Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understood it, the rationale for two days instead of four was to allow smaller class sizes and 6ft of distancing, which is no longer needed.

The rationale for four days instead of five was to have a planning day because the combination of virtual and in person, ie concurrent learning, required some logistics and planning that were a larger lift than normal.

So, as long as there is no virtual at all next year (OR virtual is segregated out completely, and there's like a district wide virtual option with totally different teachers for high-risk students only), then you should be fine with five days.

This is all true as long as the CDC drops the 6 foot distancing guidance for any time masks are down (breakfast, lunch, ES snack). If they don't, there are OF COURSE a million creative solutions to deal with it. Unfortunately many FCPS schools have already said they cannot deal with it and are keeping classes at 6 feet.

If the CDC/VDH don't change that, what do you expect to happen for fall?

If CDC/VDH drop the 6 ft distancing guidance for any time when masks are down in the building, then they would no longer be following the science. The link below contains the exhibit that the guest pediatrician during the town hall (the president of the Virginia Chapter of the AAP) used to show transmission at 1 ft, 3 ft, and 6 ft. You will need to scroll down -- the exhibit is labeled, "Exposure Risk Based on Masking and Distancing."

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-research-confirms-critical-role-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-infection/

PP here. I've sent that graphic to the SB many times. I see the transmission possibility at 3' is greater than at 6' with everyone unmasked. I question, however, if that graphic is intended to represent the general adult population or the general youth population. Halve the percentages for kids and 3/4 them for adolescents if I read Tracy Hoeg (author the CDC Wisconsin study) right on this. For ES, at least, I think a 3' spacing at lunch still "follows the science." YMMV what you think about MS/HS.

Even IF you think they need 6' at lunch in fall, FCPS has to have a plan to handle that, right?

Thank you PP for pointing this out to me! If what you're saying is true, then it sounds like the science is there for 3 ft spacing during lunch at least for elementary.

What I hope FCPS will do is start planning for 5 days of in-person learning in the fall with 3 feet at all times because the science is not there for 18 inches. They should start planning for a 5 day virtual option as well (because not everyone who wants this option is high risk, but they will still need families to choose this option).

I have talked to leadership. That is not what they are planning. They claim they cannot stand up the 5 day full virtual option for 21-22. It will be limited concurrent.

We're already doing concurrent, and we would be happy to continue this model until kids under 12 are vaccinated. Like the father who called into the town hall on Wednesday, we're not being given the choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understood it, the rationale for two days instead of four was to allow smaller class sizes and 6ft of distancing, which is no longer needed.

The rationale for four days instead of five was to have a planning day because the combination of virtual and in person, ie concurrent learning, required some logistics and planning that were a larger lift than normal.

So, as long as there is no virtual at all next year (OR virtual is segregated out completely, and there's like a district wide virtual option with totally different teachers for high-risk students only), then you should be fine with five days.

This is all true as long as the CDC drops the 6 foot distancing guidance for any time masks are down (breakfast, lunch, ES snack). If they don't, there are OF COURSE a million creative solutions to deal with it. Unfortunately many FCPS schools have already said they cannot deal with it and are keeping classes at 6 feet.

If the CDC/VDH don't change that, what do you expect to happen for fall?

If CDC/VDH drop the 6 ft distancing guidance for any time when masks are down in the building, then they would no longer be following the science. The link below contains the exhibit that the guest pediatrician during the town hall (the president of the Virginia Chapter of the AAP) used to show transmission at 1 ft, 3 ft, and 6 ft. You will need to scroll down -- the exhibit is labeled, "Exposure Risk Based on Masking and Distancing."

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-research-confirms-critical-role-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-infection/

PP here. I've sent that graphic to the SB many times. I see the transmission possibility at 3' is greater than at 6' with everyone unmasked. I question, however, if that graphic is intended to represent the general adult population or the general youth population. Halve the percentages for kids and 3/4 them for adolescents if I read Tracy Hoeg (author the CDC Wisconsin study) right on this. For ES, at least, I think a 3' spacing at lunch still "follows the science." YMMV what you think about MS/HS.

Even IF you think they need 6' at lunch in fall, FCPS has to have a plan to handle that, right?

Thank you PP for pointing this out to me! If what you're saying is true, then it sounds like the science is there for 3 ft spacing during lunch at least for elementary.

What I hope FCPS will do is start planning for 5 days of in-person learning in the fall with 3 feet at all times because the science is not there for 18 inches. They should start planning for a 5 day virtual option as well (because not everyone who wants this option is high risk, but they will still need families to choose this option).

I have talked to leadership. That is not what they are planning. They claim they cannot stand up the 5 day full virtual option for 21-22. It will be limited concurrent.

