Emails reveal contempt by MoCo health dept for nonpublic schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank God our private is in Anne Arundel, far away from these self-righteous ding dongs.

Amen to that! Nothing reassures me about our choice to move to the outer burbs than reading DCUM education boards.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s just speaking the truth. That’s why everyone on this thread is upset. Why not acknowledge your privilege and then have a conversation?!

You're an idiot. He was wrong in his prejudiced efforts to attempt to keep non-public schools closed and he was wrong in his inappropriate emails. Time to go, bye bye.

Fascinating glimpse into your mind here. The goal was for privates to be closed just like publics were, which is prejudiced against non-public schools because . . . it's not what you wanted?

Here in the DMV, many schools were able to open safely by following CDC guidance on distancing, mask-wearing, cohosting, etc. They opened in September and have been open all year without in-school transmission. Gayles didn’t care about the science or the CDC guidelines, he just wanted all the schools closed so the public schools wouldn’t look bad for closing too. This was absolutely a political decision, not a public health one.

The fact that the position "keep all schools closed" turned out to be overly cautious vis a vis what was necessary to mitigate community spread (something brought up in the emails people are so horrified by - "You mitigate risks by being overly cautious") doesn't in any way show that it was *prejudiced* against non-public schools. It wasn't. Trying to get all schools to behave in the same way, even if it's not the way you prefer, is not prejudice.

Except it’s clear from what he wrote that he had great disdain for the private school community.

It's clear from what he wrote that he was irritated by them, sure. But being irritated by a group of people and then insisting they be treated the same as everyone else is still not prejudice. Words have meanings.

But he wasn't treating them the same. Other organizations that were able to operate safely under CDC guidelines were allowed to open; schools that were able to operate under CDC guidelines were not; they were treated differently.

His attempts were to treat all schools the same. He did not demonstrate prejudiced efforts to attempt to keep non-public schools closed. He wanted all schools to be closed, not just non-public schools. And if you're now trying to move the goalposts to say that he was prejudiced against schools as opposed to other organizations, then the whole "he didn't like private school parents" argument is completely meaningless. There was no prejudiced effort against private schools. There was no prejudiced effort against schools writ large. There was an overly cautious approach that some people disagreed with for good reasons, some for bad reasons, and some supported for good or bad reasons, but still: not prejudiced.

You are really trying to twist things around there.

Actually, I re-quoted the exact same language I quoted the first time, which is the opposite of "trying to twist things." I'm insisting on sticking to the premise. PPs (I have to assume there were more than one because they're all over the place) have tried to move the argument from "he was prejudiced against private schools" to "he was prejudiced against private school parents if not the schools themselves" to "he was prejudiced against schools vs. camps," which is actually trying to twist the discussion.

I'm sorry that the facts don't fit your feeling of aggrievement. But there's no evidence of prejudice against private schools in the efforts to keep all schools closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Gayles’ view was that if public schools could not open, private schools should not be allowed either, on equity grounds. There was never any scientific justification for it, and months of experience now show the private schools were entirely correct in believing they could reopen safely.

He was, however, very successful in delaying and making it hard for private schools to reopen. He will pay no political price because there is a critical mass of people in the county who agree with that decision — if they can’t have it, nobody should have it.

You've got to be prepared to give up some of your privilege in order to achieve equity. I think kids in private schools should be forced to learn nothing next year. That would be equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Gayles’ view was that if public schools could not open, private schools should not be allowed either, on equity grounds. There was never any scientific justification for it, and months of experience now show the private schools were entirely correct in believing they could reopen safely.

He was, however, very successful in delaying and making it hard for private schools to reopen. He will pay no political price because there is a critical mass of people in the county who agree with that decision — if they can’t have it, nobody should have it.

You've got to be prepared to give up some of your privilege in order to achieve equity. I think kids in private schools should be forced to learn nothing next year. That would be equitable.

Haha Look at your unions and leaders, not those who followed the science, not CNN

[Anonymous]

The fact is that Gayles erred on the side of caution rather than let independent schools be the guinea pigs for the rest of the area. People seem to forget that even three months ago we did not have a full grasp or understanding of the virus, how it can be transmitted, whether or not children are super spreaders, whether or not high school students are. Sure, there was a vocal group of people demanding schools open, but that doesn't mean they had a clear understanding of what was going on. As someone mentioned earlier, hindsight tends to give you 20/20 vision.

