Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn, some of you are grasping at straws to find a way to punish the kids who end up not wearing masks.

Not surprised, I guess.

What do you expect from people for whom masks have become a religion?

Ah, yes, the credulous souls who bow down before the science-spewing CDC, when tantrum-having lobbyists know what really works.

Anonymous wrote:PPT for tonight's school board meeting posted. Pretty lame approach to the situation, IMO.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/CBQQH5693D72/$file/D-2%20Announcements%2002-17-2022.pdf

So basically they're trying to shame students into continuing to wear masks.

Anonymous wrote:Damn, some of you are grasping at straws to find a way to punish the kids who end up not wearing masks.

Not surprised, I guess.

What do you expect from people for whom masks have become a religion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you read your emails? It will be discussed at the School Board Meeting.

Mask Requirement: I know there are questions about next steps with our mask policy. Like other local school divisions, APS has been reviewing the latest health guidance and planning for when we can safely ease our masks requirements. We will present our plan and revised policy at Thursday’s School Board meeting. We have come far together as a community in maintaining safe, open schools, even during the Omicron spike, and we will continue that work together.

They can discuss all they want, the law goes into effect on March 1. What would be really refreshing is if they just sent out an email that says in compliance with the law, on March 1, masks are optional. Also they need to withdraw from that lawsuit right now.

APS has to evaluate all of their other covid-related policies and practices to account for students who won’t wear masks. They may be reconsidering distancing amounts (and whether classrooms will need to be reconfigured), lunch practices, close contact and test to stay policies, etc.

What are they going to do about classroom configuration or lunch? Get real. They have no options. And are you suggesting that the maskless children will be forced to sit in some banished corner of the room far away from others?

I doubt it. You're making this over complicated. If you are very worried about your own child, send them in a good quality KN95.

FCCPS changed their distancing guidelines so that unmasked children had to seated 6 feet away from classmates rather than 3 feet.

This would be physically impossible in my second grader’s class. I doubt they’re 3 feet apart now. They’re packed in to a relatively small classroom as it is.

Even if they don’t rearrange the classroom, they can set a policy that the “close contact” radius for unmasked students is 6 feet rather than 3 feet. Under the current policy, students who are deemed close contacts are only exempt from quarantine if they are fully up to date on their vaccines (including boosters), have no symptoms and wear masks consistently. If APS maintains this policy, then any student who does not wear a mask and who is deemed a close contact will have to go through the test to stay protocol or quarantine for five days.

Exempt from quarantine is vaxxed and symptom free. If any system adds ‘and was masked at time of exposure’ they are adding to cdc/vdh guidelines with no basis in health

Plus, with test to stay, vaccination status doesn’t even really matter. As long as you have no symptoms and you’re testing negative you stay.

Test to stay is pretty burdensome - 5 days in a row of getting proctored (i.e., not at-home) covid tests before the kid can return to school. If ditching the mask means we have to go through that any time one of my kids is deemed a close contact, we will keep the masks.

Test to stay is not for those that are vaccinated. Get vaccinated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you read your emails? It will be discussed at the School Board Meeting.

Mask Requirement: I know there are questions about next steps with our mask policy. Like other local school divisions, APS has been reviewing the latest health guidance and planning for when we can safely ease our masks requirements. We will present our plan and revised policy at Thursday’s School Board meeting. We have come far together as a community in maintaining safe, open schools, even during the Omicron spike, and we will continue that work together.

They can discuss all they want, the law goes into effect on March 1. What would be really refreshing is if they just sent out an email that says in compliance with the law, on March 1, masks are optional. Also they need to withdraw from that lawsuit right now.

I think the lawsuit is important - not for the masking policies; but to ensure local school board authority over its system on any matter and in the future. State LAW leaves the administration of school districts under local control - except with this about the current mask mandate. The law should have been written differently. If Republicans are all about local control like they have always proclaimed to be, this is a breach of their own philosophy.

