New allegations involving a former Forney ISD principal and special-education teacher are raising serious questions about educator hiring, name changes, mandatory reporting, background checks, and Texas efforts to stop the practice known as “passing the trash.”

Editorial Note

This article discusses active criminal allegations involving former employees of Forney Independent School District and allegations of abuse involving students with disabilities. The charges and claims described below have not been proven in court. Former Crosby Elementary Principal Wendy Bailey and former special-education teacher Jonathan Michael are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Some of the information discussed in this article comes from reporting based on a recently released arrest affidavit. Allegations contained in an affidavit represent investigators’ assertions and are not findings of guilt. Criminal liability, educator-certification consequences, district policy violations, employment decisions, and civil liability are separate matters that may involve different legal standards. This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

A Forney ISD Case Has Become a Test of Texas’ Educator-Safety System

A school misconduct investigation in Forney, Texas, is raising questions that extend well beyond one elementary campus.

Former Crosby Elementary Principal Wendy Bailey has been accused of failing to report alleged misconduct involving a special-education teacher and, according to reporting based on a recently released arrest affidavit, of knowing troubling information about the teacher’s prior employment history before he was hired by Forney Independent School District.

The teacher, Jonathan Michael, was hired by Forney ISD in October 2025. He previously used the name Michael Raymond Roell. Forney ISD has said that he passed required Texas Department of Public Safety and FBI fingerprint background checks and held valid educator certification when he was hired. The district also said it did not learn until the later investigation that he had legally changed his name before joining Forney ISD.

That explanation initially presented the case as a potential weakness in background-check systems.

The newer allegations make the situation more complicated.

According to reporting based on Bailey’s arrest affidavit, investigators allege that Bailey had received Michael’s résumé under his former name before the hiring process was completed and knew about portions of his prior history. The affidavit reportedly goes further, alleging that Michael’s father told investigators Bailey indicated he could not be hired under the name Michael Roell but could potentially be hired if he legally changed his name.

Michael later changed his name and was hired.

Those allegations have not been proven, but if supported by evidence, they would shift the central question from whether an automated background check failed to whether a school administrator allegedly had information that the automated system did not reveal.

That is where the case becomes especially significant for Texas education law.

What Forney ISD Initially Said

When the investigation became public in late April, Forney ISD told Crosby Elementary families that allegations had been made regarding misconduct by a teacher.

The district said the teacher was immediately removed after officials received the allegations. Several aides were also removed from the campus within 48 hours, and the principal was no longer employed by the district. Forney ISD said none of those individuals would return.

The district also reported the allegations to law enforcement, Child Protective Services and the Texas Education Agency and said it was cooperating with a multi-agency investigation.

At the time, Forney ISD emphasized its hiring process. The district said Michael had been hired in October 2025 after receiving a clean DPS and FBI fingerprint background check and having valid certification. District officials said they subsequently learned during the investigation that he had legally changed his name before applying.

Forney ISD further noted that Michael had faced criminal charges under his previous name but had been acquitted.

That distinction is important. An acquittal cannot appropriately be presented as proof of misconduct. Background-check systems also cannot simply treat every previous accusation as equivalent to a criminal conviction.

The harder issue is whether there was other employment or conduct information that should have been considered separately from criminal-record results.

The Arrest Affidavit Reportedly Adds a Different Account

Recent reporting based on Bailey’s arrest affidavit describes a more troubling allegation about the hiring process.

Investigators reportedly allege that Bailey received Michael’s résumé in August 2025 while he was still using his previous name. Phone and email records cited in the investigation allegedly indicate that Bailey remained in contact with him during the hiring process.

According to the affidavit as described by local reporting, Michael’s father told investigators that Bailey had indicated his son could not be hired under the name Michael Roell but might be employable if he legally changed his name.

Michael subsequently obtained a legal name change to Jonathan Michael, reapplied to Forney ISD in September 2025 and was hired the following month.

Again, that allegation has not been established in court.

But if evidence ultimately confirms that an administrator knew about significant prior concerns and knowingly helped an applicant change how he appeared in a hiring process, the case would involve much more than an accidental background-check gap.

It would raise questions about whether institutional safeguards were deliberately bypassed.

Why the Phrase “Passing the Trash” Is Being Used

“Passing the trash” is an informal term used in education to describe situations in which an employee accused of serious misconduct leaves one school system and later obtains employment somewhere else without future employers receiving adequate information about the previous concerns.