[Anonymous]

He failed the children and the county. Public school families should be equally outraged. Tons of public schools in different counties and states went back to school long before MoCo. If he wasn't politically motivated in a medical job, then he would have payed attention to the science, the data, and the CDC and encouraged schools to open safely. Especially, after the non-publics proved it could be done safely. Gayles should be fired immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s just speaking the truth. That’s why everyone on this thread is upset. Why not acknowledge your privilege and then have a conversation?!

You're an idiot. He was wrong in his prejudiced efforts to attempt to keep non-public schools closed and he was wrong in his inappropriate emails. Time to go, bye bye.

Fascinating glimpse into your mind here. The goal was for privates to be closed just like publics were, which is prejudiced against non-public schools because . . . it's not what you wanted?

Here in the DMV, many schools were able to open safely by following CDC guidance on distancing, mask-wearing, cohosting, etc. They opened in September and have been open all year without in-school transmission. Gayles didn’t care about the science or the CDC guidelines, he just wanted all the schools closed so the public schools wouldn’t look bad for closing too. This was absolutely a political decision, not a public health one.

The fact that the position "keep all schools closed" turned out to be overly cautious vis a vis what was necessary to mitigate community spread (something brought up in the emails people are so horrified by - "You mitigate risks by being overly cautious") doesn't in any way show that it was *prejudiced* against non-public schools. It wasn't. Trying to get all schools to behave in the same way, even if it's not the way you prefer, is not prejudice.

Except it’s clear from what he wrote that he had great disdain for the private school community.

It's clear from what he wrote that he was irritated by them, sure. But being irritated by a group of people and then insisting they be treated the same as everyone else is still not prejudice. Words have meanings.

But he wasn't treating them the same. Other organizations that were able to operate safely under CDC guidelines were allowed to open; schools that were able to operate under CDC guidelines were not; they were treated differently.

His attempts were to treat all schools the same. He did not demonstrate prejudiced efforts to attempt to keep non-public schools closed. He wanted all schools to be closed, not just non-public schools. And if you're now trying to move the goalposts to say that he was prejudiced against schools as opposed to other organizations, then the whole "he didn't like private school parents" argument is completely meaningless. There was no prejudiced effort against private schools. There was no prejudiced effort against schools writ large. There was an overly cautious approach that some people disagreed with for good reasons, some for bad reasons, and some supported for good or bad reasons, but still: not prejudiced.

You are really trying to twist things around there.

Actually, I re-quoted the exact same language I quoted the first time, which is the opposite of "trying to twist things." I'm insisting on sticking to the premise. PPs (I have to assume there were more than one because they're all over the place) have tried to move the argument from "he was prejudiced against private schools" to "he was prejudiced against private school parents if not the schools themselves" to "he was prejudiced against schools vs. camps," which is actually trying to twist the discussion.

I'm sorry that the facts don't fit your feeling of aggrievement. But there's no evidence of prejudice against private schools in the efforts to keep all schools closed.

Your premise is that all schools should be treated the same because they are schools, without regard to facts about the operation that are actually pertinent to COVID. That is what was wrong from the start. Treat them the same no matter how different they are. People wondered why? The emails give an answer that looks an awful lot like animus.

(Also, not in MOCO so not aggrieved).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact is that Gayles erred on the side of caution rather than let independent schools be the guinea pigs for the rest of the area. People seem to forget that even three months ago we did not have a full grasp or understanding of the virus, how it can be transmitted, whether or not children are super spreaders, whether or not high school students are. Sure, there was a vocal group of people demanding schools open, but that doesn't mean they had a clear understanding of what was going on. As someone mentioned earlier, hindsight tends to give you 20/20 vision.

The goal was not to overload hospitals and it was stated that the risk group was very specific. With protocols in place like the aay cares , the risk was low, but coverage and fear was disproportionally high. In my hindsight and opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Gayles’ view was that if public schools could not open, private schools should not be allowed either, on equity grounds. There was never any scientific justification for it, and months of experience now show the private schools were entirely correct in believing they could reopen safely.

