University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Sexual misconduct against K-12 students: teachers' perceptions of incidents by school

(USC Thesis Other)

Sexual misconduct against K-12 students: teachers' perceptions of incidents by school

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST K-12 STUDENTS:

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF INCIDENTS BY SCHOOL WORKERS

by
Karla Freeman Rhay

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Karla Freeman Rhay

ii
Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the living memory of my father, Dr. Frank
Freeman, and to my mother, Dr. Sarah Ann Freeman, who as parents always believed in
me and taught me to reach beyond my dreams, instilling the belief that all things are
possible. I thank God for parents like you. I particularly want to acknowledge my
mother, who at age 86 continues to demonstrate strength and courage, which has further
inspired me to look to each day as an opportunity for something great to occur. Mom,
you have been waiting to see this day come to fruition, so share in the joy and excitement
with me. Your example of determination to recover to the best of your ability after your
stroke has inspired me and propelled me towards completion in writing this dissertation
while juggling single parenting, a change in employers with increased responsibility,
relocation, and finally marriage.
This dissertation is also dedicated to my loving son, Daniel Frank Rhay. I am so
blessed that God picked me to be your mom. I remain your biggest fan. As a mother, I
am pleased with your accomplishments. A new journey will begin for you after twelfth
grade. My desire is that you, too, will realize you can be anything you push yourself to
be. Remember my son, that the greatest challenge in life you will ever face lays within
your mind. Never, never, give up. And last, I would be remiss to leave out my husband,
David Williamson, who despite late nights and skipped meals over the past year has
pushed me to complete this study through firm encouragement. You have been my late-
night companion, my chief statistician and my sounding board. You are an amazing man,
and I am blessed to have you by my side.

iii
Acknowledgements

This dissertation is only possible through the grace of God and would not have
been possible without the guidance, love and support from Dr. Stefanie Phillips; your
gentle nudges were a godsend. You have mentored me through this process from the
very beginning, even when I could not see the end. Thank you for time taken to
participate on my committee.
Dr. Edmond Heatley, you never realized the impact of a simple question about my
progress; it gave me focus when I needed it most. Had I recorded that single
conversation, I may have completed this journey sooner.
Dr. Gary Thomas, you provided me with a clear vision of what leadership is. I
thank you for being a supporter of my academic pursuit.
Dr. Melora Sundt, I thank you for your support, patience and belief in me through
my personal challenges and appreciate your role as committee chair. Dr, Ron Astor, I
appreciate your time, input and expertise as a member of my committee.
A special thanks to Dr. Thomas Garnella, who encouraged me to grow
professionally and academically. To my incredible staff for keeping me motivated, thank
you. To Mr. Marcus Freeman, you held my hand more than you knew, and as my
brother, your nod of approval has always meant a lot to me.
To the rest of my family, colleagues and friends: you know who you are and the
role that you played, whether as a support to my mom through her illness or as part of the

iv
village that embraced my son while I focused on this prize. I thank you from the bottom
of my heart.

v
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ ix
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1
The Problem .................................................................................................................... 1
Overview ..................................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................. 5
Problem Description ................................................................................................. 11
Purpose of Study ....................................................................................................... 12
Research Questions ................................................................................................... 13
Significance of Study ................................................................................................ 14
Limitations of the Study............................................................................................ 15
Delimitations of the Study ........................................................................................ 15
Organization of Study ............................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2 ........................................................................................................................... 19
Literature Review.......................................................................................................... 19
Overview ................................................................................................................... 19
Understanding Sexual Misconduct ........................................................................... 21
History of Sexual Misconduct in U.S. Schools ........................................................ 23
Sexual Misconduct in Schools Today ....................................................................... 25
Policies and Practices Implemented to Address Sexual Misconduct ........................ 28
School Policies v. Legal Remedies ........................................................................... 30
Teachers’ Perceptions about Sexual Misconduct ..................................................... 37
Impact on Students .................................................................................................... 44
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 47
Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................... 48
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 48
Overview ................................................................................................................... 48
Study Design ............................................................................................................. 49
Research Questions ................................................................................................... 50
Sample and Population ............................................................................................. 50
District and Selected Schools Data ........................................................................... 51
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures ..................................................... 55
Sample Selection ....................................................................................................... 57
Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 57
Survey Document...................................................................................................... 58
Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................... 58

vi
Document Review ..................................................................................................... 60
Data Analysis Procedures ......................................................................................... 61
Limitations ................................................................................................................ 63
Summary ................................................................................................................... 63
Chapter 4 ........................................................................................................................... 65
Analysis of Data Findings ............................................................................................. 65
Overview ................................................................................................................... 65
Background of Study ................................................................................................ 67
Survey and non-responses......................................................................................... 68
First Research Question: Teachers’ Definition of Sexual Misconduct .................... 73
Sexual misconduct as defined by school personnel .................................................. 75
Behaviors school policies and laws prohibit ............................................................. 82
Training provided to the District............................................................................... 85
Common beliefs about sexual misconduct ............................................................... 85
Second Research Question: Teachers’ Reporting by Age and Experience ............ 89
Third Research Question: Barriers in Addressing Sexual Misconduct ................... 95
Barriers to Reporting Allegations of Sexual Misconduct ......................................... 96
Barriers to Training on Sexual Misconduct ............................................................ 103
Barriers to Maintaining Confidentiality of Reporting ............................................ 105
Summary ................................................................................................................. 106
Chapter 5 ......................................................................................................................... 109
Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................... 109
Overview ................................................................................................................. 109
Summary of the Findings ........................................................................................ 111
First Research Question .......................................................................................... 111
Second Research Question ...................................................................................... 114
Third Research Question......................................................................................... 116
Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 122
Implications for Policy Development and Implementation .................................... 123
Implications of the Findings ................................................................................... 126
Recommendations for Practice ............................................................................... 127
Suggestions for Additional Research ...................................................................... 132
References ....................................................................................................................... 136
Appendices .................................................................................................................. 144
Appendix A Related Board Policies ........................................................................... 144
Appendix B Teacher Survey ....................................................................................... 162
Appendix C ................................................................................................................. 167
Administrator Interview Questionnaire ...................................................................... 167
Appendix D ................................................................................................................. 169
Anonymous Information Sheets ................................................................................. 169

vii
Appendix E ................................................................................................................. 175
Verbal Consent Scripts ............................................................................................... 175

viii
List of Tables

Table 3.1 Ethnicity of Student Population by Selected Sites ............................................ 54

Table 3.2 Ethnicity of Staff Population by Selected Sites ................................................ 54

Table 3.3 Teacher Demographics ..................................................................................... 55

Table 3.4 Instruments by Site .......................................................................................... 56

Table 4.1 Data Instrument Organization ........................................................................... 66

Table 4.2 Demographic Data of Sample Group – Questions 1 – 3 ................................. 68

Table 4.3 Recognizing Sexual Misconduct - Question 4 ................................................. 75

Table 4.4 Beliefs Concerning Sexual Misconduct, Policy and/or Law – Question 9 ...... 77

Table 4.5 Beliefs Concerning Misconduct, Teachers/Staff & Students - Question 8 ...... 86

Table 4.6 Assisting Someone in Dealing with Sexual Misconduct – Question 7 ............ 91

Table 4.7 Behaviors Seen or Heard about in the past 12 Months ..................................... 92

Table 4.8 Barriers Influencing Likelihood Reporting Misconduct - Question 11 ........... 97

Table 4.9 Barriers that Influence the Decision to Report - Question 12 .......................... 99

Table 4.10 Barriers that Make it Difficult to Report ...................................................... 101

Table 4.11 Barriers that Influence Ease in the Decision to Report ................................ 102

Table 4.12 School Training/ Recognizing Sexual Misconduct - Question 5 .................. 103

Table 4.13 School Training on Recognizing Sexual Misconduct - Question 14 ............ 104

Table 4.14 Training/ Red Flag Warning Signs - Question 15 ....................................... 104

Table 4.15 Anonymous Hotline for Reporting Potential Problems - Question 16 ........ 105

Table 4.16 Integrity in Confidence of Reporting for All Schools ................................. 106

ix
List of Figures

Figure 4.1 Non-responses to Questions by School Site ................................................... 69

Figure 4.2 Survey Question Response Ratio ................................................................... 70

Figure 4.3 Teaching Experience and Non-Responses ..................................................... 71

Figure 4.4 Percentage of Missing Responses to Questions by School ............................ 72

Figure 4.5 Knowledge of School Policy and Law by School Site ................................... 78

Figure 4.6 Correct Responses Determining If Behaviors/Beliefs Contravene Policy ..... 79

Figure 4.7 Correct Responses Determining Whether Behaviors Contravene the Law .... 81

Figure 4.8 Number of Years Teaching Compared with Behaviors Seen or Heard .......... 93

