Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
Editorial Blog - StatesmanJournal.com
Parents, graduates and other supporters of the Oregon School for the Deaf still are waiting for a good explanation for why director Jane Mulholland was dismissed last month. If anything, they have more questions now.
A story in Saturday’s Statesman Journal traced five incidents of policy violations or inappropriate teacher-student relations that occurred after 1999, when Mulholland took charge at the school.
Are these the reason that Mulholland was fired? Deputy Education Superintendent Ed Dennis (or his boss, the curiously silent Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo) should say.
Each incident was dealt with at the time, and none of the teachers remains at the school. However, reports of these kinds should raise red flags, especially given heightened concerns locally regarding the grooming behavior that can precede actual sexual abuse.
Authorities should be doubly vigilant at the deaf school, where some students live in dorms and all students face communication challenges. Both the school and the Department of Education, which oversees it, bear great responsibility for safeguarding the vulnerable children in the state’s care.
If these incidents were the reason for Mulholland’s dismissal, another serious question arises: What did the Department of Education do early on to help her improve conditions at the school?
Mulholland says she put accredited safety measures in place and conducted regular training on sexual-abuse reporting. If this wasn’t adequate, there’s no indication in her personnel file.
The Department of Education evidently was concerned enough about the school’s safety measures to ask the Department of Justice to investigate in 2005. That report never was completed. Why not?
Why would the education department fail to follow up? If the report had been finished, could it have helped the school improve before two incidents of inappropriate behavior in 2006, problems that caused one teacher to be dismissed and another to resign?
The state has maintained that it doesn’t have to tell the public anything; as an “at-will” employee, Mulholland simply can be fired.
We don’t buy it. The state owes the public some answers.
Parents, graduates and other supporters of the Oregon School for the Deaf still are waiting for a good explanation for why director Jane Mulholland was dismissed last month. If anything, they have more questions now.
A story in Saturday’s Statesman Journal traced five incidents of policy violations or inappropriate teacher-student relations that occurred after 1999, when Mulholland took charge at the school.
Are these the reason that Mulholland was fired? Deputy Education Superintendent Ed Dennis (or his boss, the curiously silent Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo) should say.
Each incident was dealt with at the time, and none of the teachers remains at the school. However, reports of these kinds should raise red flags, especially given heightened concerns locally regarding the grooming behavior that can precede actual sexual abuse.
Authorities should be doubly vigilant at the deaf school, where some students live in dorms and all students face communication challenges. Both the school and the Department of Education, which oversees it, bear great responsibility for safeguarding the vulnerable children in the state’s care.
If these incidents were the reason for Mulholland’s dismissal, another serious question arises: What did the Department of Education do early on to help her improve conditions at the school?
Mulholland says she put accredited safety measures in place and conducted regular training on sexual-abuse reporting. If this wasn’t adequate, there’s no indication in her personnel file.
The Department of Education evidently was concerned enough about the school’s safety measures to ask the Department of Justice to investigate in 2005. That report never was completed. Why not?
Why would the education department fail to follow up? If the report had been finished, could it have helped the school improve before two incidents of inappropriate behavior in 2006, problems that caused one teacher to be dismissed and another to resign?
The state has maintained that it doesn’t have to tell the public anything; as an “at-will” employee, Mulholland simply can be fired.
We don’t buy it. The state owes the public some answers.