But, it appears, that while the newspaper may have been well intended to publish what seemed like a horrible and absurd abuse of power against a child for what most of us view as innocuous, in more careful evaluation many of us would have held the story or been more careful about identifying the child.

If a parent walks into a newspaper office announcing that their own child has been erroneously accused of wrongdoing, or had been erroneously suspected of having mischievous thoughts which were evaluated by professionals, it is a story to consider very carefully before publishing.

Put more simply as another example, if a parent enters a newspaper office and says their child was mischievous because he set the dog house on fire and as part of the punishment wants it published in the newspaper . . . Absolutely not.

Similarly, if a child is dealt with in school for being disruptive, or isn’t doing well with grades, we expect professional treatment, but in any case we don’t expect the teacher or superintendent to provide a public report on a private matter.

This blog started with the question too, about the irony of the superintendent, of which many in general are rather careful about releasing information legally in the public domain, but questioned when it came to a test between a child’s privacy and her defense we wonder which route was in her heart when she chose her path. She was put in a position to be compliant with the Boston Globe reporter, and what she said was very revealing about the other side of this story to satisfy to some degree the curiosity of public opinion, but her defense may well expose her to criticism of her professional approach and potentially could open the door greater to financial exposure to the city – - – and we all know, even in good times, there is never enough money for education.

My view is that the initial purpose of this blog was to comment on whether the newspaper editor and the school superintendent were prudent. No question, to some degree, this was a trick test given the amount of thought required under chaotic conditions, but I wouldn’t give either a very high grade even though intentions on the surface may have appeared well meaning.

Since when has it been a “cry for help” for a youngster to want to be like Jesus? I hope the father sues for millions. No surprise that the Globe leads the media acrobats attempting to kill the story. The father may not be able to match the PR skills of a superintendent with a Ed.D, but the fact that the child’s “cry for help” was only heard a week before Christmas, says it all.

Both made me smile.

I really think you’re being too cavalier about the superintendent’s ethical and legal obligation to maintain confidentiality. We all understand there are certain things doctors and lawyers can’t say no matter how much unfair criticism is being directed their way. This may be in more of a gray area, but it’s essentially the same thing.

Unfortunately, this is a big distraction to what the superintendent should be doing, but these kinds of disruptions happen on occasion – all the more reason why a highly qualified, properly motivated, innovative, kind, decent person is selected for the position, or at least that is the objective.

Instead, she joined in with an 8 year old child, a father, and a newspaper into one big mess.

This is as simple as Dan’s suggestion “There was no assignment. The child was not suspended. Beyond that, we must respect the confidentiality of the child . . .”

Of course, why Severin and his ilk should matter in this issue is beyond me, but apparently they do (for many people).

Try this: “Mr. Johnson’s allegations are false. There was no assignment. The child was not suspended. Beyond that, we must respect the confidentiality of the child and will have no further comment.”

Works for me.

My guess is, this isn’t one of the things they teach at superintendent school. You’ve running a school district in some unknown Mass. town, and the biggest thing on your mind is what you’re going to get your spouse for Christmas, then all of a sudden you have media from all over calling (and one reporter who says he “won’t leave until they answer his questions,” to which they should have responded, “We lock the doors at 6 and turn the heat to 55, so I hope you brought a warm coat”), the parent of some random student is holding press conferences, and your response has become a nationwide concern. And, amid all of this, you’re supposed to be worried about a little kid you’ve never met? How would YOU respond?