This shouldn't be a surprise. Republicans want small government until they don't, i.e abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you read your emails? It will be discussed at the School Board Meeting.

Mask Requirement: I know there are questions about next steps with our mask policy. Like other local school divisions, APS has been reviewing the latest health guidance and planning for when we can safely ease our masks requirements. We will present our plan and revised policy at Thursday’s School Board meeting. We have come far together as a community in maintaining safe, open schools, even during the Omicron spike, and we will continue that work together.

They can discuss all they want, the law goes into effect on March 1. What would be really refreshing is if they just sent out an email that says in compliance with the law, on March 1, masks are optional. Also they need to withdraw from that lawsuit right now.

APS has to evaluate all of their other covid-related policies and practices to account for students who won’t wear masks. They may be reconsidering distancing amounts (and whether classrooms will need to be reconfigured), lunch practices, close contact and test to stay policies, etc.

What are they going to do about classroom configuration or lunch? Get real. They have no options. And are you suggesting that the maskless children will be forced to sit in some banished corner of the room far away from others?

I doubt it. You're making this over complicated. If you are very worried about your own child, send them in a good quality KN95.

FCCPS changed their distancing guidelines so that unmasked children had to seated 6 feet away from classmates rather than 3 feet.

This would be physically impossible in my second grader’s class. I doubt they’re 3 feet apart now. They’re packed in to a relatively small classroom as it is.

Even if they don’t rearrange the classroom, they can set a policy that the “close contact” radius for unmasked students is 6 feet rather than 3 feet. Under the current policy, students who are deemed close contacts are only exempt from quarantine if they are fully up to date on their vaccines (including boosters), have no symptoms and wear masks consistently. If APS maintains this policy, then any student who does not wear a mask and who is deemed a close contact will have to go through the test to stay protocol or quarantine for five days.

Exempt from quarantine is vaxxed and symptom free. If any system adds ‘and was masked at time of exposure’ they are adding to cdc/vdh guidelines with no basis in health

From Duran's Feb. 9 update on test-to-stay: "As a reminder, students who are up-to-date on their vaccinations are exempt from quarantine if they have no symptoms and wear a mask consistently."

Yes, he wrote that, but I’m pretty sure if your close contact is, say, your sibling, you still don’t need to quarantine if vaxed & symptom-free, even though you are obviously not masking at home (before anyone tests positive, I mean).

Also, the folks concerned about local control now— why didn’t you care about local control when Northam mandated masks in all VA schools?

PPT for tonight's school board meeting posted. Pretty lame approach to the situation, IMO.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/CBQQH5693D72/$file/D-2%20Announcements%2002-17-2022.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you read your emails? It will be discussed at the School Board Meeting.

Mask Requirement: I know there are questions about next steps with our mask policy. Like other local school divisions, APS has been reviewing the latest health guidance and planning for when we can safely ease our masks requirements. We will present our plan and revised policy at Thursday’s School Board meeting. We have come far together as a community in maintaining safe, open schools, even during the Omicron spike, and we will continue that work together.

They can discuss all they want, the law goes into effect on March 1. What would be really refreshing is if they just sent out an email that says in compliance with the law, on March 1, masks are optional. Also they need to withdraw from that lawsuit right now.

I think the lawsuit is important - not for the masking policies; but to ensure local school board authority over its system on any matter and in the future. State LAW leaves the administration of school districts under local control - except with this about the current mask mandate. The law should have been written differently. If Republicans are all about local control like they have always proclaimed to be, this is a breach of their own philosophy.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting. It is by no means a breach in philosophy, rather it is the essence of the philosophy, personal liberty is the highest priority. If a local despots desire to enact rules that strip liberty, it is the job of the state and the federal government to step in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you read your emails? It will be discussed at the School Board Meeting.