Figure 4.9 Age of Teacher Compared to Behaviors Seen or Heard ................................ 93

Figure 4.10 Behaviors Seen or Heard by School Site ...................................................... 94

Figure 4.11 Peer Pressure and Reporting Difficulty ...................................................... 100

x
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate, analyze, and describe teachers’
perceptions of the occurrence of sexual misconduct in public elementary, middle and
high school settings. The study explored and assessed teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of
sexual misconduct to ascertain why it is prevalent among school workers from the
perspective of the bystander. Ultimately, the purpose of this study was to examine
whether programs, policies and training offered through school district employers are
useful tools to avert school workers from demonstrating this type of inappropriate
behavior.
The study described how teachers from an urban, unified school district perceived
sexual misconduct involving children by school workers. The purpose of the findings
from this study is to contribute knowledge that will help others to enhance their
understanding of the nature of the problem. Data collected from the district consisted of
document reviews, completed teacher surveys, and oral interviews with school
administrators. I have carefully reviewed, analyzed and interpreted this data to provide a
deeper insight.
An initial analysis indicated that the school met the basic requirements of having
policy and training in place. District policy language on sexual harassment provides
stated consequences for violators but does not accurately address today’s issues
concerning educator misconduct. Thus, despite the presence of a program addressing
sexual misconduct, indicators of this research revealed that more needs to be done to

xi
ensure that all employees within the district are aware of their role in this battle. With
continued focus and support, implementation of new sexual misconduct training
strategies and further policy development, the district may be better able to mitigate
sexual misconduct or prevent it from occurring altogether. The results of this study
provide a resource for anyone wanting to improve programs, policies, and training in
order to reduce the frequency of sexual misconduct by school workers using identified
practices. Additional studies in this area are recommended in order to fully understand
educator sexual misconduct, and the continued development of policies designed to stop
this phenomenon is recommended.

1
Chapter 1
The Problem
Overview

Tabloid headlines, the five o’clock news, local and national newspapers and talk
radio have collectively brought one molestation scandal after another into households
across the United States. Over the past decade, publicized cases of sexual misconduct
between adults and children have shocked us, and society has confronted countless
stories of misconduct within families, on college campuses, over the internet, and
between coaches and their team members. Our nation was overwhelmed at hearing of the
Catholic Church allegations and devastated by recent cases of sexual misconduct
occurring in our nation’s public schools. According to an article by CNN (2003), the
media began reporting allegations of past abuse involving clergy from the Catholic
Church and their under-aged parishioners as early as the mid 1980’s. While a range of
documented clergy-child misconduct has been occurring in the Catholic Church
community since the beginning of the twentieth century, priests were able to maintain
secrecy by traumatizing their victims, instilling fear in their parents, and moving from
parish to parish whenever they felt their actions might be revealed (Gerdes, 2004). All
this only became public in the mid 1980’s when parishioners complained about their
suspicions of extensive past sexual molestation and child abuse, and with the occurrence
of litigation in the early 2000’s.

2
Still it was not until January 6, 2002 that the allegations of a cover-up by Cardinal
Law and the Catholic Church broke into a national controversy (Boston Globe, 2002).
The data revealed that upper echelons of the clergy (Boston Globe, 2002) had protected
the most abusive priests in the churches where sexual abuse had been reported. Repeat
abusers were then moved from one location to another by church authorities as rumors
surfaced, leaving the child victims and their families without any recourse or support
from the church until these stories became public much later (Associated Press, 2005).
Headlines addressing sexual misconduct have since evolved to include the
nation’s schools. Over just the last decade, teachers, counselors, administrators and even
coaches have been implicated in sexual misconduct cases in alarmingly high numbers—
even when compared to the past five decades of allegations of improper sexual conduct
by abusive priests (Dougherty, 2005). Notably, while public awareness of this issue
remains heightened with regards to the Catholic Church, there has been little or no outcry
in response to news of sexual misconduct in public schools. Eight weeks after the U.S.
Department of Education released Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing
Literature (2004) prepared by Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, the National Catholic Register
(2006), which already had expressed concerns that the media were ignoring educator
misconduct but reporting clergy misconduct in great depth instead, ran its own search on
the subject of sexual misconduct. The result was that they found no articles to support a
media phenomenon addressing “educator sexual misconduct” similar to that seen with the
volumes of coverage on abuse in the Catholic institutions. The reason may be that

3
studies or hard data on abusive school workers are limited and what information does
exist has yielded somewhat inconclusive results (Zemel, 1999).
In June 2002, the Associated Press reported that the number of abuse cases
affecting the Catholic Church had surpassed sex abuse cases in the schools. Yet,
according to a comparison found in the National Catholic Register (2006), sexual
misconduct cases involving public schools received far less media attention than the
Catholic Church scandals dating over several decades. Their contrast for the first six
months of 2002 found that sixty-one of the largest newspapers in California alone ran
1,744 stories on the misconduct occurring in churches; during the same time, those
newspapers downplayed the issue of sexual misconduct in public schools and ran only
four stories on it. As a result, the National Review Board of the Catholic Church directed
the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
1

1
“The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States
from 1950-2002” publicly released, February 27, 2004.
in New York City to conduct a descriptive
study of the problem within the Catholic Church in the United States, including
comparative data such as statistics on perpetrators and victims in church and school
scandals, in order to understand the problem of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church more
fully. What they found was that 10,667 underage individuals had filed reports alleging
sexual abuse, but when the John Jay investigators sought specific data on sexual
misconduct with minors, including the educational data on sexual misconduct for
comparisons to Church figures, they found what they believed to be inconclusive
information due to the limited amount of school data available. Indeed, no other

4
organization has opened its files as the Catholic Church has done on its clergy to provide
comprehensive figures for those accused of child sexual abuse (Pfeifer, Lentz, 2007);
even within the Catholic Church, there were many dioceses that failed to cooperate.
Despite the lack of a broad public outrage, educational institutions are not
insulated from the tragedy of child sexual abuse uncovered in the Catholic Church. Print
media have shed some light on the fallout of abuse of trust by sexual predators in
schools. The Los Angeles Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Las Vegas Review Journal
are just three newspapers that have published series of stories on educator sexual abuse.
Not surprisingly, schools and churches share similarities in their relationship to adult-
child sexual misconduct. Both are social institutions with which families become
familiar and in which they invest their trust (ERIC, 1990). As with the church, children
in schools are vulnerable to abuse by adults because of their consistent, ongoing contact
with the institution and its workers, contact which creates familiarity and trust through
established relationships (Lumsden, 1991).
There are several generalized studies on child sexual abuse; however there are
only four nationwide studies that attempt to explain sexual misconduct affecting public
school students. The first of the studies, Hostile Hallways: The AAUW Survey on
Sexual Harassment in America's Schools (American Association of University Women,
2001, 1993) addresses all forms of student sexual harassment, including sexual
misconduct by school personnel. The remaining studies, A Trust Betrayed, Sexual Abuse
by Teachers (Hendrie, 1998), later updated as Trust Betrayed. An Update of Sexual
Misconduct in Schools (Hendrie, 2003); Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of

5
Existing Literature (Shakeshaft, 2004); and Educator Sexual Misconduct in Schools:
Implications for Leadership Preparation (Fauske, 2006) specifically address educator
sexual misconduct. In addition, a research study conducted by the John Jay College of
Justice in 2002 honed in on allegations of misconduct within the Catholic Diocese using
nationwide data on child sexual abuse.
However, the most referenced studies were completed by Shakeshaft (2004) and
the AAUW (2001). These two reports do not answer all of the reasonable questions that
parents, students, educators, and the public may ask about educator sexual misconduct,
but what these studies do tell us is the prevalence of sexual misconduct involving
educators through an analysis of comparative data. Each addresses behaviors that student
victims encounter by teachers or other school workers who victimize students, but none
provides any insight from a bystander’s perspective, such as a teacher. The purpose of
the current study is to provide additional research on educator misconduct by examining
views of teachers in a K-12 school setting. With this research, we may be able to better
understand the prevalence of sexual misconduct, understand why it is occurring, and
determine how to address this type of behavior in order to stop it from occurring in the
future.
Background
The sexual abuse of children by school workers is an example of the increasingly
reported phenomenon of sexual misconduct by adults known to their child victims. In
addition to its impact on traumatized children, educator sexual misconduct has increased
school liability, leading to expensive legal settlements from misconduct claims. The last

