Three board members favored and voted for the new policy: Karen Ervin, Cynthia Kaufman and Eileen Manning-Villar.
Joan Weideman was very level headed as was Mike O'Neill about their support of the current policy that keeps kids with lice and nits at home until they're ready to come back to the classroom.
This is a huge step backwards for Pacifica Schools.
Erin Macias
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/pacificaschoolsnitpolicy/
13 comments:
That's crazy. The school district doesn't know that it would cost them more money. Because children that stay home because the issue about lice. The district is going to pay for the education at home.
Also that is against the parents rights.
Only in Pacifica they make this stupids regulations that it would create more problems.
Let's see what would happen when their own kids get lice (Ervin, Kaufman and Manning- Villar).
You wait and see . It would create more problems . Children self-esteem- is a main a factor on social developmental and if that is going to be a problem .The result would be less kids attending school and lower school.
Do we need that ? When the school district is loosing students and they don't have money?
Well congratulations for that stupid mistake.
Thank you Erin Macias for posting this.
This is a huge step backwards for Pacifica Schools.
Yes agree with you 100%.
Actually this policy change is finally bringing our schools current with most public health, CDC, and school health recommendations. Science simply does not support a complete no nit policy and further more this decision avoids a huge expensive law suit over discrimination. I know lice are emotional for many people, but only nits within a quarter inch of the scalp are actually eggs, the rest are dead shells and hang on for a long time. By the time these are noticed it is long past the problem and the transmission. Let's stop the panic. As a parent and a health professional, I am proud of these three women for flying in the face of what appears to be misinformed hysteria. Thanks to all three for a sane approach.
"Only in Pacifica they make this stupids regulations that it would create more problems."
ONLY IN Pacifica, and Cabrillo Unified School District (Half Moon Bay), and Lafayette School District, and Madera Unified School District, and Stanislaus County School District, and CULVER CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, and Turlock Unified School District, and Los Angelos Unified and many other California school districts that have in the last couple of years decided to follow the recommendations the Centers for Disease Control, California Department of Health Services, California School Nurses Organization, and the California School Boards Association and NOT the hysteria stirred up by the National Pediculosis Association which seems to have somewhat of a vested interest (buy their $10 comb).
"but only nits within a quarter inch of the scalp are actually eggs, the rest are dead shells and hang on for a long time. By the time these are noticed it is long past the problem and the transmission."
I don't see how a kid with lice eggs on their head about to hatch are "long past the problem and the transmission" Please show me the science to support that these newborn lice are no threat to the the other kids and and have zero risk of transmission.
The shell stays as the hair grows. It has already hatched and once treated will often remain. Children who have been treated should be allowed back in school since the nit will often continue for weeks, long after it has hatched. A no nit policy is way over the top. The nits are usually noticed after the eggs have hatched and the child has been treated. Again, a no nit policy is abusive.
"Health Professional" you have not provided the science to support your argument. There are still eggs attached that treatment does not kill. These can hatch after treatment (prove to me otherwise), that is why there was a no nit policy. This is not hysteria.
Even with a no nit policy in place there have been repeat offenders. Families that don't take it serious enough, therby continuing the problem.
The school board members that voted to reverse this policy are nit wits, not heros. (2 to 3 vote)I wonder if any of their children have had lice in the past? I doubt it based on their vote.
Clearly you are annoyed by having your child miss school and you possibly miss work as well to deal with it. Because you don't want to be inconvienced you are willing to put the entire school at risk.
Wanting to send your kid to school with nits is selfish and "abusive" to all the kids and parents of the community.
Why not allow kids with nits to attend school as long as they get their heads shaved and buffed before they show up for class?
Why this obsession with lice? If you want to worry about a real contagious health concern, we are having the largest outbreak of pertussis (whooping cough) in California in 50 years. Much more serious than an itchy head.
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/06/23/5-dead-in-Calif-whooping-cough-outbreak/UPI-28211277329881/
Plus to all you anonymous types: "treatment" for lice means use of medicated shampoo and/or removal with a nit comb. The way I read the new policy parents are supposed to treat however they see fit (lice combs alone are more labor intensive but many parents do not want to use the shampoo) and if the school finds nits the parents will be told they need to retreat but kids won't be kept out just because they have a few nits.
@Anonymous June 27, 2010, 8:30 pm
You said:
"Health Professional" you have not provided the science to support your argument. There are still eggs attached that treatment does not kill. These can hatch after treatment (prove to me otherwise), that is why there was a no nit policy. This is not hysteria."
OK where is you science to support your argument. Don't believe everything just because you think it.
I asked first, twice. The burden of proof is upon you.
@Anonymous at June 27, 2010 11:55 AM
AN EARLIER ANONYMOUS SAID:
"but only nits within a quarter inch of the scalp are actually eggs, the rest are dead shells and hang on for a long time. By the time these are noticed it is long past the problem and the transmission."
TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED:
I don't see how a kid with lice eggs on their head about to hatch are "long past the problem and the transmission" Please show me the science to support that these newborn lice are no threat to the the other kids and and have zero risk of transmission.
Your response misconstrues the earlier anonymous' statement. The nits that are more than 1/4 of an inch from the scalp are the shell of an already hatched egg which apparently already threatened the other kids weeks ago. But since no one found it, why should it be used to justify excluding a kids from school?
Please read this paper:
http://www.phthiraptera.org/Publications/46305.pdf
And this one:
http://doh.sd.gov/documents/NEJMlice.pdf
And this position statement from the National Association of School Nurses:
http://www.nasn.org/Default.aspx?tabid=237
Also please note: the following link is a nice consumer oriented, very readable summary. http://www.consumerreports.org/health/conditions-and-treatments/head-lice/what-is-it/no-nits-policy.htm
For the very few correct examples, I believe keeping children out of school for nits is much less severe than all the children who come to school with other transmittable diseases. Next time your child has a respiratory condition he/she may actually have tuberculosis. Let's try to be reasonable, both of these policies would be unfair.
Post a Comment