Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:At least one of the parents is blatantly lying in the Reason article. MV’s leadership specifically stated that parents and staff had similar support for continuing to mask. But I suppose it’s more fun to give an anti-teacher soundbyte.
Isn’t MV not lifting their mask mandate until like the first week of May, and maybe not then?
The parent along with others in the article told the writer that "the strict policies largely reflect the preferences of the staff rather than the parents." This isn't the clearly isn't the case at MV (see the survey results above), and accordingly, I have my doubts at the other schools.
I thought MV's rationale was well articulated to parents. They cited increasing cases at MV, the known impact of covid-19 vs. the unknown impact of masking, the physical challenge of implementing social distancing, 40% still unvaccinated, and not wanting to place all the burden and risk on vulnerable students and staff.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16MrT6EAX6k4EW6uCsdts9t7WcoWn_gq-/view
It's appalling to see that level of "vaccine hesitancy" at a school that is clearly also very Covid anxious. You really shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
Approx 20% is vaccine hesitancy or misinformation, and 20% is too young to vaccinate. I suspect that the 20% doesn't overlap substantially with those who want masking; people who oppose the vaccine tend to discount the severity of covid and hence also tend to not mask. So you should probably point the finger somewhere else.
Compared to those who reported positive vaccine intentions, respondents with negative vaccine intentions were significantly less likely to report that they engaged in the COVID-19 prevention behaviors of wearing masks (aOR = 0.53, CI = 0.37–0.76) and social distancing (aOR = 0.22, CI = 0.12–0.42). Citation
But the city can reduce the number of unvaccinated students by requiring covid vaccines of all age-eligible students.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:At least one of the parents is blatantly lying in the Reason article. MV’s leadership specifically stated that parents and staff had similar support for continuing to mask. But I suppose it’s more fun to give an anti-teacher soundbyte.
Isn’t MV not lifting their mask mandate until like the first week of May, and maybe not then?
The parent along with others in the article told the writer that "the strict policies largely reflect the preferences of the staff rather than the parents." This isn't the clearly isn't the case at MV (see the survey results above), and accordingly, I have my doubts at the other schools.
I thought MV's rationale was well articulated to parents. They cited increasing cases at MV, the known impact of covid-19 vs. the unknown impact of masking, the physical challenge of implementing social distancing, 40% still unvaccinated, and not wanting to place all the burden and risk on vulnerable students and staff.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16MrT6EAX6k4EW6uCsdts9t7WcoWn_gq-/view
It's appalling to see that level of "vaccine hesitancy" at a school that is clearly also very Covid anxious. You really shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
Approx 20% is vaccine hesitancy or misinformation, and 20% is too young to vaccinate. I suspect that the 20% doesn't overlap substantially with those who want masking; people who oppose the vaccine tend to discount the severity of covid and hence also tend to not mask. So you should probably point the finger somewhere else.
Compared to those who reported positive vaccine intentions, respondents with negative vaccine intentions were significantly less likely to report that they engaged in the COVID-19 prevention behaviors of wearing masks (aOR = 0.53, CI = 0.37–0.76) and social distancing (aOR = 0.22, CI = 0.12–0.42). Citation
But the city can reduce the number of unvaccinated students by requiring covid vaccines of all age-eligible students.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LAMB sent out a message now recommending that if you've got a family member test positive, to keep your negative kid home. So we seem to be veering every further away from CDC guidance.
LAMB makes up its standards as it goes. They're based on nothing except the staff's preferences.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:At least one of the parents is blatantly lying in the Reason article. MV’s leadership specifically stated that parents and staff had similar support for continuing to mask. But I suppose it’s more fun to give an anti-teacher soundbyte.
Isn’t MV not lifting their mask mandate until like the first week of May, and maybe not then?
The parent along with others in the article told the writer that "the strict policies largely reflect the preferences of the staff rather than the parents." This isn't the clearly isn't the case at MV (see the survey results above), and accordingly, I have my doubts at the other schools.
I thought MV's rationale was well articulated to parents. They cited increasing cases at MV, the known impact of covid-19 vs. the unknown impact of masking, the physical challenge of implementing social distancing, 40% still unvaccinated, and not wanting to place all the burden and risk on vulnerable students and staff.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16MrT6EAX6k4EW6uCsdts9t7WcoWn_gq-/view
It's appalling to see that level of "vaccine hesitancy" at a school that is clearly also very Covid anxious. You really shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LAMB sent out a message now recommending that if you've got a family member test positive, to keep your negative kid home. So we seem to be veering every further away from CDC guidance.
A good reason for family members not to get tested. No test, no problem.
Anonymous wrote:People who think kids still need to be masking in schools need to explain when the masking will end. Because the coronavirus situation we're in -- it's not going to change, ever. Coronavirus will never go away. Not ever. One hundred years from now people will still be getting it.
Anonymous wrote:LAMB sent out a message now recommending that if you've got a family member test positive, to keep your negative kid home. So we seem to be veering every further away from CDC guidance.
Anonymous wrote:LAMB sent out a message now recommending that if you've got a family member test positive, to keep your negative kid home. So we seem to be veering every further away from CDC guidance.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:At least one of the parents is blatantly lying in the Reason article. MV’s leadership specifically stated that parents and staff had similar support for continuing to mask. But I suppose it’s more fun to give an anti-teacher soundbyte.
Isn’t MV not lifting their mask mandate until like the first week of May, and maybe not then?
The parent along with others in the article told the writer that "the strict policies largely reflect the preferences of the staff rather than the parents." This isn't the clearly isn't the case at MV (see the survey results above), and accordingly, I have my doubts at the other schools.
I thought MV's rationale was well articulated to parents. They cited increasing cases at MV, the known impact of covid-19 vs. the unknown impact of masking, the physical challenge of implementing social distancing, 40% still unvaccinated, and not wanting to place all the burden and risk on vulnerable students and staff.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16MrT6EAX6k4EW6uCsdts9t7WcoWn_gq-/view
The survey results clearly show that there isn't a strong majority of either staff or students that want to continue to mask. As a teacher in a school division that has been mask optional for more than a month, I feel for those staff members who are forced to wear masks when they don't want to. Teaching with a mask on is the worst. People who want to continue to mask can use a high quality mask. It really isn't a big deal. I would say 3/4 of our staff have chosen to ditch the masks and about the same number of students, but no one cares if someone chooses to mask.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:At least one of the parents is blatantly lying in the Reason article. MV’s leadership specifically stated that parents and staff had similar support for continuing to mask. But I suppose it’s more fun to give an anti-teacher soundbyte.
Isn’t MV not lifting their mask mandate until like the first week of May, and maybe not then?
The parent along with others in the article told the writer that "the strict policies largely reflect the preferences of the staff rather than the parents." This isn't the clearly isn't the case at MV (see the survey results above), and accordingly, I have my doubts at the other schools.
I thought MV's rationale was well articulated to parents. They cited increasing cases at MV, the known impact of covid-19 vs. the unknown impact of masking, the physical challenge of implementing social distancing, 40% still unvaccinated, and not wanting to place all the burden and risk on vulnerable students and staff.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16MrT6EAX6k4EW6uCsdts9t7WcoWn_gq-/view
Anonymous wrote:My school is mask optional but 85%-90% of students & staff still mask and we are prek3- 5th grade.