Mike may catch the attention of governors and superintendents, but school boards are deaf. John Deasy, Superintedent of Prince George’s County, is set to resign. We hope his replacement is as reform-minded and result-oriented.

Update: I am not implying that the school board forced Deasy out (they did not) only to joke that Mike, who has caught the eye of district officials in the past (see above examples), was shockingly not consulted!

The Washington-area media is abuzz about the news that the University of Louisville is investigating the PhD awarded to Prince George’s County superintendent John Deasy. The Washington Post reports:

Deasy, leader of the 130,000-student system since 2006, was awarded a doctorate of philosophy in education in May 2004 after completing nine credit hours of work at the university — equivalent to one semester — in addition to 77 credit hours he earned from other schools. Deasy also wrote a 184-page dissertation.  

This is an outgrowth of a federal investigation of Deasy’s doctoral advisor Robert Felner, who is being questioned about “alleged misappropriation” of a large federal grant.

Deasy’s response was pitch perfect:

If the university made errors in the awarding of the degree, I do hope they rescind it. My responsibility is to do everything I was advised and told to do. If I was advised wrong and given wrong information, the university needs to take responsibility for that. I certainly would not want anything unearned.

I’ve only met Superintendent Deasy once, but have been impressed with his tenacious work reforming Prince George’s County schools. By all appearances he seems to be a dedicated public servant-a true boy scout. But I’ve seen close-up how the news media can treat public officials once they whiff a scent of scandal. Let’s all try to remember a few things. First: in this country, everyone deserves the presumption of innocence. And second, PhDs in education aren’t worth the paper they’re written on anyway. Who cares about the Superintendent’s credentials? I care about his results.

A post from guest blogger and Fordham Vice President for Ohio Programs & Policy Terry Ryan.

Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann is embroiled in serious scandals and faces impeachment. His own political party (the Democrats) has disowned him, and he is under intense pressure from the Governor, the statehouse, and the media to resign immediately.

We take no joy in Dann’s troubles, but his leaving office would raise some interesting questions. In September, Dann held a press conference to announce lawsuits aimed at closing two Dayton charter schools (he subsequently added two more schools). Dann cited the state’s charitable trust laws and alleged that the schools had violated their “charitable” missions as 501(c)3 organizations because they were underperforming academically (see Gadfly’s take on the first lawsuits.) One of the schools originally targeted by Dann has subsequently closed, but the second has vowed to fight the lawsuit. Oral arguments for that case are set for May 15 in Dayton.

If successful, this novel theory of trust law would effectively turn the state attorney general into a charter-school prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Under Dann’s legal theory, his office would determine whether a school is successful or not, thereby usurping the regulatory authority of the General Assembly, the Ohio Department of Education, and individual charter school sponsors. If the AG gets this authority, observers wonder what would prevent him from determining that nonprofit colleges and universities aren’t up to snuff and should be closed? Or hospitals? Or any other nonprofit unloved by political supporters of the attorney general, whoever that might be? And why not then in other states, too?

Will the AG’s potential impeachment or resignation impact the Attorney General’s Office in this case? It’s far too early to tell, but one good thing that could come from this bad situation is a more thoughtful approach to dealing with troubled charters than having them killed off by a hard-charging AG.

Australia’s aboriginal community is suffering from a serious epidemic of children watching pornography at home—and then simulating sex acts in the classroom. Some of these aboriginal children are as young as seven. Even more disturbing, plenty of Australian social workers and community leaders think there’s nothing wrong with it. In their twisted minds, these children are not suffering from child abuse, despite being fed an endless diet of adult porn and, in some instances, having their parents sexually molest them.

The story in the Australian should be a wake-up call to the country’s authorities to crackdown on child abuse, improper sexual behavior in the classroom, and rampant pornography. A formal investigation by a former Supreme Court judge found that communities on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands were not only inundated with porn, but that welfare workers and local aboriginal leaders—those who are supposed to be protecting children—deliberately sought to dissuade teachers from tackling the problems of child abuse.

The judge’s report is replete with disturbing examples of illicit sexual behavior by students in classrooms. In one case, a seven-year-old girl dropped her pants in class, simulated sexual intercourse, and jammed several plastic objects into her vagina. School officials suspect she is the victim of incest. In another case, a nine-year-old girl made numerous sexual gestures in class. When confronted by her teacher, she said she learned the moves from “blue movies.” It was later found out that the girl came from an abusive home and that she was physically assaulted by her parents. Repeatedly, teachers tried to intervene on behalf of the children. But they were told by social workers and community leaders that it would only “inflame the problem.” Moreover, welfare case officers stressed that sexualized behavior by seven-year-olds did not reveal “any child abuse concerns.”

Read the rest of this post >>>

The Catholic Church is not the only institution facing a sex abuse crisis. The Los Angeles Unified School District has an ugly scandal of its own—and teenagers are again the victims. Richard Winton, a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, has written several incisive articles on the burgeoning crisis involving a former L.A. assistant principal, Steve Rooney. According to the Times, Rooney is alleged to have had a sexual relationship with a then-15-year-old female student at the Foshay Learning Center.

The Foshay student says she told a school administrator that she was having an affair with Rooney, in which she lived with him at his downtown apartment for some time. Rather than report the improper—and illegal—relationship, the student alleges that the administrator urged her to “recant” her statements. Why was the administrator, whose name has not been divulged, so determined to cover up for Rooney? Because the student feared that the revelations would result in Rooney being criminally charged for committing lewd acts with a minor and going to jail.

Hence, Rooney was never discharged, suspended, or even investigated by the LAUSD—even though law enforcement authorities had conducted a criminal probe into accusations by the Foshay student’s stepfather that Rooney threatened him with a gun for demanding the relationship be terminated. Instead, Rooney was transferred by school district officials to Markham Middle School in South Los Angeles last year. During his tenure at Markham, Rooney is alleged to have molested two female students, one a 13-year-old, and the other 14. Apparently, Rooney used his authority at Markham to hand out hall passes allowing female students to leave class and visit him at his office. He would then drive these girls around on his motorcycle, and buy them expensive gifts, such as designer purses and iPods. He seduced the 13-year-old to his apartment before she says Rooney sexually assaulted her.

Read the rest of this post >>>

If you need further evidence of the coarsening of our culture, then read Ian Shapira’s piece in Monday’s Washington Post. The latest fad among some young teachers—meaning those in their 20s—is to post profiles on social networking sites, such as Facebook and MySpace. What’s wrong with that, you might say? Nothing, if one’s intent is to post professional or responsible private information (resume, education background, hobbies, favorite movies, music ... etc.). The problem is that many teachers are using the sites, which are marketed heavily toward immature teens, to post outrageous comments or indecent personal acts. In other words, they are acting very much like the immature, sex-obsessed, alcohol-guzzling and profanity-spouting students many of them are supposed to be teaching—and serving as role models for.

Mr. Shapira writes that the epidemic of improper postings is now causing serious concerns among principals, parents, and other fellow teachers trying to maintain basic standards of civilized decency in the classroom. Take the case of Stephen Murmer, a Richmond area high school art teacher, who had to be fired last year for painting canvasses—I am not making this up—with his buttocks in images on You Tube.

Read the rest of this post >>>

Flypaper is no longer the newest blog in the edu-neighborhood. We send our greetings to jaypgreene.com, a direct link to one of the most fertile minds in education reform. His inaugural articles argue that if you stand at a state capitol building and throw a rock, you’re likely to hit the teachers’ union headquarters—and a male teacher who’s sexually abusing his students.