Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Private & Independent Schools
Reply to "Emails reveal contempt by MoCo health dept for nonpublic schools "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=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). [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics