Dean Wormer Lives
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
23 responses to “Dean Wormer Lives”
-
So, rape a student, go to another school. Pull down your mask – suspension……that seems about right.
-
Exactly.
-
-
The double standards are breathtaking.
But… but… what happens if it turns out that a disproportionate percentage of minority students end up suspended? That would pose a real conundrum.
-
Putin should invade Ukraine tomorrow. Without doubt nobody will be focusing on anything else from the news outlets to the White House to the halls of Congress than this epic battle over Virginia kids in face diapers and the thousands of deaths that will clearly occur if a quarter of the kids aren’t wearing one.
-
Consevative used to mean better safe than sorry. Used up all their sorrys with Trump.
I say, “Trump,” then you say “Sorry!”
TRUMP!
-
-
-
“He has ordered the out-of-school suspension of any student intentionally removing or refusing to wear a face covering indoors on school property or transportation.”
vs…
“… may be used as a secondary infraction code to document refusal despite redirection from staff.”
You understand that the word “may” means the alternative is open to school officials and is not “ordered” don’t you…?
Btw, noted that Youngkin now instructs parents and students to comply with school principal instructions when it comes to mask mandates… clear as day, this guy is… smh…
-
You are confused, Eric. Read the source links.
-
I am not confused at all. I looked at all your source links including the single slide you posted from the Superintendent’s presentation which includes the word “may” as I noted. In fact, the only compulsory punishment reference I could find in your links is as follows: “Students who bring certain weapons or illegal drugs to school must be expelled under Virginia law unless special circumstances are found.”. In all other cases, punishment references use the word “may” as in “is allowed to but does not have to.”
-
Go with that.
-
Ok, I will go with you yet again misrepresenting a policy to score some kind of political point. Getting to be a regular thing…
-
See if you recognize this screenshot from the Braband presentation. It says: “Any student who refuses to wear a face covering while indoors on school property or during FCPS-provided transportation, and who is not otherwise exempt will be precluded access to face-to-face instructional programming until they comply with the requirements of this regulation.” We all swing and miss occasionally. https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Screen-Shot-2022-01-24-at-10.11.59-AM.png
-
Umm… “precluded access to face-to-face instructional programming” is not the same as Suspension. Suspension is punishment that is meted out on a full day basis. This just says the student must don a mask to return to the classroom.
-
Nice try.
“In slide No. 12, headlined, “R2109 Regarding Mask Refusal,” the school district instructed administrators: “Continue to follow existing regulations and practices. Any student who refuses to wear a face covering while indoors on school property or during FCPS-provided transportation, and who is not otherwise exempt will be precluded access to face-to-face instructional programming until they comply with the requirements of this regulation.”Regarding “Intentional Removal / Refusal to Wear Face Covering,” he said: “Intentional removal of or refusal to wear a face covering during the times face coverings are required by all students will be treated as a violation of the Regulation 2613 (Student Dress Code). This includes indoors on school property and transportation.
This will result in an “SRR Violation of BSO7 (Dress Code),” and noted: “BSO3 (Refusal to comply with staff requests…) may be used as a secondary infraction code to document refusal despite redirection from staff.” The point has a big “NEW!” graphic beside it.
The “Response” will be swift with a “1 day OSS,” which means “Out of School Suspension” for students who don’t wear masks.”
The briefing says: “1 day OSS for an infraction using the new SUS-M suspension code (this process will enable staff to monitor data regarding this unique situation and gives students the ability to return the next day to comply with the regulation).” “SUSP” is the typical code for a suspension.
-
“This will result in an “SRR Violation of BSO7 (Dress Code),” and noted: “BSO3 (Refusal to comply with staff requests…) may be used as a secondary infraction”
There is that pesky “may” word again…
-
“This will result in an “SRR Violation of BSO7 (Dress Code)”
-
You know rather than simply relying on a single slide from a Zoom presentation, you can go to the actual policy that clearly outlines the consequences of violating the mask mandate (in the dress code):
“Students who are not compliant with the foregoing may be subject to counseling, loss of privileges, removal from class or activities, or disciplinary action.”
Plenty of alternatives available to teachers and principals (as it should be)….
-
That is not what Braband on last Friday directed his principals to do. Below is the FCPS instruction. He clarified that “precluded access to face-to-face instructional programming” means out of school suspension. Give it up.
See FCPS Regulation 2109.2 Title: Face Coverings to Mitigate the Spread of Infectious Disease, last Revised August 20, 2021:
REQUIREMENTS FOR STUDENTS
A. All students who are two years of age and older and who participate in face-to-face instruction must wear a face covering while indoors on school property unless exempt as set forth in Section VIII.
B. Any student participating in distance learning that must visit an FCPS facility for any reason will be required to wear a face covering while indoors on school property unless exempt as set forth in Section VIII.
C. All students will receive instruction in the use of face coverings.
D. Any student who refuses to wear a face covering while indoors on school property or during FCPS-provided transportation and who is not otherwise exempt will be precluded access to face-to-face instructional programming until they comply with the requirements of this regulation. Students who refuse to attend school due to a refusal to wear a face covering, and who are not otherwise exempt from the requirements of this regulation, will receive an unexcused absence for the day. Intentional removal of or refusal to wear a face covering during the times face coverings are required by all students will be treated as a violation of the Regulation 2613.
-
An “unexcused absence” is certainly not the same as a suspension. I think all my kids can attest to that… Regulation 2613 is what I quoted above.
-
-
-
-
That’s Me! Steve can tell you!
Youngkin should direct the VDOE to accurately track each and every one of those suspensions. I would like to know that number. Right now the way suspensions are coded for VDOE use the number of mask suspensions could easily be buried under defiance or something else.
I’ve put that and one other item in an email to the School Board. Passing around to folks what to do if their kids are treated any differently.
“Power corrupts absolute. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Remember all these people went to college they are smart. They even have little letters after their names. Which in the real world means nothing.
Where’s Double Secret Probation?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.