Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature

March 2004:

PURPOSE AND METHODS OF SYNTHESIS
Section 5414 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 as amended in the No Child Left Behind Act authorizes a national study of educator sexual misconduct. This synthesis reviews existing data which relate to educator sexual misconduct including the methods used to collect those data. This report documents research on educator sexual misconduct, not advice or practice recommendations unless supported by data.1 Using data related to sexual misconduct, the synthesis examines:

• Incidence and prevalence
• Offender descriptions
• Target/victim descriptions
• Patterns of misconduct
• School district responses
• Legal remedies
• Effects on targets and others
• Consequences to offenders of allegations
• Union and professional organization roles
• Prevention

1.1 Definitions.

The phenomena examined in this synthesis include behavior by an educator that is directed at a student and intended to sexually arouse or titillate the educator or the child. In this review, “educator” includes any person older than 18 who works with or for a school or other educational or learning organization. This service may be paid or unpaid, professional, classified or volunteer. Adults covered by this review might be teachers, counselors, school administrators, secretaries, bus drivers, coaches, parent volunteers for student activities, lunchroom attendants, tutors, music teachers, special education aides, or any other adult in contact in a school-related relationship with a student.

“Students” include any person, whatever age, in an educational institution up through 12th grade. This review does not examine the literature on post secondary or higher education educator-to-student sexual misconduct.

The behaviors included in the review are physical, verbal, or visual. Examples include touching breasts or genitals of students; oral, anal, and vaginal penetration; showing students pictures of a sexual nature; sexually-related conversations, jokes, or questions directed at students.

“Molestation”, “rape”, “sexual exploitation”, “sexual abuse”, “sexual harassment” – these words and phrases are often used to describe adult-to-student sexual abuse in schools. Shoop (2004) defines these behaviors as educator sexual exploitation. There is considerable discussion concerning the appropriate label for these actions. While “educator sexual abuse” is a common reference, “educator sexual misconduct” is a more appropriate term for the purposes of this review.

In naming the focus of this inquiry, I use as a guide the policy of The Ontario (Canada) College of Teachers that recommends the term educator sexual misconduct because the phrase “educator sexual abuse” fails to include the larger set of inappropriate, unacceptable and unprofessional behaviors.

By referring to “sexual abuse” the emphasis is placed on the victim, and the question of whether the victim did or did not suffer abuse or harm. This is not the appropriate focus. The proper emphasis must not be on the student, but on the teacher, who is solely responsible for his or her professional conduct. That is why the College believes it is preferable to define “sexual misconduct”. (Ontario College of Teachers, 2001, p. 3)

The Ontario College of Teachers arrived at this position as a result of a 4-year series of reports and legislation. Their policy referred to the earlier Robins report which discussed the inadequacies of the term “sexual abuse” because it failed to capture the full range of sexual misconduct which may properly be the subject of disciplinary actions by an educator’s employer.2 Further, the term conveys to many the incorrect assumption that the only types of behaviors that count as sexual abuse are physical, criminal, or involve a significant age difference.

For instance, patterns of grooming a potential victim of sexual abuse are not commonly included in criminal definitions of child sexual abuse, and yet are very much part of the pattern of abuse. Other behaviors encompassed under “educator sexual misconduct” that might not be assumed using conventional definitions are an excess of academic or school-related contacts such as email messages or telephone calls not directly related to assignments or classroom expectations, gifts to students, invitations to an educator’s home or to social events, questions about sexual activity, and offers of rides to or from school activities. While traditional definitions of sexual abuse are included under the umbrella of educator sexual misconduct, they are insufficient in describing the range of behaviors that are the focus of this report. These additional components of inappropriate behaviors cross boundaries of professional obligation, but may not yet be sexual. However, they are often the best indicators of the potential for harm. ..more.. by Charol Shakeshaft, Ph.D., Professor, Foundations, Leadership and Policy Studies, Hofstra University and Managing Director, Interactive, Inc.