Mask Requirement: I know there are questions about next steps with our mask policy. Like other local school divisions, APS has been reviewing the latest health guidance and planning for when we can safely ease our masks requirements. We will present our plan and revised policy at Thursday’s School Board meeting. We have come far together as a community in maintaining safe, open schools, even during the Omicron spike, and we will continue that work together.

They can discuss all they want, the law goes into effect on March 1. What would be really refreshing is if they just sent out an email that says in compliance with the law, on March 1, masks are optional. Also they need to withdraw from that lawsuit right now.

APS has to evaluate all of their other covid-related policies and practices to account for students who won’t wear masks. They may be reconsidering distancing amounts (and whether classrooms will need to be reconfigured), lunch practices, close contact and test to stay policies, etc.

What are they going to do about classroom configuration or lunch? Get real. They have no options. And are you suggesting that the maskless children will be forced to sit in some banished corner of the room far away from others?

I doubt it. You're making this over complicated. If you are very worried about your own child, send them in a good quality KN95.

FCCPS changed their distancing guidelines so that unmasked children had to seated 6 feet away from classmates rather than 3 feet.

This would be physically impossible in my second grader’s class. I doubt they’re 3 feet apart now. They’re packed in to a relatively small classroom as it is.

Even if they don’t rearrange the classroom, they can set a policy that the “close contact” radius for unmasked students is 6 feet rather than 3 feet. Under the current policy, students who are deemed close contacts are only exempt from quarantine if they are fully up to date on their vaccines (including boosters), have no symptoms and wear masks consistently. If APS maintains this policy, then any student who does not wear a mask and who is deemed a close contact will have to go through the test to stay protocol or quarantine for five days.

Exempt from quarantine is vaxxed and symptom free. If any system adds ‘and was masked at time of exposure’ they are adding to cdc/vdh guidelines with no basis in health

Plus, with test to stay, vaccination status doesn’t even really matter. As long as you have no symptoms and you’re testing negative you stay.

Test to stay is pretty burdensome - 5 days in a row of getting proctored (i.e., not at-home) covid tests before the kid can return to school. If ditching the mask means we have to go through that any time one of my kids is deemed a close contact, we will keep the masks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you read your emails? It will be discussed at the School Board Meeting.

Mask Requirement: I know there are questions about next steps with our mask policy. Like other local school divisions, APS has been reviewing the latest health guidance and planning for when we can safely ease our masks requirements. We will present our plan and revised policy at Thursday’s School Board meeting. We have come far together as a community in maintaining safe, open schools, even during the Omicron spike, and we will continue that work together.

They can discuss all they want, the law goes into effect on March 1. What would be really refreshing is if they just sent out an email that says in compliance with the law, on March 1, masks are optional. Also they need to withdraw from that lawsuit right now.

APS has to evaluate all of their other covid-related policies and practices to account for students who won’t wear masks. They may be reconsidering distancing amounts (and whether classrooms will need to be reconfigured), lunch practices, close contact and test to stay policies, etc.

What are they going to do about classroom configuration or lunch? Get real. They have no options. And are you suggesting that the maskless children will be forced to sit in some banished corner of the room far away from others?

I doubt it. You're making this over complicated. If you are very worried about your own child, send them in a good quality KN95.

FCCPS changed their distancing guidelines so that unmasked children had to seated 6 feet away from classmates rather than 3 feet.

This would be physically impossible in my second grader’s class. I doubt they’re 3 feet apart now. They’re packed in to a relatively small classroom as it is.

Even if they don’t rearrange the classroom, they can set a policy that the “close contact” radius for unmasked students is 6 feet rather than 3 feet. Under the current policy, students who are deemed close contacts are only exempt from quarantine if they are fully up to date on their vaccines (including boosters), have no symptoms and wear masks consistently. If APS maintains this policy, then any student who does not wear a mask and who is deemed a close contact will have to go through the test to stay protocol or quarantine for five days.

Boosters are only required to be considered fully vaccinated if a student is over 18, according to the cdc.