6
twenty years have also seen a significant increase in the number of court decisions
concerning discipline of school workers for reasons of immorality (National School
Boards Association, 1986). An increase in sexual harassment or misconduct in schools
has been confirmed by the number of reported claims. The issue for schools that is
leading to increased litigation is whether the employee sexual misconduct can be
attributed to the school district employer. Such litigation takes place in court
jurisdictions across the United States, in both federal and state courts. One of the first
court cases of educator sexual misconduct came in the 1998 case of Gebser et al. v Lago
Vista Independent School District, which involved a ninth grade high school student who
had an ongoing sexual relationship with one of her teachers. She never reported the
relationship, but when the two were discovered having sex, the teacher was arrested and
his contract with the district terminated. A claim for damages was filed under Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972. In this particular case, the United States Supreme
Court did not hold the district liable for damages under Title IX for the teacher’s
inappropriate behavior with his student because it felt that the district was not responsible
for taking steps to prevent the abuse. Instead, this early case outraged many, implying
that a student has no right to expect a safe and harassment free school. The impact of this
verdict appears not to have had any impact on current day reporting and filing of claims.
Today, we see allegations, claims and litigation based on the causal connection between
the behavior of the perpetrator and his or her job performance made public. In an
Associated Press investigation conducted in 2007, reporters gained disciplinary records
of school employees involved in sexual misconduct (in all 50 states and the District of

7
Columbia). The results were overwhelming. Their seven-month investigation revealed
that 2,570 educators with teaching credentials that had been either revoked, denied,
surrendered or sanctioned from 2001 through 2005 following allegations of sexual
misconduct (Fox News, 2007). This is a long cry from the 1998 case of Gebser et al. v
Lago Vista Independent School District, where the justices found no fault with a school
district when its employee was caught in the act of sex with a young teenage student.
Since public school districts are political subdivisions of the state, child sexual
abuse cases arising from the public school sector may be based in the Education
Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) and § 1983 civil rights actions. Public and private school
litigation claims of negligent hiring and supervision address retention of employees who
sexually abuse students. Under Title IX, a public school employer may be sued for an
employee’s misconduct. Schools face liability when allegations of sexual misconduct are
brought forward without there being clear policies and investigative procedures adopted
by the district.
An analysis of data between 2000 and 2003 from the National Center for Victims
of Crime (2004) show that incidences of sexual misconduct, particularly assaults against
children, have increased when compared with previous decades. Further reported for this
same time, 90% of those involved in sexual misconduct issues never faced sentencing. In
part, the perpetrators are people whom victims trust and who selected their victims
primarily because of their age and vulnerability at the time of the abuse. Some victims
were so young when the sexual abuse occurred that they did not know at the time the
sexual predators’ behavior was sexual. Such abuse is not only a breach of boundaries,

8
but also a violation of vulnerable children and a betrayal of their trust. Perpetrators will
often intimidate or pressure their child victims not to press charges through threats or
shaming (Ramsland, 2006).
Research shows that sexual misconduct is the most underreported crime,
suggesting a broad need for existing statistics to be questioned (Zemel, 1999). There are
several reasons for this; all but one relate to bystander perceptions: 1) there is a
perception that the victims themselves do not recognize it as a crime; 2) there is a
perception that others will not recognized it as a crime; 3) victims fear that they will not
be believed; 4) victims fear retaliation from either the perpetrator or their community;
and finally, 5) researchers are hesitant to scrutinize such a volatile topic, as they perceive
it could alienate them from their academic peers (Shakeshaft, Cohan, 1995).
A well-documented case that describes this endemic behavior and addresses
bystander perceptions is that of a thirty-four year old Seattle schoolteacher, Mary Kay
Letourneau. Prior to Letourneau serving a 7 ½-year prison term for having a sexual
relationship with a 12-year-old, her colleagues and family noticed her favoring the sixth
grader. Even the child’s mother, though suspicious, knowingly allowed her son to spend
unusual amounts of time with his teacher. The bystanders who might have noticed
something unusual included co-workers, administrators, family and a parent; all had
opportunities to report their suspicion long before the sexual nature of the relationship
was established firmly. The inability of those individuals close to the situation to
recognize such inappropriate behavior is an example of society’s unwillingness or
inability to recognize educator misconduct and representative of a much larger set of

9
behavioral problems (ERIC, 1990). The bystanders did not act to protect the child until it
was clear by the damage that something actionable had occurred. Even more unsettling
is that after being arrested, Letourneau herself reflected on the incident in an interview
with Larry King, an award-winning American writer, journalist and broadcaster, claiming
that she did not realize “it was a felony” for an adult to engage in sex with a minor but
rather understood it to be abnormal (CNN.com).
This incident supports the need for a broader awareness of what constitutes sexual
misconduct (McIntyre, 1987). The Letourneau case, being that it involved a female
perpetrator, also contained examples of sexism, gender bias and biological gender
differences suggesting that public perception is more accommodating when the
perpetrator is a woman. Women pedophiles may be seen as less threatening than their
male counterparts. If this story had been about a male teacher and his underage female
student victim, the outcome would have likely been far more severe (ERIC 1990). A
1998 study by Education Week, a magazine aimed at school administrators, reported 244
active investigations of teacher misconduct nationwide in one six-month span. The
magazine published the findings in a report called "A Trust Betrayed: Sexual Abuse by
Teachers" that consisted of a three-part, twelve-story series describing sexual abuse of
students by school workers. Post-Gazette education writer Jane Zemel published another
story November 1, 1999 entitled "Dirty Secrets: Research on abuse limited but indicates a
pervasive problem" and quoted Education Week deputy managing editor Stephen
Drummond as saying that his research on "A Trust Betrayed" was "the most controversial
thing I've worked on." When an abridged version of the series was reprinted in Teacher

10
magazine, angry teachers wrote to Drummond and his co-writer Caroline Hendrie, calling
their coverage "sensationalism" and "a disgrace" (Zemel, 1999).
Child sexual misconduct reflects an imbalance of power and control (Pfeifer,
Lentz, 2007). It is destructive and its impact can devastate students, parents, school
districts and the community at large (Goorian, 1999). Teachers and other school workers
may feel reluctant to report suspected misconduct because of their lack of understanding
of what constitutes good faith reporting (Lumsden, 1991). These types of reports indicate
that we must investigate the role of the bystander and the difficulty child victims face in
coming forward. The Education Week report suggests that more needs to be done to keep
children safe at school, recognizing that policies need to be changed (Clowes, 1999).
While policies have little to do with true prevention, the scope of a national study
(1993) by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) found that of
students they polled, 81 percent reported that they had been sexually harassed. Of those,
eighteen percent said the harassment came from an adult who worked in their school.
The AAUW study anticipated that an increased awareness among students
knowledgeable of school policies dealing with sexual misconduct would result in fewer
reported incidents because students would feel as though there would be consequences
for the behavior. However, the findings concerning such increased awareness predicted
by the AAUW study did not always transform into fewer reported incidents as expected,
an issue this research will explore in Chapter 2.

11
Problem Description

The anxiety of lawsuits filed against districts and their employees has created an
atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, leading to state laws and regulations about sexual
harassment in schools. In some cases, this fear is spawned by students who may be
misapplying the label of sexual misconduct to incidents that could fall under other labels
such as sex discrimination (Stein, 1999).
With legislation in place like Megan’s Law
2
and mandated reporting laws
3
Failure to understand what behavior constitutes sexual misconduct, on the one
hand, and the laws governing sexual behaviors, on the other, may result in a school
district missing the warning flags all together. The problem is rendered even more
complicated by the lack of a uniform system of regulation among states. For example,
laws banning sex between teachers and students exist in some states, specifically in
,
studies have evolved concerning school violence and safety; however, few studies
reference sexual misconduct and even fewer address such behavior by school workers
(Furlong, Greif, Bates, Whipple, Morison, 2005). In particular, we know little about why
co-workers hesitate to report, a problem evidenced by an overall lack of information and
the relatively small number of coworker complaints. Research is needed that addresses
bystander roles, behavior issues, frequency and types of misconduct, and prevention
strategies that should be in place to protect children from sexual predators in our nation’s
schools.

