A former Forney ISD principal has been arrested after investigators alleged she failed to report misconduct involving a special-education teacher and knew about concerns surrounding his prior employment history. The case raises broader questions about administrator reporting duties, hiring safeguards, and protection of vulnerable students.

Editorial Note

This article discusses active criminal allegations involving former Forney Independent School District employees. The charges and allegations described below have not been proven in court, and the individuals accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The article also examines Texas educator-misconduct reporting requirements and broader school-safety issues. Criminal responsibility, administrative responsibility, educator certification consequences, and district policy violations are separate matters that may involve different legal standards. This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

A Former Texas Principal Is Now Facing Criminal Charges

A widening investigation at Crosby Elementary School in Forney, Texas, has moved beyond allegations against a classroom teacher and reached the school’s former principal.

Former principal Wendy Bailey was arrested in early August after investigators alleged that she failed to report suspected abuse involving special-education students and that she had prior knowledge of concerns surrounding the teacher she hired.

According to arrest documents described by North Texas news outlets, Bailey allegedly knew that special-education teacher Jonathan Michael had a controversial employment history involving students before he joined Crosby Elementary. Investigators further allege that Bailey told Michael she could hire him if he changed his name.

Michael, who had previously used the name Michael Roell, was later hired at the campus. He now separately faces criminal charges related to alleged conduct involving special-education students.

Bailey has been charged with endangering a child and failure to report. The allegations against both former employees remain subject to the criminal process.

What makes the case especially significant for education is that it raises two different accountability questions at once: what a teacher allegedly did to students, and what a school administrator allegedly knew before and after the concerns surfaced.

What Investigators Allege About the Hiring Decision

The hiring allegations may become one of the most closely scrutinized parts of the case.

According to an arrest affidavit reported by WFAA and FOX 4, investigators allege Bailey was aware of Michael’s prior history before hiring him at Crosby Elementary in 2025.

Michael had previously worked under another legal name, Michael Roell. Reporting on the current investigation says he had faced earlier accusations involving special-education students while employed in another Texas school district. He had been criminally charged in that earlier matter but was later acquitted.

That distinction is important. An acquittal is not a conviction, and a prior accusation by itself does not automatically establish that someone committed misconduct. School districts must be careful not to treat an allegation as proof.

At the same time, school hiring decisions involving previous allegations can create difficult safety and due-process questions, particularly when the position involves direct responsibility for children with significant disabilities.

Investigators now allege that Bailey knew enough about Michael’s history that she advised him that changing his name would allow her to hire him. That claim has not been proven, but if supported by evidence it could become central to understanding whether normal hiring safeguards were intentionally bypassed or whether the situation was more complicated than the arrest documents suggest.

The Students Involved Were Particularly Vulnerable

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

Authorities allege that Michael physically mistreated students during separate incidents in early 2026. Arrest documents described by WFAA and FOX 4 allege that students were grabbed or handled violently.

Some reporting has described the children involved as students with significant communication needs. That makes the case particularly concerning from a school-safety perspective.

Students who have limited verbal communication may face additional barriers when attempting to explain what happened to them, identify an adult responsible for misconduct, or communicate an incident clearly to parents or investigators.

That does not mean every allegation involving a nonverbal or minimally verbal student should automatically be accepted as fact. It means schools need reporting and observation systems that do not depend entirely on a child being able to make a detailed verbal complaint.

Paraprofessionals, classroom aides, teachers, related-service providers, administrators, families, and other staff can all become important parts of that protection system.

Bailey Had Already Left the District Before Her Arrest

The August arrest was not the beginning of the Forney investigation.

Earlier in 2026, Forney ISD removed Michael from his position along with multiple classroom aides as part of a multi-agency investigation into alleged misconduct at Crosby Elementary. Bailey was also no longer serving as the school’s principal.

The district publicly said it had notified appropriate authorities and was cooperating with the investigation.

Michael was arrested in May and now faces two counts of injury to a child and one count of child grooming, according to arrest records reported by North Texas media.