We're already doing concurrent, and we would be happy to continue this model until kids under 12 are vaccinated. Like the father who called into the town hall on Wednesday, we're not being given the choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked a friend who is in administration for FCPS this exact question. Basically her answer was there is a lot to plan for to get kids back full-time, and they have the runway to do it for the fall but not for the rest of this year. More time to make a plan for lunch and buses, order plexiglass, hire even more monitors (for lunch) if needed, etc.

I don't really buy that argument because they should have been doing it as a contingency all along but that's the Gatehouse reasoning.

What have they been doing all year? I'm from Upstate New York and school districts were buying plexiglass last summer and kids are in school five days a week now.

CDC said ditch the plexiglass because it impedes airflow and potentially makes the situation worse. I hope they aren't buying plexiglass.

No kidding. Everything we are doing is a year behind. Next year schools will normal and many states without masks and we will still have floor stickers and signs and plexiglass.

So move to those states. We like science here.

The only people who follow the science in fcps are the coaches.

They need to fire all of Gatehouse and put the coaches in charge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is virtual Virginia for students that can’t go into the classroom. That’s what the rest of Virginia is doing.

What if you can't afford full time enrollment at Virtual Virginia (FCPS does not cover full time enrollment)? It's $5,500 per student. "Public education" at private parochial school cost.

All of us parents need to work together to make 5 days a week of "public education" happen for all students next year (in person and virtual).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is virtual Virginia for students that can’t go into the classroom. That’s what the rest of Virginia is doing.

What if you can't afford full time enrollment at Virtual Virginia (FCPS does not cover full time enrollment)? It's $5,500 per student. "Public education" at private parochial school cost.

All of us parents need to work together to make 5 days a week of "public education" happen for all students next year (in person and virtual).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understood it, the rationale for two days instead of four was to allow smaller class sizes and 6ft of distancing, which is no longer needed.

The rationale for four days instead of five was to have a planning day because the combination of virtual and in person, ie concurrent learning, required some logistics and planning that were a larger lift than normal.

So, as long as there is no virtual at all next year (OR virtual is segregated out completely, and there's like a district wide virtual option with totally different teachers for high-risk students only), then you should be fine with five days.

This is all true as long as the CDC drops the 6 foot distancing guidance for any time masks are down (breakfast, lunch, ES snack). If they don't, there are OF COURSE a million creative solutions to deal with it. Unfortunately many FCPS schools have already said they cannot deal with it and are keeping classes at 6 feet.

If the CDC/VDH don't change that, what do you expect to happen for fall?

If CDC/VDH drop the 6 ft distancing guidance for any time when masks are down in the building, then they would no longer be following the science. The link below contains the exhibit that the guest pediatrician during the town hall (the president of the Virginia Chapter of the AAP) used to show transmission at 1 ft, 3 ft, and 6 ft. You will need to scroll down -- the exhibit is labeled, "Exposure Risk Based on Masking and Distancing."

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-research-confirms-critical-role-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-infection/

PP here. I've sent that graphic to the SB many times. I see the transmission possibility at 3' is greater than at 6' with everyone unmasked. I question, however, if that graphic is intended to represent the general adult population or the general youth population. Halve the percentages for kids and 3/4 them for adolescents if I read Tracy Hoeg (author the CDC Wisconsin study) right on this. For ES, at least, I think a 3' spacing at lunch still "follows the science." YMMV what you think about MS/HS.

Even IF you think they need 6' at lunch in fall, FCPS has to have a plan to handle that, right?

Thank you PP for pointing this out to me! If what you're saying is true, then it sounds like the science is there for 3 ft spacing during lunch at least for elementary.

What I hope FCPS will do is start planning for 5 days of in-person learning in the fall with 3 feet at all times because the science is not there for 18 inches. They should start planning for a 5 day virtual option as well (because not everyone who wants this option is high risk, but they will still need families to choose this option).

I have talked to leadership. That is not what they are planning. They claim they cannot stand up the 5 day full virtual option for 21-22. It will be limited concurrent.

We're already doing concurrent, and we would be happy to continue this model until kids under 12 are vaccinated. Like the father who called into the town hall on Wednesday, we're not being given the choice.

Anonymous wrote:There is virtual Virginia for students that can’t go into the classroom. That’s what the rest of Virginia is doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understood it, the rationale for two days instead of four was to allow smaller class sizes and 6ft of distancing, which is no longer needed.

The rationale for four days instead of five was to have a planning day because the combination of virtual and in person, ie concurrent learning, required some logistics and planning that were a larger lift than normal.

So, as long as there is no virtual at all next year (OR virtual is segregated out completely, and there's like a district wide virtual option with totally different teachers for high-risk students only), then you should be fine with five days.