He was, however, very successful in delaying and making it hard for private schools to reopen. He will pay no political price because there is a critical mass of people in the county who agree with that decision — if they can’t have it, nobody should have it.

You've got to be prepared to give up some of your privilege in order to achieve equity. I think kids in private schools should be forced to learn nothing next year. That would be equitable.

What’s fascinating about the current moment is that this could either be someone trolling or someone completely dead serious; either one could post precisely the same thing. You really can’t tell anymore. It’s funny as hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact is that Gayles erred on the side of caution rather than let independent schools be the guinea pigs for the rest of the area. People seem to forget that even three months ago we did not have a full grasp or understanding of the virus, how it can be transmitted, whether or not children are super spreaders, whether or not high school students are. Sure, there was a vocal group of people demanding schools open, but that doesn't mean they had a clear understanding of what was going on. As someone mentioned earlier, hindsight tends to give you 20/20 vision.

The goal was not to overload hospitals and it was stated that the risk group was very specific. With protocols in place like the aay cares , the risk was low, but coverage and fear was disproportionally high. In my hindsight and opinion.

Furthermore, CNN was caught on tape saying the ratings were high and they wanted the "death count" live.
In truth, the flu can be more dangerous to children.
With masks, protocol in privates, we actually had much less flu and stomach virus than in normal years....

[Anonymous]

Imagine the arrogance and privilege to be able to just SHRUG OFF an entire year of schooling for kids!!! Mental, social, and emotional health anyone?!?!

Listen, I don't even have a dog in this particular fight. My kids go to public school (which was open for hybrid all year until recently going back full time) but I saw this pop up on recent topics and wanted to chime in.

It STILL blows my mind how older people completely minimized the risk to children of not learning in person all year. They could have sheltered in place while younger people continued their lives, which are important too. Why should we prioritize 80 year olds over 6 year olds? We shouldn't, their needs are equally important. We should have prioritized keeping restaurants and bars closed and schools open. In retrospect, I don't know a single person who disagrees with that take.

Anyway, we had to hire a tutor to come on their asynchronous learning days. That cost a lot of money. Were we privileged to be able to do this? Yes but we shouldn't have HAD to.

I hope all of these effers are fired and never heard from again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact is that Gayles erred on the side of caution rather than let independent schools be the guinea pigs for the rest of the area. People seem to forget that even three months ago we did not have a full grasp or understanding of the virus, how it can be transmitted, whether or not children are super spreaders, whether or not high school students are. Sure, there was a vocal group of people demanding schools open, but that doesn't mean they had a clear understanding of what was going on. As someone mentioned earlier, hindsight tends to give you 20/20 vision.

The goal was not to overload hospitals and it was stated that the risk group was very specific. With protocols in place like the aay cares , the risk was low, but coverage and fear was disproportionally high. In my hindsight and opinion.

Furthermore, CNN was caught on tape saying the ratings were high and they wanted the "death count" live.
In truth, the flu can be more dangerous to children.
With masks, protocol in privates, we actually had much less flu and stomach virus than in normal years....

There's always a grassy knoll . . .

[Anonymous]

The emails were very telling. The State gave guidance early in the summer so that schools could open if they could follow the recommendations. Private schools spent months preparing and investing in what they would need to open safely. Every county was given the right to make the reopening decision for their public schools as was every single private school (as they are privately owned and operated).

Gayles response shows he didn't care about the science. He was not interested in determining whether any school could follow the guidance. He wasn't even going to look at the plans. He knew most public schools couldn't follow the guidance so he didn't think it was fair for private schools that had the resources to be able to open. The fact that he forwarded the message to the Chief Equity Officer says it all. The Chief Equity Officer of the Montgomery County Public Schools has no role, no decision-making, and no influence on what private schools in the county do. Her opinion is irrelevant.

Families have a constitutional right to educate their children as they see fit. Gayles decision was even more obnoxious as it amounted to tortious interference with a private contract between private schools and families. I would have loved to have brought the claim.

