Covington Middle School moves to virtual learning while building assessed for safety
ALLEGHANY HIGHLANDS, Va. (WFXR) – Alleghany Highlands Public Schools has announced Covington Middle School is moving to virtual learning while the building is assessed for safety after a malfunctioning exhaust system was discovered in January.
School officials have released the following statement to families and staff,
'Dear Families and Staff,
We are writing to provide you with the latest update regarding the situation at Covington Middle School. We are providing you with regular updates to make sure everyone has accurate information.
We have worked tirelessly to address the situation at CMS since it was first brought to our attention on Friday, January 31. The Alleghany Highlands Public Schools Division now plans to implement virtual learning for CMS students so that a thorough assessment of potential safety concerns at the school can continue. No other school is affected.
As you know, the school has been closed since a concern was reported to administrators on January 31. It was later discovered that an oven in the cafeteria kitchen and an exhaust system was not functioning properly, causing carbon monoxide to be released.
ORIGINAL STORY | 'Unrecognizable odor' causes Covington Middle School to evacuate
While the school has been closed, AHPS administrators have been in discussions about the safety of students and staff while also meeting their instructional needs. As a result, virtual learning will be implemented for a short period, beginning Monday, February 10.
Chromebooks will be distributed to students for online learning, and AHPS instructional leaders are planning for the continuation of learning. More information on Chromebooks will be released soon. AHPS is also making arrangements for CMS students to pick up meals. Information on meals can be found here: AHPS CMS Meal Pick-Up Schedule.
In the meantime, AHPS is bringing in contractors to assess the CMS building. A primary focus will be an environmental study, along with inspections of the mechanical and engineering systems.
The natural gas oven has been removed from the building and a gas line has been capped. Our investigation found that the ventilation hood system that would normally exhaust fumes to the outside was not operating properly, causing carbon monoxide to be released and detected in the kitchen and cafeteria. Even though an extensive investigation occurred at CMS on January 31, this was not detected until the afternoon of Sunday, February 2.
Those responding to the situation included the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM), the Covington and Alleghany County emergency managers and their teams, an independent vendor, the gas utility company, and numerous AHPS staff members.
Crews have remained at the school this week to continue with the assessment. VDEM and local first responders have declared CMS free of carbon monoxide and natural gas. However, AHPS wants to take every step possible to ensure the safety of students and staff before they are welcomed back to the building. We will not resume in-person learning until we are 100 percent sure the building is safe.
As a reminder, several resources are available on the AHPS website, at https://ahps.k12.va.us. These include the AHPSinfo@ahps.k12.va.us email account that is being used to assist with related questions and to collect information individuals may wish to share with the division. It is the function of the Virginia Department of Health to assess public health situations, and the agency is in contact with LewisGale Hospital-Alleghany Alleghany and AHPS leaders. Division leadership initiated contact with VDH and is very grateful for the agency's support.
We will continue to provide updates on this situation at https://ahps.k12.va.us. Please note that the frequently asked questions (FAQ) page is updated routinely, and we have added information from Johns Hopkins University to support you in locating health information.