This is all true as long as the CDC drops the 6 foot distancing guidance for any time masks are down (breakfast, lunch, ES snack). If they don't, there are OF COURSE a million creative solutions to deal with it. Unfortunately many FCPS schools have already said they cannot deal with it and are keeping classes at 6 feet.

If the CDC/VDH don't change that, what do you expect to happen for fall?

If CDC/VDH drop the 6 ft distancing guidance for any time when masks are down in the building, then they would no longer be following the science. The link below contains the exhibit that the guest pediatrician during the town hall (the president of the Virginia Chapter of the AAP) used to show transmission at 1 ft, 3 ft, and 6 ft. You will need to scroll down -- the exhibit is labeled, "Exposure Risk Based on Masking and Distancing."

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-research-confirms-critical-role-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-infection/

PP here. I've sent that graphic to the SB many times. I see the transmission possibility at 3' is greater than at 6' with everyone unmasked. I question, however, if that graphic is intended to represent the general adult population or the general youth population. Halve the percentages for kids and 3/4 them for adolescents if I read Tracy Hoeg (author the CDC Wisconsin study) right on this. For ES, at least, I think a 3' spacing at lunch still "follows the science." YMMV what you think about MS/HS.

Even IF you think they need 6' at lunch in fall, FCPS has to have a plan to handle that, right?

Thank you PP for pointing this out to me! If what you're saying is true, then it sounds like the science is there for 3 ft spacing during lunch at least for elementary.

What I hope FCPS will do is start planning for 5 days of in-person learning in the fall with 3 feet at all times because the science is not there for 18 inches. They should start planning for a 5 day virtual option as well (because not everyone who wants this option is high risk, but they will still need families to choose this option).

I have talked to leadership. That is not what they are planning. They claim they cannot stand up the 5 day full virtual option for 21-22. It will be limited concurrent.

We're already doing concurrent, and we would be happy to continue this model until kids under 12 are vaccinated. Like the father who called into the town hall on Wednesday, we're not being given the choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understood it, the rationale for two days instead of four was to allow smaller class sizes and 6ft of distancing, which is no longer needed.

The rationale for four days instead of five was to have a planning day because the combination of virtual and in person, ie concurrent learning, required some logistics and planning that were a larger lift than normal.

So, as long as there is no virtual at all next year (OR virtual is segregated out completely, and there's like a district wide virtual option with totally different teachers for high-risk students only), then you should be fine with five days.

This is all true as long as the CDC drops the 6 foot distancing guidance for any time masks are down (breakfast, lunch, ES snack). If they don't, there are OF COURSE a million creative solutions to deal with it. Unfortunately many FCPS schools have already said they cannot deal with it and are keeping classes at 6 feet.

If the CDC/VDH don't change that, what do you expect to happen for fall?

If CDC/VDH drop the 6 ft distancing guidance for any time when masks are down in the building, then they would no longer be following the science. The link below contains the exhibit that the guest pediatrician during the town hall (the president of the Virginia Chapter of the AAP) used to show transmission at 1 ft, 3 ft, and 6 ft. You will need to scroll down -- the exhibit is labeled, "Exposure Risk Based on Masking and Distancing."

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-research-confirms-critical-role-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-infection/

PP here. I've sent that graphic to the SB many times. I see the transmission possibility at 3' is greater than at 6' with everyone unmasked. I question, however, if that graphic is intended to represent the general adult population or the general youth population. Halve the percentages for kids and 3/4 them for adolescents if I read Tracy Hoeg (author the CDC Wisconsin study) right on this. For ES, at least, I think a 3' spacing at lunch still "follows the science." YMMV what you think about MS/HS.

Even IF you think they need 6' at lunch in fall, FCPS has to have a plan to handle that, right?

Thank you PP for pointing this out to me! If what you're saying is true, then it sounds like the science is there for 3 ft spacing during lunch at least for elementary.

What I hope FCPS will do is start planning for 5 days of in-person learning in the fall with 3 feet at all times because the science is not there for 18 inches. They should start planning for a 5 day virtual option as well (because not everyone who wants this option is high risk, but they will still need families to choose this option).

I have talked to leadership. That is not what they are planning. They claim they cannot stand up the 5 day full virtual option for 21-22. It will be limited concurrent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understood it, the rationale for two days instead of four was to allow smaller class sizes and 6ft of distancing, which is no longer needed.

The rationale for four days instead of five was to have a planning day because the combination of virtual and in person, ie concurrent learning, required some logistics and planning that were a larger lift than normal.

So, as long as there is no virtual at all next year (OR virtual is segregated out completely, and there's like a district wide virtual option with totally different teachers for high-risk students only), then you should be fine with five days.

This is all true as long as the CDC drops the 6 foot distancing guidance for any time masks are down (breakfast, lunch, ES snack). If they don't, there are OF COURSE a million creative solutions to deal with it. Unfortunately many FCPS schools have already said they cannot deal with it and are keeping classes at 6 feet.