2
Assembly Bill 488 (Nicole Parra)
3
Penal Code Section 11164-11174.3

12
California; however, in other states, there are only statutory rape laws in place
(Dougherty, 2005).
In particular, the term “inappropriate behavior” often used in school policies is so
vague that it leaves “drawing the line” open to one’s subjective viewpoint. Though
developed from public perception, the term has normalized the meaning of sexual
misconduct to equate to sexual harassment (Hendrie, 1998). The problem is more
perverse given that school workers who violate children are surrounded by other school
workers, suggesting that school staff members are unfamiliar with what constitutes
appropriate and inappropriate behavior in this arena. This leads us to the real question of
why inappropriate behavior is not being either identified or reported by bystanders who
work alongside the abusers, and why they are not stepping up to tell what they witness.
Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of teachers in a
K-12 environment as they relate to sexual misconduct by school employees involving
children in schools. As demonstrated by news headlines, the numbers of reported sexual
misconduct issues between school staff and students continue to increase (Neddermeyer,
2000). However, other than tabloids depicting the latest student/teacher sex scandal,
there is currently limited published information on this topic.
This study seeks to uncover to what extent school personnel perceive sexual
misconduct as a serious offense. To this end, this study examines perceptions from a
randomly selected sample of teachers to determine their level of awareness concerning

13
student sexual misconduct issues. If teachers do not perceive the inappropriateness of
sexually charged behavior, they will not report it, become a witness or respond
appropriately if confided in.
Through interviews and a survey, I aim to examine the extent to which teachers
correctly identify behaviors as sexual misconduct and the conditions under which they
would report it. In cases where teachers neither recognize these behaviors nor choose to
report their colleagues, the researcher anticipated gaining a better understanding of these
teachers’ perceptions toward sexual misconduct by school workers.
By focusing on the perceptions of teachers, this research will provide insight on
common perceptions and misconceptions. Furthermore, it will identify where typically
practiced strategies that seek to reduce the frequency of inappropriate behaviors need
examining. The results of this study should provide a framework for school districts to
implement policy and programs that will improve their ability to protect children from
sexual misconduct at the hands of school workers.
Research Questions

There are three questions that will guide the research, making it possible for us to
learn from teachers’ perceptions and beliefs surrounding sexual misconduct.
1. How do teachers define sexual misconduct by school personnel? To what
extent are their definitions correct, according to school policy? What are
teachers’ common beliefs about sexual misconduct?

14
2. What has been teachers’ experience with sexual misconduct by their peers,
targeting students? To what extent do demographics play a role in allegations
of sexual misconduct?
3. What do teachers perceive as barriers in addressing or reporting sexual
misconduct?
Significance of Study

Current literature describes the role of a teacher as one of ensuring that a high
level of student learning is taking place (Barrett, 1986). If this is to happen, teachers
today can no longer function simply as lesson presenters, but must also be responsible for
creating a safe environment conducive to learning (Heatley, 2002). Hunter Brimi (2009)
examined the role that teachers play in the moral development of American students.
Brimi suggests that historically, the cornerstone in American education has been to
develop a society of moral citizens; he quickly points out that with the barrage of
academic accountability standards, teachers may have trouble striking a balance between
achieving academic excellences and assisting with students’ character development.
The school administrator ensures that teachers receive the tools necessary to
perform their function, evaluates their successes and develops programs and teaching
strategies to support student learning. Although school staff is aware that they are
mandated reporters of the court, the teacher or other school workers may be
unknowledgeable with regards to indicators or “red flags” that would identify a potential
child predator within the school. Consequently, a certain level of awareness should be

15
attained, given the sensitivity of the issue and the schools’ mandate to protect students
through a safe and orderly learning environment (Gittens, 1990).
If school workers are unable to recognize sexual misconduct and perhaps worse,
if they tolerate it, then incidents of sexual misconduct will go unreported (McIntyre,
1987). Children who are victims, left on their own, will likely not disclose abuse to
school officials, parents or even their peers due to embarrassment, guilt or shame
(Lockyer, 2003). Thus, this child’s learning is short-circuited, and the cycle will continue
to suppress the problem of sexual misconduct, making it more difficult to address or
more importantly, to prevent it from occurring in our schools.
Limitations of the Study

The design of the study presents a range of limitations. Respondents to the survey
will participate on a volunteer basis and may choose to stop or not address all questions
on the survey. Surveys will be limited in their capacity to obtain in-depth responses. The
researcher will attempt through the survey instrument to articulate clear, purposeful
questions to ensure the level of understanding of the respondents that participate in the
teacher survey. In addition, the same set of limitations will apply to the administrators
that participate in the oral interview questions.
Delimitations of the Study

The study will focus on teacher perceptions of sexual misconduct towards
students by school workers and generalize its conclusions. Every effort applied will

16
ensure that this researcher’s interpretation of the data collected and disseminated through
the survey instrument shall fully reflect the respondents’ intended responses. Data
collected will come from one pre-identified elementary, middle and high school within a
single district. The findings from this study are within the boundaries of the schools
selected and may not reflect changes to future policies and procedures at the affected
school sites or in the district itself.
Assumptions

The researcher will make the following assumptions:
1. The measures utilized in this study will be reliable and valid.
2. The measures of this work will accurately record and analyze the
findings.
There are a number of terms used by current researchers interchangeably
throughout the literature. The majority of definitions relating to sexual misconduct are
often misused or applied incorrectly because of a lack of clarity or understanding (Stein,
1992). The same set of circumstances or rules that apply to the legal term “sexual
harassment” applies to educator sexual misconduct involving students, their teachers or
other school workers.
Although the literature review defines key terminology, for the purpose of this
study, understanding the following terms will provide a context in relating to sexual
misconduct as discussed in the study:

17
Sexual abuse. Applies to sexual assault, sexual exploitation or other related
conduct; includes sexual contact with a minor.
Sexual harassment. Unwelcome verbal, physical or visual conduct of a sexual
nature.
Sexual misconduct. A broader term used to describe unwanted or unwelcome
behavior of a sexual nature; applies to levels of behavior that range from non-
contact (exhibitionism, making sexual comments, taunting and inquiring of one’s
sexual activity) to contact behavior (molestation, fondling, touching, kissing,
sexual or genital contact).
Organization of Study

This dissertation will provide an in-depth analysis of teachers’ perceptions about
their role in combating sexual misconduct against students in K-12 settings. In this study,
understanding how teachers in particular perceive or understand school policies, practices
and procedures will be a significant factor in identifying what triggers reporting of
suspicious behavior by school personnel. Chapter 1 has set the stage by bringing forth
the problem and identifying cause for alarm by framing the area, public schools, needing
further study.
Chapter 2 will review current literature on sexual misconduct reporting and
establish a historical perspective for this discussion to understand who reports these
cases. It will focus on the bystander by covering key topics such as case law and
perpetrator behavior that have become the axis of the issue of sexual misconduct in

18
public schools. Chapter 3 explains the research design and instrumentation used in the
study. The intent is to describe in detail the processes contributing to research methods
and procedures for data collection, analysis, and reporting. Chapter 4 will present the
data collected in the study. The survey instrument will address the research findings
based on an analysis and interpretation of the data gathered. In reviewing the key themes
of the study, Chapter 5 will provide implications, recommendations, and conclusions that
will follow a summary of the problem, methodology, and major findings.

19
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Overview

In accordance with a requirement of former President Bush’s No Child Left
Behind Act, in 2002 the Department of Education carried out a study of sexual
misconduct in the nation’s school system. That report has gained nationwide status,
stating that 422,000 California public-school students would be victims before
graduation, a number that appears to dwarf the state’s entire Catholic-school enrollment
of 143,000 (Hoopes, 2006). Moreover, the number of children victimized by sexual
misconduct is only an estimate since it is one of the most underreported forms of child
abuse (Zemel, 2007).
Mounting an assault against sexual misconduct in schools is of critical importance
to both school personnel and the public interest (U.S. Department of Education, 2004,
2008). The Federal government holds local and state governance structures accountable
for levels of student safety as well as academic performance. Educational leaders tout the
idea that every student can achieve at high standards if given the opportunity to
demonstrate mastery of content (Phillips, 2005), but to do so requires a safe learning
environment. A school that is academically low performing for several years in a row
must institute a systemic reform. If it yields no evidence of significant gains, the site
administrator pays the ultimate price and could be removed under NCLB (Phillips, 2005).
In comparison, however, schools where there has been more than one incidence of sexual

20
misconduct in a given period do not face any additional sanctions, which makes them less
accountable for providing a safe environment than for attaining academic standards.
Furthermore, there is more data available related to academic accountability than
educator sexual misconduct (Brimi, 2009). Consequently, teachers must strike a balance
between achieving quantifiable academic standards and establishing a safe learning
environment, and this includes recognizing or being trained to aid students who may fall
victim to educator misconduct. Terri L. Miller, mother of four from Pahrump, Nevada,
who assisted with the passage of a 1997 Nevada law prohibiting sex between educators
and students observed, "I send my children to school to be educated, not to be abused by
the person I'm entrusting them with" (Clowes, 1999). Schools are to ensure that all
students have a safe and orderly environment in which to learn. While there is an
enormous focus on meeting standardized test scores and closing the achievement gap,
educators are at the same time in a unique position to prevent children from becoming
victims of educator misconduct. Moreover, they can help those who do become victims
to escape the pain and suffering that results in cases of abuse, through reporting and by
ensuring that they obtain counseling services (Lockyer, 2003). These measures protect
children against repeat abuse and secure a safer learning environment so that the
educational focus can be maintained. Further, children have a constitutional right to
personal security and to bodily integrity, protected under the substantive component of
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This right includes freedom from
sexual abuse at the hands of public school employees (Pfeifer & Lentz, 2007).