Thank you for your continued attention and support. As always, we want our students to receive a quality educational experience in a safe and welcoming learning environment.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bipartisan SEPSIS Act Reintroduced in U.S. Senate With Broad Support
Sepsis bill targets one of the nation's deadliest and most costly health crises with systemic solutions and backing of healthcare leaders WASHINGTON, June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- END SEPSIS proudly announces the reintroduction of the SEPSIS Act (S.1929), a bipartisan bill that marks a significant step toward creating a comprehensive national response to the sepsis crisis. First introduced in September 2024, the legislation was officially reintroduced into the new Congress on Thursday, June 5, 2025. The bill is co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), and Senator Andy Kim (D-NJ)—underscoring growing bipartisan momentum. It also has the support of major healthcare leaders, including the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, further validating the urgent need for legislative action. About the SEPSIS Act. The SEPSIS Act addresses the massive human and financial toll sepsis imposes on American families and the healthcare system. The bill proposes a targeted federal investment of $20 million annually to accelerate the implementation of HHS, CDC, and CMS-led sepsis initiatives. Through key provisions, the bill would: Expand outreach and education to hospitals to encourage adoption of the CDC's comprehensive new sepsis guidelines, Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements. Finalize and implement a sepsis outcome measure. A sepsis outcome measure would have significant, system-wide impacts on U.S. healthcare through: Standardizing sepsis care across hospitals Incentivize hospitals to improve, process that would lead to reductions in mortality and morbidity Lowering healthcare costs by implementing effective early interventions Drive Data Transparency and Quality Improvement by requiring hospitals to report sepsis outcomes publicly Strengthen sepsis programs nationwide by encouraging greater hospital investment in sepsis care Improve data collection on pediatric sepsis Create an incentive program for hospitals to improve sepsis outcomes Continued Advocacy on Capitol Hill To mark this important milestone, END SEPSIS returned to Capitol Hill this week to meet with key members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Discussions emphasized the staggering human and economic burden of sepsis, which leads to more than 350,000 deaths annually in the U.S. and over $60 billion in healthcare costs. "The SEPSIS Act is a turning point in our national effort to prevent avoidable sepsis deaths," said Ciaran and Orlaith Staunton, Co-Founders of END SEPSIS. "With bipartisan support and strong healthcare backing, we are closer than ever to a unified federal response that saves lives and reduces costs." END SEPSIS has long championed a comprehensive, collaborative approach involving Congress, the White House, federal agencies like CDC and CMS, research institutions, and patient advocates. With the reintroduction of the SEPSIS Act, the organization remains laser-focused on achieving legislative passage and real-world impact. About END SEPSIS: Sepsis deaths and disabilities devastate hundreds of thousands of families each year. It's our mission to end that. Through aggressive public policy initiatives and comprehensive sepsis education for adults and children, we fight to make sure that no more lives are lost to this preventable, treatable condition. Media Contact:(917) 251-0739cstaunton@ View original content: SOURCE END SEPSIS, the Legacy of Rory Staunton Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
The most worrying words in Trump's move on emergency abortions
In a major move on abortion policy, the Trump administration just withdrew Biden-era guidance on emergency abortions. The guidance had interpreted the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) as requiring access to abortion in certain medical emergencies, even in places where abortion is a crime. The revocation by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid is unlikely to help hospitals and doctors who were already unsure how EMTALA would be interpreted or enforced. But an accompanying statement from CMS hinted at a broader change, stating that EMTALA required hospitals to prevent serious risks to 'the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child.' Understood in this way, EMTALA under the Trump administration could further restrict how doctors address emergencies, regardless of states' abortion laws. Congress passed EMTALA in 1986 to stop hospitals from turning away patients who couldn't afford to pay, especially women in labor. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision overturning abortion rights, the Biden administration issued guidance on EMTALA requiring hospitals and physicians participating in Medicare to provide abortions in certain medical emergencies, even in states that ban abortion. In theory, EMTALA could be a powerful check on state bans; violators could face fines and even exclusion from the Medicare program. What's more, EMTALA, a federal law, could trump conflicting state laws. In practice, it wasn't clear how much of a difference the Biden administration's guidance was making. A congressional investigation in December 2024 found that hospital lawyers were often inaccessible and offered confusing advice to doctors, even with the Biden guidelines in place. It wasn't clear how strongly the federal government would come after offenders, and hospitals had to weigh that risk against the threat of prosecution and fines in states where abortion is banned. The courts didn't help clear things up either. The two most prominent lawsuits involved the Biden administration suing Idaho over its ban (which only has an exception for the life of the mother) and Texas suing the federal government over its guidance. In both cases, abortion opponents seized on language in the statute referring to the health of 'the health of the woman or her unborn child.' Anti-abortion lawyers insisted that, under this wording, EMTALA imposed equal obligations toward pregnant women and unborn patients. When those obligations conflicted, the argument went, individual physicians would have to decide what to do, and state laws criminalizing abortion would break the tie. While the conservative Fifth Circuit sided with Texas on this question, lower courts blocked enforcement of Idaho's law. The Supreme Court agreed to step in, but ultimately dismissed the petition as improvidently granted. