), per CDC guidelines.

But, I don't know what they are saying in the ACLU lawsuit. That would be the only reason they stick to March 1st.

They always told us parents that they had to follow CDC guidelines...so let's see them do that. Or was that just cover for some other agenda?

That ACLU lawsuit should be getting more attention than it is, because they're wanting to expand the requirements for a school to accommodate a student with a disability to bring able to require their peers to accommodate the disability (masks for class or school of immunocompromised student). The implications aren't limited to Covid.

Quite disturbing. My child's bodily autonomy cannot be part of a schools ADA or whatever accomodations.. That's simply not reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parent choice idea will turn into kid choice. It’s not so great that the kids are now in charge of major health decisions.

I don’t want to be saddled with trying to make students wear masks based on parental wishes. Actually, the email that was sent out reads, “Respecting Student Choice and Need”: Teachers and school staff will not treat students differently based on their choice”. If a student shows up with a mask and the removes it later, it shouldn’t be an issue.

I am taking “mask police” off my job description as a teacher starting Monday. No more.

PP
Honestly, I never felt as though I was policing masks, so I don’t want to start now.

Lower grade so they are always breaking them or losing them after recess and I felt like I had to keep passing them out. They will get stopped in hallway by another teacher.

How low? I teach third grade and other than an occasional “Pull it up over your nose” for a couple of students, I really haven’t had to say anything.

Kindergarten. LOL

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS website said they are aware of the new CDC guidance that came out Friday and will update us on Monday. Looks like a 100% turn a round from their January communication in response to the EO. LOL! FCPS looks absolutely idiotic!

No, actually you look like an idiot. They’ve always maintained that they were directed by a LAW to keep schools open and follow the CDC guidelines. The court upheld that. An executive order cannot trump a law. They’ve continued to follow the law (SB1303) directing them to follow CDC guidelines and were prepared to follow the NEW law that allowed parents to elect whether their child wears a mask effective March 1. The CDC guidelines changed YESTERDAY.

What exactly is funny here? There’s no “turnaround.” They’re simply following the law as it changes. The executive order was never a law. Sounds like you need to brush up on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, Champ.

NP here. So does this mean that you think teachers and students do not have to wear masks starting now (on 28 Feb)? According to the new guidelines, Fairfax has been moderate/low since mid-Feb. So we have met the off-ramp guidelines.

DP
Unless they don’t apply the new guidelines to previous dates. It depends on how you look at it, but I agree that it’s not a turnaround.

Ok so they might start day 1 on Friday and 7 days puts us as the end of the week? Just make it happen now. What difference does it it make?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parent choice idea will turn into kid choice. It’s not so great that the kids are now in charge of major health decisions.

I don’t want to be saddled with trying to make students wear masks based on parental wishes. Actually, the email that was sent out reads, “Respecting Student Choice and Need”: Teachers and school staff will not treat students differently based on their choice”. If a student shows up with a mask and the removes it later, it shouldn’t be an issue.

I am taking “mask police” off my job description as a teacher starting Monday. No more.

PP
Honestly, I never felt as though I was policing masks, so I don’t want to start now.

Lower grade so they are always breaking them or losing them after recess and I felt like I had to keep passing them out. They will get stopped in hallway by another teacher.

How low? I teach third grade and other than an occasional “Pull it up over your nose” for a couple of students, I really haven’t had to say anything.

It’s the opposite for me. I’m a high school teacher and stopped telling them a while back to pull the masks up over their noses. I need to teach and can’t spend all day doing that. I tried and it was a losing battle. At this point I would prefer not to wear one too. I’m done enforcing this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS website said they are aware of the new CDC guidance that came out Friday and will update us on Monday. Looks like a 100% turn a round from their January communication in response to the EO. LOL! FCPS looks absolutely idiotic!