Per the CDC website, you must have a booster once you become eligible to be considered "up to date" (which the the phrase APS uses). 12-17 are eligible for booster shots 5 months after completing their primary series.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/booster-shot.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you read your emails? It will be discussed at the School Board Meeting.

Mask Requirement: I know there are questions about next steps with our mask policy. Like other local school divisions, APS has been reviewing the latest health guidance and planning for when we can safely ease our masks requirements. We will present our plan and revised policy at Thursday’s School Board meeting. We have come far together as a community in maintaining safe, open schools, even during the Omicron spike, and we will continue that work together.

They can discuss all they want, the law goes into effect on March 1. What would be really refreshing is if they just sent out an email that says in compliance with the law, on March 1, masks are optional. Also they need to withdraw from that lawsuit right now.

APS has to evaluate all of their other covid-related policies and practices to account for students who won’t wear masks. They may be reconsidering distancing amounts (and whether classrooms will need to be reconfigured), lunch practices, close contact and test to stay policies, etc.

What are they going to do about classroom configuration or lunch? Get real. They have no options. And are you suggesting that the maskless children will be forced to sit in some banished corner of the room far away from others?

I doubt it. You're making this over complicated. If you are very worried about your own child, send them in a good quality KN95.

FCCPS changed their distancing guidelines so that unmasked children had to seated 6 feet away from classmates rather than 3 feet.

This would be physically impossible in my second grader’s class. I doubt they’re 3 feet apart now. They’re packed in to a relatively small classroom as it is.

Even if they don’t rearrange the classroom, they can set a policy that the “close contact” radius for unmasked students is 6 feet rather than 3 feet. Under the current policy, students who are deemed close contacts are only exempt from quarantine if they are fully up to date on their vaccines (including boosters), have no symptoms and wear masks consistently. If APS maintains this policy, then any student who does not wear a mask and who is deemed a close contact will have to go through the test to stay protocol or quarantine for five days.

Exempt from quarantine is vaxxed and symptom free. If any system adds ‘and was masked at time of exposure’ they are adding to cdc/vdh guidelines with no basis in health

From Duran's Feb. 9 update on test-to-stay: "As a reminder, students who are up-to-date on their vaccinations are exempt from quarantine if they have no symptoms and wear a mask consistently."

Anonymous wrote:Damn, some of you are grasping at straws to find a way to punish the kids who end up not wearing masks.

Not surprised, I guess.

I don’t have strong feelings about masking one way or the other. I also don’t think anyone is trying to penalize going maskless, they’re just suggesting that we adjust other mitigation measures to account for the mitigation of masking dropping out. If the reason spacing requirements were reduced is because masking was in place, it is reasonable to revisit distancing requirements when students are unmasked. The same goes for the mechanics of determining if someone is a close contact or whether a student needs to quarantine. Going maskless is an assumption of risk and potentially an imposition of risk on others. The law now permits that step, but that doesn’t mean school districts are required to pretend it doesn’t change things and it doesn’t bar them from using permissible mitigation strategies to rebalance the risk of spread in the classroom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you read your emails? It will be discussed at the School Board Meeting.

Mask Requirement: I know there are questions about next steps with our mask policy. Like other local school divisions, APS has been reviewing the latest health guidance and planning for when we can safely ease our masks requirements. We will present our plan and revised policy at Thursday’s School Board meeting. We have come far together as a community in maintaining safe, open schools, even during the Omicron spike, and we will continue that work together.

They can discuss all they want, the law goes into effect on March 1. What would be really refreshing is if they just sent out an email that says in compliance with the law, on March 1, masks are optional. Also they need to withdraw from that lawsuit right now.

APS has to evaluate all of their other covid-related policies and practices to account for students who won’t wear masks. They may be reconsidering distancing amounts (and whether classrooms will need to be reconfigured), lunch practices, close contact and test to stay policies, etc.