The phrase is intentionally blunt, but the underlying issue is complicated.

Not every employee who changes districts after an allegation has committed misconduct. Employees retain due-process rights, allegations may be false, criminal cases can result in acquittal, and districts need to avoid treating rumors as established fact.

At the same time, school systems have a responsibility to ensure that credible evidence of student-related misconduct does not disappear when someone resigns, changes jobs, or crosses district lines.

Texas has spent years strengthening laws intended to address exactly that risk.

The Forney case now raises a harder question: even strong state-level reporting systems depend on the people operating them.

A database cannot disclose information that was never properly reported.

A fingerprint check cannot explain an employment history that is not contained in a criminal record.

And a certification check may show that someone legally holds a teaching certificate without providing every detail a hiring administrator should consider.

Michael’s Prior History Is Complicated

Reports based on court and investigative records describe a history involving Michael before his employment in Forney ISD.

Under his former name, Michael reportedly worked in Garland ISD and was accused in 2015 of breaking the arm of a special-education student. He later faced an indecency-with-a-child charge and was acquitted by a Dallas County jury.

Reporting based on the arrest affidavit also states that he was removed from another school assignment after allegations involving a special-education student changing clothes and sexually explicit comments.

These events need to be described carefully.

An allegation is not a conviction.

An acquittal is legally significant and means prosecutors did not obtain a criminal conviction.

Employment concerns, however, can involve information that never results in a criminal conviction. School districts therefore cannot rely exclusively on criminal history when deciding whether an applicant is appropriate to work with children.

The purpose of a comprehensive employment-history review is to examine the broader professional record while still respecting the applicant’s rights.

That distinction is central to understanding why the Forney case is about more than background checks.

Background Checks Are Necessary, but They Are Not Enough

Forney ISD’s statement that Michael passed required fingerprint checks highlights an important limitation of screening systems.

Fingerprint-based criminal-history checks are valuable. They can identify arrests, convictions and other criminal-record information connected to a person’s fingerprints even if the individual changes names.

But they cannot answer every employment-suitability question.

A background check may not tell a superintendent that another district investigated an employee for boundary concerns.

It may not identify an internal disciplinary matter that never resulted in criminal charges.

It may not explain why someone resigned during an investigation.

It may not reveal parent complaints that were never reported externally.

And it cannot replace reference checks, employment-history verification, certification review and compliance with state misconduct-reporting systems.

Strong school hiring therefore requires multiple layers of review.

The Forney case demonstrates why relying on a “clean background check” as the entire safety determination can be misleading.

Texas Has Already Strengthened Its Anti-“Passing the Trash” Laws

The timing of this case is particularly important because Texas recently enacted major changes designed to prevent employee misconduct from disappearing between school systems.

Senate Bill 571 created Chapter 22A of the Texas Education Code and substantially expanded educator and school-employee misconduct reporting requirements.

Texas Education Agency guidance says principals must report specified allegations involving certified and non-certified employees or service providers to their superintendent within 48 hours after becoming aware of evidence of the misconduct.

Covered conduct includes allegations that an employee abused or otherwise committed an unlawful act involving a student, physically mistreated a student, engaged in sexual contact or certain romantic conduct with a student or minor, engaged in inappropriate communications, or failed to maintain appropriate boundaries.

The superintendent then generally has a corresponding 48-hour obligation to submit qualifying reports to TEA or the State Board for Educator Certification.

Texas also requires those reports to move through the state’s Misconduct Reporting Portal.

The goal is straightforward: serious information should follow the employee rather than disappearing when employment ends.

Texas Also Changed Pre-Employment Disclosure Requirements

SB 571 does more than regulate what administrators must report after misconduct allegations arise.

Texas law now places additional responsibilities on applicants.

According to TEA guidance, applicants for school employment must consent to release of employment records and provide a pre-employment affidavit containing information about specified past investigations, charges, licensing actions, placement on the state Do Not Hire Registry, previous school employment, and certain terminations or resignations.

Failing to disclose required information can carry criminal consequences.

That makes the Forney allegations particularly significant because the entire purpose of the framework is to make relevant employment history harder to hide during a job change.

However, even detailed disclosure requirements still depend on accurate information from applicants, previous employers, licensing authorities and hiring administrators.

The system is only as strong as every link in that chain.