If the CDC/VDH don't change that, what do you expect to happen for fall?

If CDC/VDH drop the 6 ft distancing guidance for any time when masks are down in the building, then they would no longer be following the science. The link below contains the exhibit that the guest pediatrician during the town hall (the president of the Virginia Chapter of the AAP) used to show transmission at 1 ft, 3 ft, and 6 ft. You will need to scroll down -- the exhibit is labeled, "Exposure Risk Based on Masking and Distancing."

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-research-confirms-critical-role-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-infection/

PP here. I've sent that graphic to the SB many times. I see the transmission possibility at 3' is greater than at 6' with everyone unmasked. I question, however, if that graphic is intended to represent the general adult population or the general youth population. Halve the percentages for kids and 3/4 them for adolescents if I read Tracy Hoeg (author the CDC Wisconsin study) right on this. For ES, at least, I think a 3' spacing at lunch still "follows the science." YMMV what you think about MS/HS.

Even IF you think they need 6' at lunch in fall, FCPS has to have a plan to handle that, right?

Thank you PP for pointing this out to me! If what you're saying is true, then it sounds like the science is there for 3 ft spacing during lunch at least for elementary.

What I hope FCPS will do is start planning for 5 days of in-person learning in the fall with 3 feet at all times because the science is not there for 18 inches. They should start planning for a 5 day virtual option as well (because not everyone who wants this option is high risk, but they will still need families to choose this option).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understood it, the rationale for two days instead of four was to allow smaller class sizes and 6ft of distancing, which is no longer needed.

The rationale for four days instead of five was to have a planning day because the combination of virtual and in person, ie concurrent learning, required some logistics and planning that were a larger lift than normal.

So, as long as there is no virtual at all next year (OR virtual is segregated out completely, and there's like a district wide virtual option with totally different teachers for high-risk students only), then you should be fine with five days.

This is all true as long as the CDC drops the 6 foot distancing guidance for any time masks are down (breakfast, lunch, ES snack). If they don't, there are OF COURSE a million creative solutions to deal with it. Unfortunately many FCPS schools have already said they cannot deal with it and are keeping classes at 6 feet.

If the CDC/VDH don't change that, what do you expect to happen for fall?

If CDC/VDH drop the 6 ft distancing guidance for any time when masks are down in the building, then they would no longer be following the science. The link below contains the exhibit that the guest pediatrician during the town hall (the president of the Virginia Chapter of the AAP) used to show transmission at 1 ft, 3 ft, and 6 ft. You will need to scroll down -- the exhibit is labeled, "Exposure Risk Based on Masking and Distancing."

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-research-confirms-critical-role-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-infection/

PP here. I've sent that graphic to the SB many times. I see the transmission possibility at 3' is greater than at 6' with everyone unmasked. I question, however, if that graphic is intended to represent the general adult population or the general youth population. Halve the percentages for kids and 3/4 them for adolescents if I read Tracy Hoeg (author the CDC Wisconsin study) right on this. For ES, at least, I think a 3' spacing at lunch still "follows the science." YMMV what you think about MS/HS.

Even IF you think they need 6' at lunch in fall, FCPS has to have a plan to handle that, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked a friend who is in administration for FCPS this exact question. Basically her answer was there is a lot to plan for to get kids back full-time, and they have the runway to do it for the fall but not for the rest of this year. More time to make a plan for lunch and buses, order plexiglass, hire even more monitors (for lunch) if needed, etc.

I don't really buy that argument because they should have been doing it as a contingency all along but that's the Gatehouse reasoning.

What have they been doing all year? I'm from Upstate New York and school districts were buying plexiglass last summer and kids are in school five days a week now.

CDC said ditch the plexiglass because it impedes airflow and potentially makes the situation worse. I hope they aren't buying plexiglass.

No kidding. Everything we are doing is a year behind. Next year schools will normal and many states without masks and we will still have floor stickers and signs and plexiglass.

So move to those states. We like science here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked a friend who is in administration for FCPS this exact question. Basically her answer was there is a lot to plan for to get kids back full-time, and they have the runway to do it for the fall but not for the rest of this year. More time to make a plan for lunch and buses, order plexiglass, hire even more monitors (for lunch) if needed, etc.

I don't really buy that argument because they should have been doing it as a contingency all along but that's the Gatehouse reasoning.

What have they been doing all year? I'm from Upstate New York and school districts were buying plexiglass last summer and kids are in school five days a week now.

CDC said ditch the plexiglass because it impedes airflow and potentially makes the situation worse. I hope they aren't buying plexiglass.

No kidding. Everything we are doing is a year behind. Next year schools will normal and many states without masks and we will still have floor stickers and signs and plexiglass.

So move to those states. We like science here.