The later arrest of Bailey represents an expansion of the case from the alleged conduct inside the classroom to the actions of school leadership.

That shift matters because misconduct investigations often begin by asking what happened directly to a student. As evidence develops, investigators may also examine who received information, when they received it, what they were legally required to do, and whether they responded appropriately.

Texas Has Strengthened Administrator Reporting Duties

The timing of this case is significant because Texas recently strengthened its educator-misconduct reporting system.

Under reforms enacted through Senate Bill 571, Texas created Chapter 22A of the Education Code and expanded reporting obligations involving school employees and service providers.

The Texas Education Agency currently tells school leaders that principals have legal, nondelegable responsibilities when they become aware of qualifying misconduct.

For certain allegations, a principal must report the information to the superintendent within 48 hours of becoming aware of evidence of misconduct. The superintendent then has corresponding reporting obligations to TEA or the State Board for Educator Certification.

Reportable conduct can include alleged physical mistreatment of a student, unlawful acts involving a student or minor, inappropriate communications, sexual conduct, romantic relationships, and failure to maintain appropriate boundaries.

Those requirements are designed to prevent serious allegations from remaining isolated at the campus level. A principal cannot simply decide that a situation is best handled informally if state law requires it to be reported.

Mandatory Reporting Is Different From Proving Abuse

One of the most important legal concepts in cases like this is that a reporting requirement generally does not require a principal to prove that abuse occurred before making a report.

That is not the administrator’s role.

When the legal threshold for reporting is met, the responsibility is usually to provide the information to the appropriate authority so that trained investigators can determine what happened.

This distinction protects students while also protecting due process. A school administrator who reports an allegation is not declaring an employee guilty. Reporting simply moves the allegation into a system designed to investigate it.

Confusing those two steps can create serious problems. If administrators believe they must personally determine whether a complaint is true before reporting it, potentially important information can remain inside the school while evidence disappears, memories fade, or additional incidents occur.

On the other hand, reporting an allegation does not justify publicly treating the accused employee as guilty before an investigation is complete. Both responsibilities matter.

The Name-Change Allegation Raises a Different Kind of Hiring Question

The allegation that Michael changed his name before being hired makes this case unusual.

Changing a legal name is not inherently suspicious. People change names for marriage, divorce, family reasons, identity, religious reasons, safety concerns, or countless other legitimate purposes.

A name change should therefore never be treated by itself as evidence of wrongdoing.

The concern in the Forney case comes from what investigators allege Bailey knew about Michael’s previous identity and employment history.

If a school administrator knowingly used a name change as a way to avoid discovering or disclosing previous concerns, that would raise a very different issue from simply hiring someone who happened to have legally changed their name.

That is why modern school hiring systems cannot rely only on a name typed into a basic internet search.

Districts need reliable employment-history checks, fingerprint-based screening, required disclosures, certification records where applicable, references, and accurate communication between former and prospective employers.

Texas has also implemented a required pre-employment affidavit intended to help districts identify certain prior misconduct concerns before hiring.

No single document can eliminate risk, but hiring protections become more effective when multiple systems work together.

Prior Allegations Create a Difficult Due-Process Problem

The Michael case also illustrates why hiring decisions involving previous allegations can be complicated.

An employer may discover that a candidate was previously investigated, accused, disciplined, arrested, or even criminally charged. Those events are not legally identical.

An accusation is not a conviction. An arrest is not a conviction. An internal employment finding may use a different standard than a criminal court, and an acquittal means prosecutors did not obtain a criminal conviction. It does not necessarily answer every employment-related question that another school district might reasonably examine.

Administrators therefore need to avoid two opposite mistakes.

One is assuming that every previous allegation proves a candidate is dangerous. The other is assuming that an absence of a criminal conviction means there is nothing else worth reviewing.

School hiring requires a more careful assessment of legally available records, professional references, certification history, documented employment findings, and the requirements of state law.

