Anonymous
11/22/2014 22:47
Subject: lice policy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Whether nits or bugs, it's an infestation just the same and the way it perpetuates itself, gets dug in and spreads is from kid to kid, so that's why they want isolation from other kids. What's so hard to understand about that?
This makes no sense. Nits aren't going to spread to another kid. No nit policies are an over-reaction.
Nits are eggs, which will inevitably hatch unless they are killed or removed. And, they are there because adult lice are already there, leaving them in the child's hair. If they can leave them in one child's hair, they can easily hitch a ride to another child's hair.
Anonymous
11/22/2014 12:09
Subject: lice policy
Anonymous wrote:Whether nits or bugs, it's an infestation just the same and the way it perpetuates itself, gets dug in and spreads is from kid to kid, so that's why they want isolation from other kids. What's so hard to understand about that?
This makes no sense. Nits aren't going to spread to another kid. No nit policies are an over-reaction.
Anonymous
11/22/2014 10:05
Subject: lice policy
Whether nits or bugs, it's an infestation just the same and the way it perpetuates itself, gets dug in and spreads is from kid to kid, so that's why they want isolation from other kids. What's so hard to understand about that?
Anonymous
11/20/2014 13:00
Subject: lice policy
So for the people hit with lice this fall, is it all gone from the school?
Anonymous
11/20/2014 12:43
Subject: lice policy
I agree with the policy. My child's DCPS school used to ban children from the premises if they found one nit. It's ridiculous. Better to educate parents on how to tackle the issue, and let the kids stay in school.
Anonymous
11/20/2014 12:33
Subject: lice policy
So does anyone actually AGREE with the slate article? I'm thinking no.
Anonymous
Anonymous
10/07/2014 22:52
Subject: lice policy
I can understand eliminating "no nits" but not "no lice."
Crawling bugs should be reason to be sent home just as much as vomiting on the floor.
Crawling bugs should be reason to be sent home just as much as vomiting on the floor.
Anonymous
10/07/2014 22:50
Subject: Re:lice policy
Anonymous wrote:The end of the no-lice policy is a mistake. I'm not sure why a policy that was working (no endless lice infection at our school) was changed
and I am very glad that in our charter the policy has not changed.
I lived in countries without this policy where the entire school year (!!!) kids had lice, day in and day out. Because no matter clean you are at home and clean you get your kids, if kids with lice are allowed to stay in school, the infection becomes endemic.
Where is the law that says that only "health threats" were good reasons to keep a kid away from school??
Parents won't care unless they are told that their kids cannot come back to school (and they have to miss work...) -- Then, they'll clean their kid's heads carefully.
Kids with lice should be sent home and cleaned up (try to learn and concentrate on a lesson when your head is on fire and you're itching!)
Lice may be not dangerous but show up at work with lice in your head and you'll see the reaction of your colleagues (yes, lice infect more than just kid's hair...)
Kids (and parents apparently...) should learn that having lice is not acceptable in modern society. There is no excuse to have a kid showing up at school with lice. Period.
Are charters exempt from Dept of Health policies? The revised lice policy is a DOH policy, not a DCPS policy.