No, actually you look like an idiot. They’ve always maintained that they were directed by a LAW to keep schools open and follow the CDC guidelines. The court upheld that. An executive order cannot trump a law. They’ve continued to follow the law (SB1303) directing them to follow CDC guidelines and were prepared to follow the NEW law that allowed parents to elect whether their child wears a mask effective March 1. The CDC guidelines changed YESTERDAY.

What exactly is funny here? There’s no “turnaround.” They’re simply following the law as it changes. The executive order was never a law. Sounds like you need to brush up on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, Champ.

NP here. So does this mean that you think teachers and students do not have to wear masks starting now (on 28 Feb)? According to the new guidelines, Fairfax has been moderate/low since mid-Feb. So we have met the off-ramp guidelines.

DP
Unless they don’t apply the new guidelines to previous dates. It depends on how you look at it, but I agree that it’s not a turnaround.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS website said they are aware of the new CDC guidance that came out Friday and will update us on Monday. Looks like a 100% turn a round from their January communication in response to the EO. LOL! FCPS looks absolutely idiotic!

No, actually you look like an idiot. They’ve always maintained that they were directed by a LAW to keep schools open and follow the CDC guidelines. The court upheld that. An executive order cannot trump a law. They’ve continued to follow the law (SB1303) directing them to follow CDC guidelines and were prepared to follow the NEW law that allowed parents to elect whether their child wears a mask effective March 1. The CDC guidelines changed YESTERDAY.

What exactly is funny here? There’s no “turnaround.” They’re simply following the law as it changes. The executive order was never a law. Sounds like you need to brush up on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, Champ.

Yes, it changed yesterday. But they knew there were going to be changes, and the changes were being informally telegraphed by the news (and probably by CDC insiders as well) in advance of the formal announcement. Prior planning and foresight SHOULD have resulted in the development of new messaging being prepared in advance. Then you only need minor tweaks if the guidance isn't what you think it would be and can be responsive and agile to the situation. Having to wait until Monday just further demonstrates the school board's lack of planning and vision. It demonstrates yet another failure and that they are being reactionary. I'm sure you contingency plan in your daily life. Can't we expect the same from FCPS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parent choice idea will turn into kid choice. It’s not so great that the kids are now in charge of major health decisions.

I don’t want to be saddled with trying to make students wear masks based on parental wishes. Actually, the email that was sent out reads, “Respecting Student Choice and Need”: Teachers and school staff will not treat students differently based on their choice”. If a student shows up with a mask and the removes it later, it shouldn’t be an issue.

I am taking “mask police” off my job description as a teacher starting Monday. No more.

PP
Honestly, I never felt as though I was policing masks, so I don’t want to start now.

Lower grade so they are always breaking them or losing them after recess and I felt like I had to keep passing them out. They will get stopped in hallway by another teacher.

How low? I teach third grade and other than an occasional “Pull it up over your nose” for a couple of students, I really haven’t had to say anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if the CDC says the masks aren't needed, will those who spent the whole week citing masks studies over and over, believe the CDC?? I mean they keep saying following the science and follow the CDC so will today at 3 PM they believe those studies don't matter? Or that the CDC is wrong and they did their research so they know better?

My senior plans to stay masked because she hasn’t had COVID and isolation is still ten days. Senior skip, APs, prom, graduation, robotics season, orchestra performances. She’s not concerned about COVID per se. But she’s very concerned about missing out on two weeks the last three month of senior years.

If they would do 5 days for isolation plus 5 masked, that might be different.

That's a good point. Isolation would be devastating for my kids' grades. They haven't had covid either. Hmmm....something to consider.

That email was so confusing but I think it is 5 days now if they will wear masks day 6-10.

It says 5 days for quarantine plus 5 masked (exposure), 10 days for isolation (getting COVID). My kid can’t Musee 10 days. So, she’ll stay masked. I expect the AP level HS students will do the same.

I understand. I think my high schooler wants to stay masked. My elementary kid won’t. It should change though. Many other states are doing the 5 days for school too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if the CDC says the masks aren't needed, will those who spent the whole week citing masks studies over and over, believe the CDC?? I mean they keep saying following the science and follow the CDC so will today at 3 PM they believe those studies don't matter? Or that the CDC is wrong and they did their research so they know better?