The Principal Is Also Accused of Failing to Report New Allegations

The hiring questions are only one part of the investigation involving Bailey.

According to reporting based on the arrest affidavit, two teacher aides allegedly informed Bailey in April 2026 that they had witnessed Michael engaging in inappropriate conduct involving a special-education student and making explicit comments.

Investigators allege that Bailey did not report those concerns to district officials or Child Protective Services and instead moved the student and one of the aides to another classroom.

The affidavit reportedly states that when Bailey spoke with the child’s parent, the classroom move was characterized as addressing general classroom problems rather than alleged misconduct.

Bailey has reportedly told investigators that she did not believe the physical-misconduct allegations and believed moving the student could restore classroom harmony.

Those claims have not been proven in court, and Bailey remains entitled to challenge the state’s evidence.

Still, the allegations illustrate why mandatory-reporting law does not generally allow school administrators to wait until they personally determine that an allegation is true.

Texas Professionals Now Face a 24-Hour Child-Abuse Reporting Requirement

Under current Texas law, a professional who has reasonable cause to believe a child has been or may be abused or neglected must make the required report to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services or qualifying law enforcement no later than 24 hours after first developing that reasonable cause.

That responsibility is separate from the principal-to-superintendent misconduct-reporting structure.

In other words, an administrator may have multiple obligations arising from the same information.

One involves suspected child abuse.

Another involves employee misconduct.

A principal cannot necessarily satisfy the external child-abuse requirement by simply telling a superintendent, human-resources officer or school police department.

TEA specifically notes that the statutory definition of qualifying law enforcement for this purpose does not include a police department operated by an educational entity.

The framework is deliberately designed to prevent potentially serious allegations from remaining entirely inside the same institution responsible for the employee.

Special-Education Students Make the Safeguarding Questions Even More Important

The allegations involving Michael concern students receiving special-education services.

That fact deserves attention without suggesting that students with disabilities are inherently powerless.

Some students with disabilities may face additional barriers to reporting mistreatment, particularly when communication challenges, behavioral needs, dependence on adults for personal assistance, or difficulty explaining events are involved.

That places added importance on adult observation and reporting.

Teacher aides, paraprofessionals, special educators and administrators may be among the people best positioned to notice changes in behavior, unusual interactions or potential boundary violations.

When staff members raise concerns, administrators should therefore treat those reports as information requiring careful assessment under applicable reporting laws rather than merely as classroom-management disagreements.

Strong special-education programs depend on trust between families and schools.

That trust is damaged when parents believe that adults observed warning signs but did not act.

A Name Change Alone Should Not Defeat a Modern Screening System

One of the most striking aspects of the case is the role of Michael’s legal name change.

People legally change their names for countless legitimate reasons, and a name change should not itself create suspicion.

Modern fingerprint-based screening is also specifically designed to connect a person’s identity beyond the name typed on an application.

Forney ISD itself said Michael passed state and federal fingerprint screening.

That suggests the central problem should not be framed simply as, “He changed his name and fooled the background check.”

The more important question is whether all relevant employment-history and misconduct information was available, required to be disclosed, properly reported by prior entities, and properly considered by the hiring district.

If the affidavit allegations involving Bailey are accurate, there is an additional question: whether someone inside the hiring process already knew information that the formal screening process did not capture.

That possibility is what turns the case from a technology problem into a governance problem.

School Hiring Requires More Than Checking Boxes

School districts understandably want hiring systems that are efficient.

They may process hundreds or thousands of applicants each year.

But student-safety positions cannot become purely administrative transactions.

A strong hiring process should include fingerprint-based criminal-history screening, certification verification, employment-history review, reference checks, required affidavits, searches of state misconduct or do-not-hire systems, and careful examination of unexplained gaps or inconsistencies.

That does not mean treating every applicant as guilty until proven innocent.

It means recognizing that schools hold a unique responsibility when hiring adults who will have authority over children.

The hiring process should therefore be designed to detect information that may require additional review without making automatic judgments based solely on allegations.

That balance is difficult but necessary.

Administrators Cannot Personally Override Mandatory-Reporting Thresholds

Another major lesson from the Forney investigation concerns administrator discretion.

Principals make judgment calls all day.

They decide how to respond to behavior, staffing problems, parent disputes, instructional issues and operational challenges.

Mandatory reporting is different.