To successfully bring an action for tortious interference with a contract, the claimant must prove:

1. A valid contract (or a reasonably certain business prospect) with another person or business;

2. A third-party knew of the contract or business relationship existed between the two parties;

3. The third-party intentionally and improperly interfered with the contractual or business relationship; and

4. The interference caused harm to the contractual or business relationship.

The third part would have been easily shown through his emails and the fact he wasn't even willing to review plans or develop criteria for safe reopening and then turned around and allowed BarT to operate in schools (with less safety precautions than private schools were taking).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s just speaking the truth. That’s why everyone on this thread is upset. Why not acknowledge your privilege and then have a conversation?!

You're an idiot. He was wrong in his prejudiced efforts to attempt to keep non-public schools closed and he was wrong in his inappropriate emails. Time to go, bye bye.

Fascinating glimpse into your mind here. The goal was for privates to be closed just like publics were, which is prejudiced against non-public schools because . . . it's not what you wanted?

Here in the DMV, many schools were able to open safely by following CDC guidance on distancing, mask-wearing, cohosting, etc. They opened in September and have been open all year without in-school transmission. Gayles didn’t care about the science or the CDC guidelines, he just wanted all the schools closed so the public schools wouldn’t look bad for closing too. This was absolutely a political decision, not a public health one.

The fact that the position "keep all schools closed" turned out to be overly cautious vis a vis what was necessary to mitigate community spread (something brought up in the emails people are so horrified by - "You mitigate risks by being overly cautious") doesn't in any way show that it was *prejudiced* against non-public schools. It wasn't. Trying to get all schools to behave in the same way, even if it's not the way you prefer, is not prejudice.

Except it’s clear from what he wrote that he had great disdain for the private school community.

It's clear from what he wrote that he was irritated by them, sure. But being irritated by a group of people and then insisting they be treated the same as everyone else is still not prejudice. Words have meanings.

But he wasn't treating them the same. Other organizations that were able to operate safely under CDC guidelines were allowed to open; schools that were able to operate under CDC guidelines were not; they were treated differently.

His attempts were to treat all schools the same. He did not demonstrate prejudiced efforts to attempt to keep non-public schools closed. He wanted all schools to be closed, not just non-public schools. And if you're now trying to move the goalposts to say that he was prejudiced against schools as opposed to other organizations, then the whole "he didn't like private school parents" argument is completely meaningless. There was no prejudiced effort against private schools. There was no prejudiced effort against schools writ large. There was an overly cautious approach that some people disagreed with for good reasons, some for bad reasons, and some supported for good or bad reasons, but still: not prejudiced.

You are really trying to twist things around there.

Actually, I re-quoted the exact same language I quoted the first time, which is the opposite of "trying to twist things." I'm insisting on sticking to the premise. PPs (I have to assume there were more than one because they're all over the place) have tried to move the argument from "he was prejudiced against private schools" to "he was prejudiced against private school parents if not the schools themselves" to "he was prejudiced against schools vs. camps," which is actually trying to twist the discussion.

I'm sorry that the facts don't fit your feeling of aggrievement. But there's no evidence of prejudice against private schools in the efforts to keep all schools closed.

Of course there is “evidence” — the emails show animus, and the deviations from CDC recommendations and Governor Hogan’s recommendations and inconsistencies in treatment for similar activities provide further support—you may not be persuaded, and it’s not entirely conclusive of course, but there is more than enough for a reasonable person to draw that conclusion. It is course possible to believe that Dr. Gayles was purely motivated by the epidemiological evidence and entirely uninfluenced by political considerations. I personally think the weight of the evidence is to the contrary, but YMMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Gayles’ view was that if public schools could not open, private schools should not be allowed either, on equity grounds. There was never any scientific justification for it, and months of experience now show the private schools were entirely correct in believing they could reopen safely.

He was, however, very successful in delaying and making it hard for private schools to reopen. He will pay no political price because there is a critical mass of people in the county who agree with that decision — if they can’t have it, nobody should have it.

You've got to be prepared to give up some of your privilege in order to achieve equity. I think kids in private schools should be forced to learn nothing next year. That would be equitable.

Actually, no this can't be done. If you had kept private schools closed, those parents who could would have hired tutors to come to their homes.

This is what we did and honestly, the results from focused one-on-one attention every day for hours is by far and away better than our expensive private school.

It has totally opened my eyes to how necessary expensive, private tutors are on an ongoing basis.