The goal is not to punish people indefinitely for allegations that were never proven. The goal is to make informed decisions about positions involving children.

Why Special-Education Classrooms Require Strong Safeguards

Students with disabilities have the same right to safe schools as every other student, but some may require additional protections because of communication, mobility, cognitive, behavioral, or medical needs.

A child who cannot easily describe an incident may depend heavily on adults noticing changes in behavior or physical condition. Parents may depend on classroom staff to communicate honestly about events they cannot observe themselves.

That makes the culture inside a special-education classroom especially important.

Aides must feel able to raise concerns about a teacher. Teachers must be able to report concerns about aides. Administrators need to respond to complaints without assuming that a respected employee could never engage in misconduct, and families need a clear route to escalate concerns when they believe a campus response is inadequate.

No system will prevent every harmful act, but systems can make it much harder for warning signs to disappear.

Administrators Cannot Treat Reporting as Optional

Principals routinely make judgment calls. They decide how to handle student discipline, parent complaints, staff conflict, instructional issues, scheduling problems, and countless other situations where there may be several reasonable responses.

Mandatory-reporting requirements are different.

When the law creates a specific reporting duty, administrators do not have the same discretion to resolve the matter quietly within the campus.

That does not mean every complaint automatically requires the same response. The facts and applicable reporting statute still matter.

But once the legal threshold is met, the administrator’s personal belief about the employee, the campus’s reputation, possible media attention, or concern about embarrassment should not determine whether the report is made.

That is one reason Texas has emphasized that administrator reporting responsibilities are nondelegable. The duty follows the position.

This Case Is Also About Information Moving Between School Districts

One of the hardest problems in educator misconduct cases is what happens when an employee leaves one district and seeks employment somewhere else.

A hiring district may perform a criminal background check and find nothing that legally prevents employment. The previous district may know much more.

There may have been an internal investigation. The employee may have resigned before discipline was completed. Concerns may have been documented but never resulted in criminal charges, or the accusation may have been investigated and found unsupported.

All of that information has different legal significance.

The challenge is making sure school systems share what state law requires while also respecting employee rights, privacy laws, and accurate reporting.

Texas’s recent reforms attempt to strengthen that system by expanding misconduct reporting and requiring additional information during hiring.

The Forney case will likely increase scrutiny of whether those protections are working as intended.

District Accountability Should Not Stop With One Principal

If Bailey is eventually found to have violated the law or district policy, individual accountability will matter.

But school systems should still ask broader questions.

Who reviewed Michael’s application? What employment history was disclosed? What records were available? Were references contacted? Did anyone else know about his prior identity or employment history? What complaints were received after he started working at Crosby Elementary? Who received those complaints, and when were district administrators and outside authorities notified?

Those questions should not be interpreted as accusations against additional employees. They are the kinds of questions any organization should ask after discovering that its safety systems may have failed.

Firing or prosecuting one person does not automatically repair a weak process.

What Forney ISD Has Said

Forney ISD has previously said that it removed the employees involved after learning of the allegations and contacted appropriate agencies.

The district described the matter as a multi-agency investigation and said it was cooperating with authorities.

Those actions matter because school districts frequently have to respond while facts are still developing.

Immediate removal from student contact can be a protective administrative action without being treated as a criminal conviction. Likewise, contacting law enforcement, child-protection authorities, TEA, or other agencies can allow independent investigators to evaluate evidence rather than leaving the matter solely in the hands of the employer.

The district’s response after discovering the allegations will likely be examined separately from the earlier hiring and reporting decisions now under scrutiny.

What Texas School Leaders Should Learn From the Case

The most useful lesson is not that every person with a complicated employment history should automatically be excluded from education. It is that school safety depends on information being taken seriously at multiple points.

Hiring systems should verify identities and employment history rather than relying on surface-level information. Administrators need to know what state reporting laws require and understand that reporting an allegation is not the same as declaring someone guilty.