When information reaches the legal threshold established by state law, the principal’s personal belief that an accusation may be exaggerated or untrue does not necessarily eliminate the obligation to report it.

That is intentional.

The people who receive allegations inside schools may know the employee personally. They may believe the employee is trustworthy. They may worry about reputational harm. They may want to avoid unnecessary escalation.

Those human reactions are precisely why legislatures establish objective reporting rules.

The administrator’s role is not to conduct a private trial before allowing information to leave the school.

It is to recognize when the legal reporting threshold has been reached and transfer the matter to authorities equipped to investigate.

“Passing the Trash” Is Ultimately an Information Problem

The phrase often makes the issue sound like a district simply hands a problematic employee to another district.

Sometimes the actual mechanism is more subtle.

Information gets fragmented.

One district knows about a parent complaint.

Another knows about a resignation.

A licensing agency knows about an investigation.

Police know about an arrest.

A superintendent knows about a personnel matter.

A future principal sees only a résumé and valid teaching certificate.

No single person sees the complete record.

That is why anti-“passing the trash” laws increasingly focus on mandatory information sharing rather than simply punishment after another incident occurs.

Texas’ newer systems attempt to create more continuity across employers.

The Forney case will test whether those reforms can overcome both technical gaps and potential human failures.

District Leadership Should Examine the Entire Hiring Chain

Whatever happens in the criminal cases, Forney ISD should examine more than the conduct of Bailey and Michael.

A comprehensive review should ask how the application moved through the district, what information was provided at each stage, who reviewed employment history, what reference checks were completed, whether prior names were identified, what state systems were queried, and whether any discrepancies should have prompted additional investigation.

The district should also examine how campus-level misconduct reports move to central administration.

If aides raise a concern involving a teacher and that concern stays at the campus level, the system needs to determine why.

Were employees trained to make their own child-abuse reports?

Did they believe informing the principal was enough?

Did district policy clearly explain that individual reporting duties cannot simply be delegated?

Could staff report concerns directly to central administration?

Was retaliation feared?

Those questions matter because preventing the next case requires understanding how information moved—or failed to move—through the organization.

The Case Also Shows Why Board Oversight Matters

School boards do not personally conduct employee background checks.

Nor should trustees manage individual hiring decisions.

But boards are responsible for governance systems.

Trustees should understand whether their district has strong hiring safeguards, whether mandatory-reporting training is current, whether required reports reach TEA on time, and whether administrators are regularly trained on changes in state law.

A board should also receive enough high-level information to identify systemic risk without improperly interfering with confidential personnel matters.

That may include aggregate data on misconduct reports, completion of mandatory training, background-screening compliance, outstanding investigations, certification issues and implementation of new state requirements.

Good governance is not micromanagement.

It is ensuring that systems designed to protect students actually function.

Due Process Remains Essential

The allegations in the Forney case are serious, but accurate reporting requires maintaining the distinction between accusation and proof.

Bailey has been arrested, but she has not been convicted.

Michael faces criminal charges, but those charges have not resulted in a finding of guilt.

Past allegations involving Michael also should not be presented as though every accusation was proven. One previous criminal case ended in an acquittal.

Those distinctions matter because the purpose of school-safety law is not to abandon fairness.

A credible safeguarding system should be capable of reporting concerns rapidly while still providing accused employees with appropriate legal process.

Protecting students and preserving due process are complementary responsibilities, not opposing ones.

What School Leaders Should Learn From Forney

The Forney case offers several lessons that administrators can apply immediately.

Background checks should be treated as one part of a larger hiring process rather than a complete guarantee of safety. Employment history, certification records, required affidavits, references and state misconduct systems all matter.

Administrators should also understand that different reporting requirements may apply simultaneously. Suspected child abuse can trigger an external reporting duty, while employee misconduct can trigger separate reporting requirements involving the superintendent, TEA or SBEC.

Most importantly, no single administrator should become the endpoint for serious safety information.

If a school’s protection system depends entirely on one principal deciding whether an allegation deserves to leave the building, the system is too fragile.

Multiple reporting pathways exist for a reason.

What Happens Next

The criminal cases involving Bailey and Michael remain active.

Investigators will continue examining the alleged conduct involving students, the hiring process, Bailey’s knowledge of Michael’s prior history and the response to concerns raised at Crosby Elementary.