21
This chapter provides a review of the literature addressing teacher perceptions of
sexual misconduct against students by school workers. Acknowledgement of these
perceptions may allow us to understand why more school staff do not intervene if they
see or believe that there may be a student victim in their midst. This “inactive” behavior
known as bystander behavior occurs when someone witnesses a problem and does not do
something about it (Berkowitz, 2007). The researcher has divided this chapter into five
sections in order to gain insight into why incidents of sexual misconduct go unreported:
(a) Understanding Sexual Misconduct; (b) History of Sexual Misconduct in U.S. Schools;
(c) Sexual Misconduct in Schools Today; (d) Policies and Practices Implemented to
Address Sexual Misconduct and (e) Teachers’ Perceptions about Sexual Misconduct.
Understanding Sexual Misconduct

There does not appear to be one standard definition of sexual misconduct, but the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (Public Law 100-294) defines it as “physical
or mental injury, sexual abuse or exploitation, negligent treatment, or maltreatment of a
child under the age of 18.” Sexual misconduct is also defined as “unwanted and
unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature” (Goorian, 1999). It is a term used to describe a
range of behaviors including sexual harassment, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation,
molestation or rape between an adult and a student in schools (Shakeshaft, 2004).
In Canada, the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT), established in 1997 to provide
a forum for teachers to regulate and govern their own profession, suggests that the term
“sexual misconduct” is more suitable because other common phases fail to include the

22
broader set of inappropriate, unacceptable and unprofessional behaviors. This type of
misconduct is not solely restricted to physical contact; for example, it can include “no
contact” abuse, such as exposure, voyeurism, and child pornography (American
Psychological Association, 2001).
Schools, local authorities or other professionals called into these cases may not
have a clear definition or understanding of the problem; therefore they may choose
ineffective interventions. This lack of clarity remains so common that it causes
disagreement over what actually constitutes sexual abuse or child sexual misconduct
among researchers and practitioners. Russell (1983) confirms this phenomenon:
There is no consensus among researchers and practitioners about what sex
acts constitute sexual abuse, what age defines children, nor even when the
concept of sexual abuse is preferable to others such as sexual
victimization, sexual exploitation, sexual assault, sexual misuse, child
molestation, sexual maltreatment, or child rape…Cases in which children
are raped or otherwise sexually abused by their peers, younger children, or
children less than five years older than themselves, are often discounted as
instances of sexual abuse.

Regardless of the description chosen for such behavior, sexual misconduct by
teachers, administrators, and other school workers is a problem of great magnitude as
evidenced by the increased media attention the problem has attracted over the past
decade. The issue of sexual misconduct in public schools is a legitimate and credible
problem in today’s society, affecting male and female students across the nation (Chuang
& Kleiner, 1999).

23
History of Sexual Misconduct in U.S. Schools

Understanding the history of sexual misconduct in U.S. schools lays the
foundation for understanding the kind and frequency of sexual misconduct that occurs in
the present day. Judith Berman Brandenburg’s (1997) theory is that the roots of sexual
misconduct stem from sex-role attitudes and stereotypes. As children grow up, these sex-
roles and stereotypes become reinforced by the media and society. Television, sports,
military and until recent years, books portray males as strong, active, independent and
aggressive (Scott, 1982), whereas the female has been stereotyped as being passive and
dependent or even non-existent in certain career fields or spheres of activity thought to be
male dominated (Davis, Millon, Blaney, 1999). Over time, society and even schools
have fostered these gender stereotypes, setting the context for sexual misconduct
resulting from inappropriate behavior (Sadker, M., & Sadker, D., 1994).
What the literature tells us is that sexual misconduct is a complicated,
inappropriate behavior that is frequently although not always associated with issues of
power and sex, especially involving the exploitation of a power relationship such as that
between teacher and student (Brandenburg, 1997). Shoop (2004) describes three phases
of exploitation between the adult and student described later in the chapter. According to
Louise Gerdes (2004), prior to 1973, student sexual misconduct was not a critical issue,
nor was the term used by society to describe such behavior. In the 1970’s, public
attitudes began to shift toward viewing sexual misconduct towards children as a
consequence of social, political and economic changes. By the 1980’s, civil courts began

24
to hear cases dealing with perceptions of negligence and malpractice that resulted from a
failure of professional organizations to report incidents of sexual abuse, a term used to
describe a specific type of misconduct (Gerdes, 2004).
However, from the headlines of local newspapers to the proceedings of the
Supreme Court, sexual misconduct continues to generate attention and has gained
momentum over the past decade (ERIC, 1990). The increasing interest is the result of
media attention to cases in which persons of trust, such as school workers, day care
providers, clergy, and scout leaders, have been accused and/or convicted of this type of
sexual misconduct (Winters, 2005). During this same mid-1980s period, the nation’s
bishops started to address in private reports the sexual abuse problems of American
clergy. Prosecutors filed criminal allegations of child sexual abuse against priests,
ministers, church workers and other members of religious affiliations (Farrell, 2004).
Church officials struggled with their own fear as revelations of this type of child abuse
surfaced involving clergy (Gerdes, 2004). The American public had been in disbelief
until the 1990’s, when it became apparent after multiple allegations surfaced and
investigations followed that not only were such sexual activities possible, but even may
have constituted a relatively common practice for some “celibate” clergy (Frawley-
O'Dea, 2007).
During the 1990’s, when sexual misconduct issues affecting women became a
major focal point of protective legislative issues, former co-chair of the Congressional
Caucus on Women’s Issues Pat Schroeder and former Maine Senator Olympia Snowe led
the movement to change existing laws through drafting and the adoption of legislation

25
dealing with what we know as sexual harassment. As a result of their efforts, in 1991 the
courts enacted a “reasonable woman” standard that became the benchmark for what
constituted suitable behavior as it pertained to sexual misconduct cases. The purpose of
this legal procedure is to judge if the work environment is abusive or hostile (Chuang &
Kleiner, 1999). However, Chuang & Kleiner further assert that while the intent behind
the “reasonable woman” standard was to decide if specific behaviors were indeed
harassing to women, it had little or no ability to discern inappropriateness in behaviors
that might be instances of sexual misconduct toward children, which leads us to the
present discussion.
Sexual Misconduct in Schools Today
A good proportion of data on child sexual misconduct issues was derived from
child welfare or law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, this information is incomplete
and does not identify the perpetrator, making it difficult to analyze connections between
this body of data and the present study concerning educator sexual misconduct. Sadly, it
does not take much research to find cases of educator sexual misconduct, as there have
been an alarmingly high number of such cases depicted by the media occurring in public
schools across the nation.
The most recent case study is a seven-month long investigation by the Associated
Press (2007), which found more than 2,500 cases of educator abuse. The investigation
centered on cases of reported abuse between 2001 and 2005. The study suggests that the

26
number of abusive school workers account for nearly fifteen claims per week, indicating
that sexual misconduct in schools is a much broader problem than society may realize.
In another study, Education Week created a database of more than 200 cases of
educator-student sexual misconduct that were active between March 1998 and August
1998. The cases ranged from “single unexpected assaults to sexual relationships”
overlapping several years that included occurrences of unwanted touching to frightening
incidents of serial rape. All of these were acts committed by educators and other school
workers upon children whose care they were entrusted by parents. The Education Week
study reported that:
• More than 7 out of 10 suspects were teachers, with principals, janitors, bus
drivers, and librarians making up most of the rest.
• The average age of suspects was 28, with a range of 21 to 75.
• Eighty percent of the suspects were men; one-third of the victims were boys;
and, twenty percent of the suspects were women; two-thirds of the victims
were girls.
• Student victims ranged from kindergartners to high school seniors, although
more than two-thirds of the cases involved high school students ages 14 to 18.
• No type of school was immune to abuse: public or private, religious or
secular, rich or poor, urban or rural.
• Abuse occurred at the school itself and in school buses, homes, motel rooms,
and cars.

27
• In nearly half of the cases, suspects were accused of abusing more than one
student.
Overwhelmingly, the literature reveals that much of the abuse, misconduct or
inappropriate behavior was not reported to the authorities, supporting the Associated
Press (2007) finding that these cases go underreported. Of those cases reported, many
reports indicated that there was no action taken against the perpetrator. In other cases, it
has been found that the abusers may have impacted the lives of several victims, who were
too often willing to deny the abuse, resulting in the case itself not being proven (Shoop,
1999). In a National Radio Public Broadcast interview with Commentator Neal Conan in
Washington, Dr. Charol Shakeshaft (2007), renowned researcher on educator sexual
misconduct, stated that the most disturbing news on the subject today is that while we
know of incidents of educator sexual misconduct, there is no known way to keep
molesting teachers or other school workers out of classrooms. Dr. Carla van Dam (2001)
has a similar view. In her book, Identifying Child Molesters: Preventing Child Sexual
Abuse by Recognizing the Patterns of the Offenders, she states that we also do not know
the percentage of the population committing these crimes, nor do we know the actual
occurrence rate within our schools. What she does know is that implementing programs
may be a good strategy to prevent these occurrences and that more needs to be done to
encourage bystanders to report.