What are they going to do about classroom configuration or lunch? Get real. They have no options. And are you suggesting that the maskless children will be forced to sit in some banished corner of the room far away from others?

I doubt it. You're making this over complicated. If you are very worried about your own child, send them in a good quality KN95.

FCCPS changed their distancing guidelines so that unmasked children had to seated 6 feet away from classmates rather than 3 feet.

This would be physically impossible in my second grader’s class. I doubt they’re 3 feet apart now. They’re packed in to a relatively small classroom as it is.

Even if they don’t rearrange the classroom, they can set a policy that the “close contact” radius for unmasked students is 6 feet rather than 3 feet. Under the current policy, students who are deemed close contacts are only exempt from quarantine if they are fully up to date on their vaccines (including boosters), have no symptoms and wear masks consistently. If APS maintains this policy, then any student who does not wear a mask and who is deemed a close contact will have to go through the test to stay protocol or quarantine for five days.

Boosters are only required to be considered fully vaccinated if a student is over 18, according to the cdc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you read your emails? It will be discussed at the School Board Meeting.

Mask Requirement: I know there are questions about next steps with our mask policy. Like other local school divisions, APS has been reviewing the latest health guidance and planning for when we can safely ease our masks requirements. We will present our plan and revised policy at Thursday’s School Board meeting. We have come far together as a community in maintaining safe, open schools, even during the Omicron spike, and we will continue that work together.

They can discuss all they want, the law goes into effect on March 1. What would be really refreshing is if they just sent out an email that says in compliance with the law, on March 1, masks are optional. Also they need to withdraw from that lawsuit right now.

APS has to evaluate all of their other covid-related policies and practices to account for students who won’t wear masks. They may be reconsidering distancing amounts (and whether classrooms will need to be reconfigured), lunch practices, close contact and test to stay policies, etc.

What are they going to do about classroom configuration or lunch? Get real. They have no options. And are you suggesting that the maskless children will be forced to sit in some banished corner of the room far away from others?

I doubt it. You're making this over complicated. If you are very worried about your own child, send them in a good quality KN95.

FCCPS changed their distancing guidelines so that unmasked children had to seated 6 feet away from classmates rather than 3 feet.

This would be physically impossible in my second grader’s class. I doubt they’re 3 feet apart now. They’re packed in to a relatively small classroom as it is.

Even if they don’t rearrange the classroom, they can set a policy that the “close contact” radius for unmasked students is 6 feet rather than 3 feet. Under the current policy, students who are deemed close contacts are only exempt from quarantine if they are fully up to date on their vaccines (including boosters), have no symptoms and wear masks consistently. If APS maintains this policy, then any student who does not wear a mask and who is deemed a close contact will have to go through the test to stay protocol or quarantine for five days.

Exempt from quarantine is vaxxed and symptom free. If any system adds ‘and was masked at time of exposure’ they are adding to cdc/vdh guidelines with no basis in health

Plus, with test to stay, vaccination status doesn’t even really matter. As long as you have no symptoms and you’re testing negative you stay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you read your emails? It will be discussed at the School Board Meeting.

Mask Requirement: I know there are questions about next steps with our mask policy. Like other local school divisions, APS has been reviewing the latest health guidance and planning for when we can safely ease our masks requirements. We will present our plan and revised policy at Thursday’s School Board meeting. We have come far together as a community in maintaining safe, open schools, even during the Omicron spike, and we will continue that work together.

They can discuss all they want, the law goes into effect on March 1. What would be really refreshing is if they just sent out an email that says in compliance with the law, on March 1, masks are optional. Also they need to withdraw from that lawsuit right now.

I think the lawsuit is important - not for the masking policies; but to ensure local school board authority over its system on any matter and in the future. State LAW leaves the administration of school districts under local control - except with this about the current mask mandate. The law should have been written differently. If Republicans are all about local control like they have always proclaimed to be, this is a breach of their own philosophy.