My senior plans to stay masked because she hasn’t had COVID and isolation is still ten days. Senior skip, APs, prom, graduation, robotics season, orchestra performances. She’s not concerned about COVID per se. But she’s very concerned about missing out on two weeks the last three month of senior years.

If they would do 5 days for isolation plus 5 masked, that might be different.

That's a good point. Isolation would be devastating for my kids' grades. They haven't had covid either. Hmmm....something to consider.

That email was so confusing but I think it is 5 days now if they will wear masks day 6-10.

It says 5 days for quarantine plus 5 masked (exposure), 10 days for isolation (getting COVID). My kid can’t Musee 10 days. So, she’ll stay masked. I expect the AP level HS students will do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parent choice idea will turn into kid choice. It’s not so great that the kids are now in charge of major health decisions.

I don’t want to be saddled with trying to make students wear masks based on parental wishes. Actually, the email that was sent out reads, “Respecting Student Choice and Need”: Teachers and school staff will not treat students differently based on their choice”. If a student shows up with a mask and the removes it later, it shouldn’t be an issue.

I am taking “mask police” off my job description as a teacher starting Monday. No more.

PP
Honestly, I never felt as though I was policing masks, so I don’t want to start now.

Lower grade so they are always breaking them or losing them after recess and I felt like I had to keep passing them out. They will get stopped in hallway by another teacher.

Anonymous wrote:FCPS's whole legal argument is that they are following CDC guidelines.

So, if they want to be consistent, they need to send out a notice saying no masks are needed inside by anyone starting today (not Tues), per CDC guidelines.

But, I don't know what they are saying in the ACLU lawsuit. That would be the only reason they stick to March 1st.

They always told us parents that they had to follow CDC guidelines...so let's see them do that. Or was that just cover for some other agenda?

That ACLU lawsuit should be getting more attention than it is, because they're wanting to expand the requirements for a school to accommodate a student with a disability to bring able to require their peers to accommodate the disability (masks for class or school of immunocompromised student). The implications aren't limited to Covid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS website said they are aware of the new CDC guidance that came out Friday and will update us on Monday. Looks like a 100% turn a round from their January communication in response to the EO. LOL! FCPS looks absolutely idiotic!

No, actually you look like an idiot. They’ve always maintained that they were directed by a LAW to keep schools open and follow the CDC guidelines. The court upheld that. An executive order cannot trump a law. They’ve continued to follow the law (SB1303) directing them to follow CDC guidelines and were prepared to follow the NEW law that allowed parents to elect whether their child wears a mask effective March 1. The CDC guidelines changed YESTERDAY.

What exactly is funny here? There’s no “turnaround.” They’re simply following the law as it changes. The executive order was never a law. Sounds like you need to brush up on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, Champ.

NP here. So does this mean that you think teachers and students do not have to wear masks starting now (on 28 Feb)? According to the new guidelines, Fairfax has been moderate/low since mid-Feb. So we have met the off-ramp guidelines.

Anonymous wrote:If we have to respect a child’s wishes on their gender preference we should respect their mask choice. This world is crazy.

Indeed. Especially since the "family values spare the rod spoil the child" now handed the power in this matter to their kids. Ironic. I wonder if they gave their kids the same choice over being vaccinated....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parent choice idea will turn into kid choice. It’s not so great that the kids are now in charge of major health decisions.

I don’t want to be saddled with trying to make students wear masks based on parental wishes. Actually, the email that was sent out reads, “Respecting Student Choice and Need”: Teachers and school staff will not treat students differently based on their choice”. If a student shows up with a mask and the removes it later, it shouldn’t be an issue.

I am taking “mask police” off my job description as a teacher starting Monday. No more.

PP
Honestly, I never felt as though I was policing masks, so I don’t want to start now.