28
Policies and Practices Implemented to Address Sexual Misconduct
While the purpose of this dissertation is to understand teachers’ perceptions about
sexual misconduct, it is first important to understand schools’ mandated practices and
policies. These practices and policies determine what teachers should do in situations
where sexual misconduct is suspected, observed, etc. This information tells us what
should happen, even if it is understood that existing practices and policies lack
consistency and are not always followed.
Sexual misconduct laws require schools to adopt policies, provide training,
conduct investigations and initiate reporting regardless of who the predator is or how he
or she is known (Shoop, 2004). Failing to do so brings the fear of lawsuits against school
districts and individual employees, creating an atmosphere of panic and confusion (Stein,
1997). In addition to how staff and students feel about reporting, many teachers and
school workers believe that those school workers charged with accusations of sexual
misconduct must face public scrutiny (Neddermeyer, 2000).
Adding to the responsibility of schools, California state law contains a mandate to
educators to confidentially report known or suspected child abuse and investigate claims
of sexual misconduct. School workers who conform by reporting their suspicions are
immune from prosecution even if they have mistakenly identified the wrong individual,
but failing to report can lead to criminal penalties (Winters, 2005). According to
Gardner, professor of child psychiatry at Columbia University, the downside of mandated
reporting is that school workers have created a flood of “over reporting even the most

29
absurd and impossible allegations,” inflating statistics on child abuse. On the other hand,
Birshan and Kleiner (2001) further state that even discussing sexual misconduct with
students can result in underreporting because it often embarrasses them. However, Stein
(1999) purports that because it can be defined or named as something less serious, sexual
misconduct often becomes overlooked and underreported by adults, thus making these
types of occurrences in some schools ordinary, expected, and publicly displayed activity.
Guidelines have also been established to share best practices to protect both staff
and students. The Seattle Public Schools (2007) suggests schools adopt behavioral
guidelines implementing green, yellow and red light standards to signify behaviors that
govern staff and student interactions. Each colored light indicates the degree of
appropriateness where a behavior falls. Green light behaviors identify seven areas
considered appropriate: 1) providing humor and friendly comments 2) giving
compliments that are not overly personal 3) treating students (including touching and
talking to) in a consistent manner 4) ensuring that staff and students are never alone
without being within plain sight of others 5) spending time with all students rather than
singling out individual students, 6) only making physical contact in safe-touch areas, and,
7) educating all students and parents about the possibility of educator sexual misconduct.
Yellow light behaviors include three areas of misconstrued behaviors, which should be
stopped if currently being practiced. These would include 1) singling students out for
favors, 2) giving overly personal cards, notes, email, text messages or yearbook
inscriptions, and 3) teasing that involves gender or sexual overtones. Last are the red light
behaviors, which are completely inappropriate and border on suspicious behavior unless

30
it can be demonstrated that they are specifically part of an education or counseling
program. According to the Seattle school system, these behaviors include touching
students frequently, making sexual remarks regarding a student’s body, being alone in a
locked room with a student, talking about sexuality, meeting students during out-of-
school hours or away from school grounds, and lap sitting beyond second grade.
Organizations like Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct, and Exploitation
(S.E.SA.M.E.) take on a more balanced approach. S.E.S.A.M.E. works to not only
increase public awareness but also to encourage reporting of offenses/offenders to law
enforcement, to implement child-centered policies, regulations and laws on sexual
misconduct, to promote ethical standards that suggest proper boundaries between school
staff and students and to foster recovery and support for victims and survivors.
School Policies v. Legal Remedies
With schools fearful of lawsuits both against the school district and against
individual employees, the literature portrays panicked school personnel implementing
their own policies independent of laws (Stein, 1997, 1999). School districts must be
accountable for their hiring practices. This includes following up on references from
other sources, districts, teachers, and former employers (Berkowitz, 1997). Thorough
background checks may uncover a school worker’s prior conviction for a sex crime.
However, data have revealed that many accused of sexual misconduct can resign to avoid
criminal charges and simply move on to the next unsuspecting district (ERIC, 1990). In
order to protect students, all school workers must have knowledge of and the ability to

31
recognize early warning signs related to an adult’s propensity to commit sexual abuse
(Ring, 2001). Further, as reports of sexual misconduct come forward, districts must take
appropriate steps to investigate each report on suspected cases of misconduct (Berkowitz,
1997).
Schools have a duty to report, not investigate, reports of child sexual misconduct.
Although schools continue to instruct personnel of the potential civil liability for not
reporting, reporting itself remains an individual responsibility (Crime Prevention Center,
1988). Further, schools are responsible not for the sexual misconduct committed by the
employee but for negligent hiring of the perpetrator. There is also legal responsibility
for those individuals who have knowledge about an employee’s misconduct but provide a
good recommendation on the employee’s behalf, as demonstrated by case law, Randi W.
v. Muroc Joint Unified School District, 14 Cal.4
th
1066 (1997). California Penal Code
§11166 address the duty to report and states:
(a)…a mandated reporter shall make a report to an agency specified in
Section 11165.9 whenever the mandated reporter, in his or her
professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, has
knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or
reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. The
mandated reporter shall make a report to the agency immediately or as
soon as practicably possible by telephone, and the mandated reporter shall
prepare and send a written report therefore within 36 hours of receiving
the information concerning the incident.
(1)…”reasonable suspicion” means that it is objectively reasonable for a
person to entertain a suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a
reasonable person in a like position drawing, when appropriate, on his or
her training and experience to suspect child abuse or neglect.
(g)(3) Reporting the information regarding a case of possible child abuse
or neglect to an employer, supervisor, school principal, school counselor,
co-worker, or other person shall not be a substitute for making a mandated
report to an agency specified in Section 11165.9.

32

There exist two examples of published works that address policies and practices relative
to educator sexual misconduct that can shed light on the phenomenon. The Ontario
College of Teachers (OCT) identified and disseminated information on various types of
conduct to show what constitutes sexual misconduct. Included in their guidebook,
Professional Advisory: Professional Misconduct Related to Sexual Abuse and Sexual
Misconduct (2002) is an exhaustive list of overt and covert types of conduct. The
advisory was intended to prevent educator sexual misconduct towards students. Further,
it assists all members of the College to identify legal, moral, ethical and professional
parameters that govern their behavior by providing definitions and examples of behaviors
to avoid and guidance on handling discipline. Rather than replacing existing definitions
of sexual abuse or sexual harassment, the College added the term sexual misconduct.
OCT describes four types of misconduct: 1) sexual abuse 2) professional
misconduct 3) sexual harassment and, 4) sexual relationships including inappropriate
behaviors that its members should avoid. There is no data to substantiate whether the
OCT has adequately addressed the issue of sexual misconduct from a teacher’s
perspective; however, as compared to public school policy in the United States, in 2002
the College addresses through its advisory criminal, civil, and professional codes of
conduct, including those missing elements not often seen in public school sexual
harassment policy language.
The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) has taken a stand to reduce the
likelihood of student misconduct. FDOE contends that it is imperative to have clearly

33
defined policies outlining not only the process of reporting for students and staff but also
the accountability and corrective measures associated with the process. A district’s
failure to have effective policies and procedures in place to protect against sexual
misconduct can cause harmful effects. In a 1993 study conducted by the NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund along with the Wellesley College Center for Research on
Women, 52 percent of the time districts without policies found that they were less likely
to be willing to take action against an alleged harasser, whereas districts with policies
took action in 84 percent of cases. As encouraging as this sounds, of those districts that
did implement policy, only 8 percent of those responding stated that their school had and
enforced a policy on sexual misconduct (Sandler, 1998). The above data does not negate
the purpose of having an effective policy to address sexual misconduct issues but rather
emphasizes the importance of enforcing district policies. A first step toward creating a
sexual misconduct district policy or school practice is to devise a clear and concise policy
statement. Communicating the policy message periodically to all staff, parents, students
and volunteers is a way to implement the policy district wide. The policy must be strictly
adhered to and enforced by the district; it should also provide a process for protecting the
victim’s confidentiality and ensure the reporter against retaliation. Further, effective
polices work best if they keep those affected appraised of the findings, give provisions
against reoccurrence and allow the outcome of any complaints to be presented (Goorian,
1999).
Schools must take steps to ensure child safety by posting policies and procedures
in staff workrooms, providing training and creating multiple channels for reporting

