Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Catholic schools will do away with masks if they haven’t already.

I agree its in line with the Bishop's stance on masks a Church - optional.

BI sent an email last night asking parents their preference saying the diocese is considering what to do. I will be livid if they lift the mask mandate with the rate of infections being so high right now.

That’s great news that BI is giving parents a voice.

I think it should be up to the kids and the teachers who are there every day and will suffer the consequences of getting covid. The kids don't care about wearing masks. They're used to it and would much prefer wearing masks than being virtual. It is the idiot parents who have turned this into some political and culture war. The timing is nuts.

Removing masks does not mean the school will go virtual.

Now that vaccines are available, teachers and students do not need to quarantine due to exposure

And, with a 5 day isolation period, those that are sick and recovering can come back sooner

Schools are not shutting down

Masks don't prevent mass absenteeism as kids and teachers are getting sick outside of schools at other maskless activities.

This is utter bullshit. Everyone does not easily recover. Healthy friends and their families are quite sick and having lingering issues and all were vaccinated and boosted with no health issues prior.

If you think you and your family are at significant risk from COVID, and don't want to contract it, you really need to stay home for the next several weeks. I recommend you work from home and don't send your kids to school.

And when teachers and staff start making this choice -- welcome back to remote learning.

That's fine. Virtual it is. Make the kids suffer either way. Masks 8 hours a day for almost 2 years is no way to live!

Anonymous wrote:Virginia schools that charge in excess of 40k will continue to require masks. The majority of students come from families that are educated enough to support reasonable mitigation measures on campus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our private - the best in the state of VA - just sent out an announcement today that the mask requirement will continue and will be strictly enforced. Take that you PoS trumplicans with your pathetic Governor Youngkin.

So you're some Potomac booster that thinks your school is the BEST. Love how you threw it in there.

Funnily enough PP you are the only one who named the school - because of course Potomac really is and always has been ranked as the #1 school in the state of VA. When you know You know.

Anonymous wrote:When an executive order from the governor explicitly forbids barring students on the basis of masks, a mask mandate is no longer “to the extent practicable”; nor is requiring masks as a “uniform” going to get around the clear prohibition on banning students for masks.

I’ll be the first one at the courthouse if my school dare try to prevent my student from attending school beside he’s not wearing a pointless cloth rag on his face.

And I hope Youngkin calls out the National Guard to force schools to admit these students just as was done during the civil rights era. Fix bayonets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

4. A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.“

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

1. Nothing about masks in my contact.

2. Just try the “private contract” argument when you want to ban kids on the basis of race. You can’t private contract your way out of legal authority

Being stupid isn’t a protected class.

That would be a great response if “protected class” was the only legal authority of the land. Private parties cannot enter a valid enforceable contract to violate the law.

What is the legal authority that allows the state to regulate private enterprise in this way? Various businesses are headquartered here. If Nestle wants to require masks in its offices, can the state prohibit it? If so, on what authority. I understand schools are different, and the EO cites VA law stating that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning their kids education, but no one it forcing a parent to sent his child to any particular private school. If the parent doesn’t like a mask mandate, or any other rule, that parent can exercise his fundamental right to make decisions regarding his kid’s education by choosing a different private school or sending the kid to public school or homeschooling. And if I don’t want to wear a mask inside any other private business that might want to require them, I can take my business elsewhere. Sorry if I’m missing something, but I don’t think the state can regulate private businesses like this, especially when there are plenty of other options through which a parent disliking masks can exercise fundamental rights to send kid to school that doesn’t require them or homeschool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

4. A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.“

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

1. Nothing about masks in my contact.

2. Just try the “private contract” argument when you want to ban kids on the basis of race. You can’t private contract your way out of legal authority

Being stupid isn’t a protected class.

That would be a great response if “protected class” was the only legal authority of the land. Private parties cannot enter a valid enforceable contract to violate the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

4. A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.“

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

1. Nothing about masks in my contact.

2. Just try the “private contract” argument when you want to ban kids on the basis of race. You can’t private contract your way out of legal authority

Being stupid isn’t a protected class.

That would be a great response if “protected class” was the only legal authority of the land. Private parties cannot enter a valid enforceable contract to violate the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

4. A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.“

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Gotta love small government GOP using the state government to interfere in a private schools’ contractual relationship with parents. That one isn’t going to hold up.

1. Nothing about masks in my contact.

2. Just try the “private contract” argument when you want to ban kids on the basis of race. You can’t private contract your way out of legal authority

Being stupid isn’t a protected class.

Anonymous wrote:I’m puzzled by under what authority a state can regulate a private entity at this level? I mean sure, if the schools did something that violated the rights of a protected class, or that itself was creating some kind of hazard that’s illegal under some law, but to say that a private entity can’t require masks seems a stretch to me. If parents don’t like it, they can just leave. No one is forcing them to send their kid to a private school that requires masks. What am I missing here? Genuinely asking, because we’ve applied to private for next year and covid mitigation is important to us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gov. Northam's first EO touching on COVID and schools was unclear about whether it applied to privates. Now Gov. Youngkin is making the same mistake.

Nothing new under the sun.

It’s entirely clear that the new order forbidding schools from barring students on the basis of not wearing a mask applies to both public and private schools. Read the order.

In relevant part:

“2. The parents of any child enrolled in a elementary or secondary school or a school based early childcare and educational program may elect for their children not to be subject to any mask mandate in effect at the child’s school or educational program.

3. No parent electing that a mask mandate should not apply to his or her child shall be required to provide a reason or make any certification concerning their child’s health or education.

4. A child whose parent has elected that he or she is not subject to a mask mandate should not be required to wear a mask under any policy implemented by a teacher, school, school district, the Department of Education, or any other state authority.“

Private schools are clearly “school” under paragraph 4.

Anyone can still wear a mask if they want. What they can’t do is kick others out for choosing not to wear a mask.

Read the law SB 1303 which is in effect until August 2022 -" the bill requires each school board to provide such in-person instruction in a manner in which it adheres, to the maximum extent practicable, to any currently applicable mitigation strategies for early childhood care and education programs and elementary and secondary schools to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 that have been provided by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." Or just follow TX and FL schools and enforce masking as a dress code requirement.

And how many hundreds — thousands — of laws on the books (e.g. laws specifying operating hours for businesses or conditions for restaurants) were overruled by executive fiat over the last 2 years?

Clearly the precedent is there that laws on the books can and will be overridden by executive order when a compelling interest is at stake.