Bailey will have the opportunity to challenge the allegations and evidence against her. Michael will have the same right in his criminal proceedings.

Separate educator-certification or administrative actions may also occur depending on the findings of TEA, the State Board for Educator Certification and other agencies.

Forney ISD has said it is cooperating with investigators and that the employees involved will not return to the district.

The larger policy question will remain even after the criminal cases conclude: whether Texas’ current screening and misconduct-reporting systems are strong enough to prevent concerning employment histories from becoming invisible when educators move between schools.

Key Takeaways

The Forney ISD investigation involves former Crosby Elementary Principal Wendy Bailey and former special-education teacher Jonathan Michael, who previously used the name Michael Raymond Roell. Both face criminal allegations that have not been proven.

Forney ISD initially said Michael passed DPS and FBI fingerprint background checks and held valid state certification when he was hired in October 2025. The district said it later discovered that he had legally changed his name.

A recently released arrest affidavit reportedly alleges that Bailey knew information about Michael’s previous history before he was hired and that Michael’s father told investigators Bailey suggested a name change could affect his ability to obtain the position. Those assertions remain allegations.

Bailey is also accused of failing to report later concerns raised by teacher aides involving alleged misconduct toward a special-education student.

Texas law now requires covered professionals to report suspected child abuse within 24 hours when the statutory threshold is met. Separate Texas Education Code provisions generally require principals to report specified employee misconduct to superintendents within 48 hours, with corresponding state-reporting obligations.

The broader issue is whether school districts can combine criminal screening, employment-history checks, certification records, state misconduct databases and human judgment into a system that prevents serious information from disappearing when an employee changes jobs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “passing the trash” mean in education?

It is an informal term for situations in which a school employee accused of serious misconduct leaves one school or district and later obtains another education job without the new employer receiving adequate information about previous concerns.

Did Jonathan Michael fail a Forney ISD background check?

Forney ISD has said he passed required DPS and FBI fingerprint background checks and had valid educator certification when he was hired.

Did changing his name allow him to avoid fingerprint screening?

A legal name change alone should not defeat fingerprint-based criminal-history screening because fingerprints identify the individual independently of a name. The larger question is whether relevant employment or misconduct information was available and properly reviewed.

Has Wendy Bailey been found guilty?

No. Bailey has been arrested and faces criminal charges, but the allegations against her have not been proven in court.

What does Texas require principals to report?

Current Texas law requires principals to report specified allegations of employee or service-provider misconduct to their superintendent within 48 hours. Professionals also have separate duties involving suspected child abuse, including a 24-hour reporting requirement when the statutory threshold is met.

Final Thoughts

The Forney ISD case exposes an uncomfortable truth about school safety: no screening system can be reduced to a single background check.

Fingerprint databases matter. Certification records matter. Employment references matter. Applicant disclosures matter. Misconduct-reporting systems matter.

But people still have to use those systems correctly.

If the allegations in the Bailey affidavit are eventually supported by evidence, the central failure would not simply be that an educator changed his name. It would be that information allegedly known to someone involved in the hiring process did not prevent that individual from being placed back in a classroom.

That distinction matters.

Technology can improve school safety, but technology cannot replace professional responsibility.

Likewise, mandatory-reporting statutes cannot protect children if employees treat reporting as optional, assume someone else will handle it or decide that an allegation does not deserve outside review before the appropriate authorities have seen it.

Texas has recently strengthened its laws precisely because the state is trying to prevent serious misconduct information from disappearing between schools.

The Forney investigation may become an important test of whether those reforms are sufficient.

The ultimate lesson for school leaders is straightforward: when student safety depends on information, that information must move.

It must move from the classroom to appropriate administrators.

It must move from administrators to external authorities when required.

It must move between employers when the law requires disclosure.

And it must remain connected to the individual involved rather than disappearing because a job, district or name changes.

That is how a school system stops “passing the trash” from being a phrase used after another child may already have been harmed.

Support New To Education

New To Education provides independent reporting and analysis on educational law, educator misconduct, special education, school leadership, student safety and public policy, along with educational services for students and families.

Supporting New To Education helps us continue examining the systems responsible for protecting students and holding educational institutions accountable.

Former Forney ISD Principal Arrested Over Alleged Failure to Report Abuse of Special-Education Students

Texas Moves to Enforce a 24-Hour Deadline for Reporting Suspected Child Abuse