34
(Oakleaf & Gruber, 2003). Though a number of policies and practices have been put into
place to prevent and address incidents of sexual misconduct, Zemel (2007) showed that
sexual misconduct occurs frequently and often goes underreported. One reason for this
may be that teachers do not follow the proper protocol for addressing such incidents, or
there may be a lack of clarity that prevents full understanding of the laws. The issue of
accountability surrounding sexual misconduct in schools is addressed in the amended
Section 5414 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), which
under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 mandated a study of sexual abuse in U.S.
schools (Shakeshaft, 2004). Even though this mandate exists, there is limited research
available that focuses on educator or school-related misconduct. There also appeared to
be controversy on what program works best for which age group (van Dam, 2001). To
this extent, the findings from this literature review reflect a broader approach to the
subject than expected.
Moreover, state officials have initiated and supported the passing of state laws
and regulations about sexual misconduct in education without consideration of the many
laws in place that address sexual misconduct. For example, California passed its law on
January 1, 1993 that 1) required each school to develop a policy addressing sexual
misconduct and post it in the school, 2) further, the policy must be mailed home, and 3)
found that students may be suspended and expelled if they have “committed” sexual

35
harassment
4
Concurrent with the development of punitive state laws, there has been a rise in
public perception of the number of sex offenders in local neighborhoods (Goldenflame,
2004). Some schools have even integrated policies that encompass the Megan’s Law
website, which is a federal initiative named for a brutally murdered seven-year old named
Megan Kanka, killed in 1994 by a two-time sex offender who lived directly across the
street. The site was designed to keep predators from striking again by disclosing their
identity and location. The intent of the law, although it varies by state, requires states to
register convicted sex offenders and to notify the local community when offenders move
into their neighborhoods. While this may be useful material, Nan Stein (1999) warns that
society should be concerned about generating panic as a result of what she describes as
“self-anointed” experts. An interesting point, yet there are no studies that support
whether this information has any bearing on teacher perceptions or whether the panic that
Stein addresses is cause for over- or under-reporting of sexual misconduct allegations by
school personnel.
. This is just one example of law – each state stands on its own as to how it
carries out the extent of the law.
There are other laws in place that require public schools to implement policy
pertaining to sexual misconduct. Currently, Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972 regulations state that any school receiving federal funding is required to have
policies in place to protect students against sexual discrimination. Title IX of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is in place to provide policy guidelines

4
California Education Code, Sections 48900.2, 212.5, 212.6

36
to school districts. Unfortunately, Title IX did not recognize the concept of sexual
misconduct when it was initially enacted (Smith, 1998). Most of the attention about
Title IX still centers on gender in sports; however, in the last three years, the use of Title
IX claims has moved far beyond the athletics field and into an extremely sensitive area
involving student-student or teacher-student relationships. According to Stein (1999),
Section 1983 of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution also applies to school policies. Unfortunately for schools and parents alike,
the verdicts applied to this clause have been contradictory or resulted in split decisions,
adding to the confusion and lack of clarity in our laws. Stein further contends that the
term sexual misconduct is often misused or misapplied, resulting in a lack of
understanding or creating confusion that may be cause for lengthy court battles that drag
onwards of five to seven years—while children who were victimized grow up before
their cases are even resolved.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law AB1825, a sexual
harassment training mandate that became effective January 1, 2006 and which affected
all public entities of fifty or more workers. The law centers on increasing knowledge
about the prevention of all types of sexual misconduct such as harassment, discrimination
and retaliation. At a minimum, the law requires that two hours of interactive training for
all managers and supervisors be conducted every two years, with the first phase of
training to be completed by January 1, 2006. School districts are responsible for ensuring
that school employees remain clear about sexual misconduct regardless of whether the
perpetrator or victim is a school worker, student or visitor (Oakleaf & Gruber, 2003).

37
Under AB1825, school workers have a duty to report and investigate any claims or
knowledge of sexual harassment. Note that the duty to report exists in both AB1825 and
the California Penal Code, but only AB1825 requires an internal investigation; this
discrepancy has led to some confusion in the way issues become resolved.
Doe v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 1997, gives us a good example of
a “lack of clarity” pertaining to school policies. On June 22, 1998, the Supreme Court
handed in a 5-to-4 vote on a case involving a teacher who violated district policy by
having sex with a ninth grader (Greenhouse, 1998). The basis for the court’s decision,
written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, was that the district could only be liable under
Title IX if school administrators in authority were aware of the misconduct and failed to
act. Justice John Stevens inferred that the court’s decision provided protection to school
district policy over the victims. The irony is that this 1998 decision contradicts the U.S.
Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX, which states that a school district
could be found liable regardless of whether or not school officials knew of the
misconduct or if a teacher had misused their position of authority (Stein, 1999).
Teachers’ Perceptions about Sexual Misconduct

Lumsden (1991) observed a common viewpoint that teachers have always been
empathetic toward child victims, but fear of reprisal or identifying the wrong perpetrator
or a lack of knowledge may make them hesitant about reporting abuse. These same
teachers that fail to report may be unaware that if they make a report in “good faith,” they
have immunity from civil or criminal liability (Lumsden, 1991). Although teachers and

38
other district staff know child misconduct reporting requirements, they typically do not
have concrete data or attend any in-service education in this arena that would clarify for
them what and when to report (McIntyre, 1987). The purpose of this section is to explore
the beliefs and perceptions teachers hold that preclude them from intervening in or
preventing acts of sexual misconduct.
As we examine teachers’ perceptions, research shows that there is a common
theme resulting in more attention being focused on the predator than the victim or even
the bystander. Lois Presser (1999) suggested that the legal system makes valiant attempts
to understand the offender, as demonstrated through assessments and evaluations
alongside their punishment. Teachers are members of society, and as such, they may be
influenced by what the media portrays. Each time an adult offender causes another
incident of child sexual misconduct, society becomes more outraged. Increasingly, there
are a number of articles in newspapers and on the evening news that detail the arrests of
teachers, coaches, or other school workers for sexually abusing or having illegal
relationships with their students (Ring, 2001). Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, PhD, author of
If I'd Only Known...Sexual Abuse In or Out of the Family: A Guide to Prevention made
the point of placing blame on legislators for not pushing for harsher punishment or
instituting a national policy toward educators with regards to sexual misconduct for fear
it could disturb the teaching profession.
A gray area exists pertaining to the appropriateness and interpretation of sexual
conduct in today’s society. Specifically, our understanding of sexual misconduct has
expanded to include both adult-to-student and student-to-student incidents. However, in

39
1981, the Massachusetts Department of Education conducted a study among its K-12
population and reported an outcome that took the emphasis away from the adult predator.
The report conflicted with prior studies by concluding that students overall suffered more
sexual harassment at school at the hands of other students than they did at the hands of
teachers (Chuang & Kleiner, 1999). In-depth qualitative studies by researchers have
explored the topic of sexual misconduct by students targeting students and have even
described this type of harassment as a common occurrence in school culture
(Timmerman, 2003). Our current system is designed to place the burden of reporting on
either the bystander or on the school-aged victim after the abuse has occurred, often
leaving their stories unbelievable (van Dam, 2001). Research has shown that sexual
misconduct is underreported (Shakeshaft, 2004, Fauske, 2006). Unless witnessed, sexual
abuse thus remains invisible to the administrators and school staff that are responsible for
the daily care and safety of children (van Dam, 2001). Nevertheless, repeated television
programming such as NBC’s To Catch a Predator and television news and print media
coverage on sexual misconduct committed by educators is beginning to command the
attention of school boards and school officials (CNN, 2003), bringing awareness to the
situation.
Gender, Age and Occupation

Studies have shown that age, sex and occupation of a perpetrator follow no
pattern, nor do the latter possess any “distinct” physical characteristics. Perpetrators
come from various religious affiliations, socioeconomic groups, genders, races and

40
professions. The molester tends to choose lifestyles and careers that provide them access
to children. It is unfair to group all harassers into one category, for there is not one
profile that fits each incident (van Dam, 2001). Evidence of this was clearly portrayed
when NBC Dateline’s “To Catch a Predator III” (2006) exposed predators caught in an
internet sting operation that took place in Riverside County, California. Those caught
ranged in age, ethnicity, and professions. Fifty-one male molesters took the bait of
visiting with an underage individual at home alone after engaging them in explicitly
charged sexual talk. Sadly, three of the men identified themselves as belonging to the
school system, while the common link among all of them was that they did not see
anything wrong with wanting to engage or coax young teens into sexually stimulating
conversation or sexual activity.
Beliefs Concerning Behavior
Throughout the literature, a common trait continues to surface suggesting that
sexual misconduct is both confusing and uncomfortable to discuss because of societal
norms (Department of Education, Iowa). Across the nation, students, teachers and school
administrators either do not recognize what actually constitutes the behavior of a sexual
harasser or chooses not to report for fear of implicating the wrong person (Stein, 1999).
The Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education
Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) Technical Assistance
Center published an eight-page guide to address the problem as a man-made hazard
facing schools. Their guide, Educator Sexual Misconduct, What School Staff Need to