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, however, three of the court's most conservative justices dissented, echoing the argument that EMTALA created obligations toward fetal patients and thus couldn't require hospitals to allow any abortion. There's just one problem with this theory: EMTALA's text. The original bill did not reference unborn patients. In 1989, Congress passed amendments meant to clarify the law's scope. Those amendments created two categories of emergency condition, those that did not involve labor and those that did. Almost all of EMTALA's references to the 'unborn child' fall in the latter category, where the appropriate way to stabilize a patient is to successfully deliver a baby. Only once is the term mentioned around non-labor emergencies — the category of emergencies where abortion would be considered. Simply mentioning the term 'unborn child' doesn't necessarily mean that Congress wanted to recognize fetal patients' rights. In fact, limiting mentions of the 'unborn child' almost entirely to scenarios where labor has already begun suggests the contrary. Furthermore, the use of the term hardly answers what should happen when a pregnant woman's life or health are clearly imperiled. Though the Trump administration has reinforced that hospitals have duties to fetal patients too, it has not explained how hospitals should carry out those duties. Will the administration act if a hospital doesn't prioritize the needs of the unborn patient, or strike the right balance between the fetus and pregnant woman? Anti-abortion medical organizations like the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists have issued guidelines requiring hospitals to use 'humane medical interventions that aim for both mother and her unborn child to live when possible and do not inflict direct violence on the unborn child.' Will the Trump administration require hospitals to use these methods when addressing emergencies? Much of the debate about EMTALA so far has focused on states where abortion is banned. But if the Trump administration does enforce EMTALA to protect fetal patients, will it impose penalties on hospitals in states that protect abortion as a right? After all, though anti-abortion forces' reading of EMTALA focuses on the text of the law, that interpretation is consistent with their broader ambition: to confer constitutional rights of fetuses from the moment of fertilization. The 2024 GOP platform nodded to this theory, implying that the Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses due process and equal protection, already protects the unborn child. In Minnesota, an anti-abortion lawyer is challenging the constitutionality of the state's liberal abortion law by arguing that it violates the rights of the unborn child. Another fetal personhood suit just reached the 2nd Circuit Court, where a panel of judges appointed by George W. Bush and Donald Trump rejected the plaintiffs' claims on a technicality. At the moment, the primary effect of the administration's move on EMTALA will be more confusion for hospitals and physicians. But the administration's references to the unborn child can't be ignored. In the longer term, the end of the Biden-era guidance may be the tip of the sword further carving up abortion protections, even in states where that right is still protected. This article was originally published on
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Dr. Oz on Medicaid cuts: People should ‘prove that they matter'
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Mehmet Oz defended President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' over criticism that millions of people could lose health coverage, saying those who would face new work requirements should 'prove that they matter.' Oz made the comments during an interview on Fox Business on Wednesday, arguing that when Medicaid was created in the 1960s lawmakers did not include work requirements because it 'never dawned on anybody that able-bodied people who work would be on Medicaid.' 'We're asking that able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or at least volunteer or take care of loved-one who needs help or go back to school,' he said. 'Do something that shows you have agency over your future.' If Americans are willing to do that, he added, they should be able to be enrolled or stay enrolled in Medicaid. 'But if you are not willing to do those things, we are going to ask you to do something else. Go on the exchange, or get a job and get onto regular commercial insurance. But we are not going to continue to pay for Medicaid for those audiences.' 'Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,' he added. 'It's a much more enjoyable experience if you go through life thinking you are in control of your destiny and you will get better insurance at the same time.' Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here Close to 11 million people would lose health insurance coverage if the House Republican tax bill passes in the Senate, mainly due to cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), according to analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Trump's sprawling agenda bill calls for trillions of dollars' worth of tax cuts, with offsets from sweeping cuts to federal benefit programs, primarily Medicaid. The bill would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion, according to an analysis from healthcare policy nonprofit KFF. Most of those savings stem from new work requirements for adults trying to enroll in the public health insurance program and more frequent eligibility checks. The bill calls for states to impose work requirements for childless adults between the ages of 19 and 64, with some exceptions, to be eligible for Medicaid. Adults would be required to work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month beginning in December 2026 to qualify for the public health insurance program. Many Trump allies in Congress have sought to downplay the impact of the Medicaid reforms, denying it will reduce access to the program. Meanwhile, several Senate Republicans have raised alarm over Medicaid cuts. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought recently told CNN's Dana Bash that concerns over the bill are 'ridiculous.' 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more common sense,' he said. 'No one will lose coverage as a result of the bill.' Democrats have pushed hard against the proposed cuts, while GOP senators such as Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Josh Hawley (Mo.) have pushed for changes to the bill passed by the House last month.
