Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
Opinion - StatesmanJournal.com
The Oregon Department of Education owes the public a better explanation of why Jane Mulholland, longtime director of the Oregon School for the Deaf, was abruptly fired Dec. 28.
It’s a personnel matter, Deputy Superintendent Ed Dennis has said in several public meetings since then. He said he believes the department, which oversees the school, could do better. He didn’t have confidence that Mulholland was the best person for the job.
These bland non-answers have served only to anger Mulholland’s supporters and draw larger crowds to subsequent meetings. They have opened the door to rumors, including conspiracy theories involving a plan to move the Oregon School for the Blind to the deaf school campus. (Education Department officials have denied any connection.)
Dennis’ script may be the cautious, lawyer-approved one for such cases. But to the parents of deaf students and to taxpayers, the state seems to be thumbing its nose.
Perhaps Mulholland wasn’t doing a good job. We are not in a good position to judge.
But if that were the case, it should have been reflected in warnings and improvement plans in her personnel file. Mulholland says the file contains no indication of problems, and Dennis doesn’t dispute this.
Dennis’ explanation for the dismissal — and presumably that of his boss, Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo — doesn’t match the urgency of their actions. Why, short of suspected crime, would they swoop in at mid-year and dismiss an educator who has served at the school since 1989 and has led it since 1999?
Why would they leave the school with an interim director if this were only a question of leadership style? Why embark on an expensive recruitment process that could drag on for months?
If the Education Department does have concerns about serious wrongdoing, don’t the parents of deaf children deserve to know what is going on? If that is the case, the department should at least say: “Such-and-such an agency is investigating allegations of such-and-such. We expect to have more information in so many days.”
The longer the Education Department stonewalls this, the greater the suspicion grows that it has bungled the case. Straightforward answers are needed.
The Oregon Department of Education owes the public a better explanation of why Jane Mulholland, longtime director of the Oregon School for the Deaf, was abruptly fired Dec. 28.
It’s a personnel matter, Deputy Superintendent Ed Dennis has said in several public meetings since then. He said he believes the department, which oversees the school, could do better. He didn’t have confidence that Mulholland was the best person for the job.
These bland non-answers have served only to anger Mulholland’s supporters and draw larger crowds to subsequent meetings. They have opened the door to rumors, including conspiracy theories involving a plan to move the Oregon School for the Blind to the deaf school campus. (Education Department officials have denied any connection.)
Dennis’ script may be the cautious, lawyer-approved one for such cases. But to the parents of deaf students and to taxpayers, the state seems to be thumbing its nose.
Perhaps Mulholland wasn’t doing a good job. We are not in a good position to judge.
But if that were the case, it should have been reflected in warnings and improvement plans in her personnel file. Mulholland says the file contains no indication of problems, and Dennis doesn’t dispute this.
Dennis’ explanation for the dismissal — and presumably that of his boss, Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo — doesn’t match the urgency of their actions. Why, short of suspected crime, would they swoop in at mid-year and dismiss an educator who has served at the school since 1989 and has led it since 1999?
Why would they leave the school with an interim director if this were only a question of leadership style? Why embark on an expensive recruitment process that could drag on for months?
If the Education Department does have concerns about serious wrongdoing, don’t the parents of deaf children deserve to know what is going on? If that is the case, the department should at least say: “Such-and-such an agency is investigating allegations of such-and-such. We expect to have more information in so many days.”
The longer the Education Department stonewalls this, the greater the suspicion grows that it has bungled the case. Straightforward answers are needed.