Districts should also create cultures in which aides, teachers, students, and parents can raise concerns without feeling that protecting the reputation of the campus is more important than investigating what happened.

When allegations involve students with limited communication abilities, schools need additional vigilance.

A protection system is strongest when it does not depend on one person making the perfect decision. Background checks, references, employment disclosures, staff observations, reporting requirements, administrator review, outside investigations, and family communication should operate as overlapping safeguards.

If one layer fails, another should still have a chance to catch the problem.

Key Takeaways

Former Crosby Elementary principal Wendy Bailey was arrested in early August 2026 and faces charges including endangering a child and failure to report. Investigators allege she knew about concerns surrounding special-education teacher Jonathan Michael’s prior employment history before hiring him and later failed to report alleged misconduct involving students. Bailey has not been convicted.

Michael separately faces charges including two counts of injury to a child and one count of child grooming related to alleged conduct involving special-education students. Those charges also remain allegations.

Texas law now places clear reporting duties on school principals and superintendents. TEA states that principals must report certain categories of employee misconduct to superintendents within 48 hours after becoming aware of the relevant information.

The larger issue is not simply whether one principal or teacher violated the law. The case raises broader questions about employment-history checks, administrator reporting, information sharing between districts, special-education safeguards, and whether school systems can identify concerns before additional students may be exposed to risk.

FAQ

Who is Wendy Bailey?

Wendy Bailey is the former principal of Crosby Elementary School in Forney Independent School District. She was arrested in early August 2026 during an investigation connected to alleged misconduct involving a former special-education teacher.

What is Bailey accused of?

Investigators allege that Bailey failed to report suspected abuse involving students and that she had previous knowledge of concerns surrounding the teacher she hired. She faces charges including endangering a child and failure to report. The allegations have not been proven in court.

Who is Jonathan Michael?

Jonathan Michael is a former Crosby Elementary special-education teacher who previously used the name Michael Roell. He has been charged with two counts of injury to a child and one count of child grooming in connection with alleged incidents involving students.

Does a prior accusation automatically prevent someone from becoming a teacher?

No. An accusation, arrest, internal investigation, criminal charge, acquittal, and conviction are different legal events. Hiring decisions must follow applicable law and consider legally available background, employment, and certification information rather than assuming an allegation alone establishes guilt.

What does Texas require principals to report?

Texas law requires principals to report qualifying employee and service-provider misconduct to the superintendent within specified timelines. TEA currently describes a 48-hour requirement for certain allegations involving abuse, unlawful acts toward students, physical mistreatment, inappropriate communications, sexual conduct, romantic relationships, and boundary violations.

Final Thoughts

The Forney investigation is still developing, and the criminal justice system will ultimately determine whether the charges against Wendy Bailey and Jonathan Michael can be proven.

That process should not be prejudged. But schools do not need to wait for a verdict to examine the systems surrounding the allegations.

Student safety depends on more than running a background check when someone is hired. It depends on accurate employment information, administrators who understand reporting laws, staff members willing to raise concerns, districts that communicate with one another, and investigators who can act when allegations reach the required threshold.

Those protections become even more important when the students involved may have difficulty speaking for themselves.

School leadership carries substantial discretion, but some responsibilities are not discretionary. When state law requires an allegation to be reported, the purpose is to make sure one administrator is not the final judge of whether a concern deserves outside scrutiny.

The Forney case may eventually tell us much more about what happened at Crosby Elementary. For now, it offers a broader lesson for every school system:

Protecting students requires more than trusting the people we hire. It requires systems strong enough to respond when that trust may have been misplaced.

Support New To Education

New To Education publishes independent educational reporting and analysis on school law, educator accountability, special education, student rights, public policy, and the decisions affecting schools and families.

Support New To Education by sharing our reporting and helping more educators, families, students, and community members understand the legal responsibilities and accountability systems shaping public education.

Former Centerville Superintendent Faces Case Over Alleged Failure to Report Educator Misconduct

Texas Families Sue School District Over Alleged Abuse of Students With Disabilities