41
Know and Do (2008) was developed as a part of the “Helpful Hints for School
Emergency Management.” These “Helpful Hints” assist school leaders in understanding
what constitutes the predatory behavior of the abuser, provide prevention and
preparedness strategies along with response or reporting requirements, and offer short-
and long-term recovery plans to be used in the wake of an incident of sexual misconduct.
With regard to reporting cases of sexual misconduct, it is suggested that staff may
struggle with the issues of loyalty, while students who report allegations of sexual
misconduct may deal with a sense of betrayal and the backlash that may come from the
community.
The guilt and shame of sexual misconduct experienced by the student victim may
often prevent her or him from reporting the incident to an authority. Even so, many
school staff minimize the seriousness associated with sexual misconduct by not listening
to the child. Speaking on behalf of the National Education Association (NEA), Michael
Pons suggests that schools must be careful not to create an unjustified alarm and
undermine confidence by mixing harassment together with serious sexual misconduct. If
the student does speak up, others may believe they are making the story up, while the
perpetrator is considered “normal” and incapable of sexually molesting a child (Lockyer,
2003). Rather than soliciting more information or referring the matter to someone more
capable of addressing the issue, the person hearing of the abuse often dismisses it because
of the association to possible liability (Sandler, 1998).
Profiles of perpetrators do exist, and could help educators to understand behavior
that might be interpreted as “red flags,” yet little is done to help staff recognize these

42
signs (Ring, 2001). In a survey conducted in September 1992 for “Seventeen” magazine,
perpetrators were most always men and frequently single. They sought to establish
relationships with their students and the parents. The beliefs about the “typical”
perpetrator and the female/male sex roles with the victim slightly vary (Brandenburg,
1997). If the school worker is an adult male, he often will create opportunities for contact
outside the classroom, becoming involved in family vacations, sporting events and
babysitting. It is generally believed that power, as opposed to sexual attraction, is the
motivation for this type of sexual misconduct (Smith, 2001). Those predators seeking
females will display a different set of warnings. They attempt to create “consensual”
sexual relationships by expanding the time spent with the student, showing attention and
giving approval even if not requested; they hope these attentions will lead to a “dating”
relationship or, at a minimum, enjoy flirting with high school girls (Ring, 2001).
Van Dam’s (2001) research has shown that the majority of sexual predators possess a
chameleon-like charm that has a mesmerizing effect on unsuspecting individuals. They
often engage in play that involves physical nonsexual contact such as roughhousing or
tickling, and prefer the company of children to adults. They work hard over time to
establish a relationship with both the child and the parent, being extremely helpful and
charming. The goal of the charm is to gain access to their targeted student victims by
gaining the trust of the parent.
The literature review continues to address school workers, only this time shifting
focus to the alleged accused, the pedophile targeting children he or she encounters daily.
Many characteristics can be considered typical pedophilic behaviors or mannerisms

43
including age, gender, activities, professions and the type of child they seek. There is a
perception that the pedophile is often a married male and over 30 years of age, however,
there has been an increase of female pedophiles reported. There is a fascination for
children and childlike hobbies or activities over those that are adult-oriented. Because of
this fascination for children, pedophiles will choose professions that allow them to work
around or near children on a daily basis, whether it is teaching, coaching, tutoring, or
volunteering or other work around and with children. Predatory behavior is aimed at
children who are shy or have low self-esteem, from single-parent or underprivileged
homes, or have special needs. In any case, these children are often vulnerable and subject
to manipulation by the abuser, who sometimes takes as much as six months to gain the
child’s and/or parent’s trust (van Dam, 2006).
In addition to targeting particularly needy children, these same individuals
continue to test prospective victims to see if they can be trusted to keep a secret. By
putting the children through a series of "tests" that let the pedophile know which students
are likely to become more responsive, pedophiles are able to eliminate those children
who might report them. Pedophiles use this as a way of courting their victims, slowly
introducing touching or sexually explicit photos, thereby making them vulnerable
(Shakeshaft, Cohan, 1995).
Perpetrators use these charming behaviors to put adults at ease while luring
children from under their noses. Boundaries are not honored, and sometimes they will
even be so bold as to include inappropriate touch in front of other adults. At times, they
can turn and demonstrate offensive behavior when there is a fear of getting caught.

44
Those adults trained in recognizing “red flag” behaviors of perpetrators are able to dispel
this charm, thus terminating the relationship and the chance for the perpetrator to exploit
the child (van Dam, 2001). Studies have shown that the abuser may often convince
himself or herself of having a duty to “teach” the child about life events. This can occur
through special “games” between the child and the abuser that are made to appear
normal. Perpetrators may define their conduct as selfless, or may actually believe
themselves to be victims of the student’s seduction, while the damage to the student
remains the same (Crime Prevention Center, 1988). Even with intervention, there is no
guarantee that the pedophile will fully recover. To make matters worse, sexual predators
may not believe that they need to seek professional treatment, as long as they can justify
their behavior as less than serious. A lack of clarity is endemic to sexual misconduct
issues, adding to the confusion among reporting authorities. The courts are not clear or
unified on the subject of sexual misconduct in schools may even prevent the molester
from getting much needed psychological help (van Dam, 2001).
Impact on Students

In lessening the impact on students affected by sexual misconduct, teachers need
clearly stated policy, grievance, and complaint procedures. Both the problem of sexual
misconduct and related policy and training to recognize suspicious behavior should be
addressed openly at assemblies, staff orientations, and meetings with parents and school
personnel (Goorian, 1999). Other than depending on school staff to bring forward their
suspicions, a number of programs that specifically teach children to recognize suspicious

45
behavior or uncomfortable encounters before they occur are being made available as part
of the teachers’ curriculum. Children are taught the differences between right and wrong
touch and learning to say “no” to inappropriate behavior before it begins (Van Dam,
2001).
Educators and school workers play a critical role in protecting the innocence of a
child entrusted to their care (Lockyer, 2003). The first step in strengthening prevention
strategies and intervention among school workers on the verge of committing such acts is
identification. According to Sundt (1996), in addition to mandated reporting, educators
need to become better informed on the characteristics of harassers. By doing so,
policymakers and school officials alike can develop more effective sexual abuse
prevention programs, increasing awareness to protect its students.
There is no debate about the harm and impact sexual abuse has on child victims of
molestation. Because molestation requires secrecy, many victims are subsequently
prevented from developing closeness in personal relationships as they grow up (van Dam,
2001). Research by van Dam supports that abused children have a higher incidence of
entering into and remaining in abusive relationships. However, she is quick to point out
that the true psychological price for sexual abuse is unknown. Research suggests that
premature sexual contact can affect a child’s normal sexual development (Brandenburg,
1997). At the very least, the sexual abuse of children may be responsible for long-term
bitterness, hostility and distrust of adults (Greenberg, 1979), as well as internal conflicts
resulting in guilt, shame and depression. This may particularly apply to those adults
perceived to have been bystanders.

46
Similarly, the impact of sexual misconduct, specifically, on the lives of students
affects them in four domains: educational, emotional, behavioral and physical (AAUW,
1993). Students surveyed reported an educational impact, indicating that they wanted to
avoid school. They preferred to stay home or cut class; and of those that did not, it was
found that they wanted to talk less. Other types of educational impact included making
lower grades, wanting to change schools, and doubting in one’s ability to graduate.
Emotionally, students affected experienced embarrassment, being less secure and
suffering from self-consciousness. Smaller percentages of students described a feeling of
being afraid, alone or confused, and questioned whether they had the ability to ever have
a happy, romantic relationship. The third domain studied were those students affected
behaviorally. These students tended to avoid the place where the violation had occurred
or individual person responsible. Physically, symptoms included insomnia, listlessness
and depression, which again connect to poor academic work, tardiness and absenteeism.
Li-Min Chuang and Brian Kleiner (1999) suggested that the most detrimental impact to
child victims of sexual misconduct by an adult at school is a drop in self-esteem. This
appears to be an issue affecting boys and girls; however, girls have a more significant
loss in self-esteem than boys because there are a greater proportion of girls victimized.
Overall, students become more withdrawn, not wanting to participate in class activities or
attend school, and often even cut specific classes. This obviously affects their academic
performance and learning. To avoid being ostracized by friends, students choose to
remain quiet. If they complain, these victims can suffer retaliation from classmates,
especially in cases involving smaller school districts or where the teacher or other school

47
worker is well liked. Interestingly, there are no studies that support the issue of false
accusations or misapplication of terms in K-12 settings; however, there are myths
concerning these students who falsely accuse (van Dam, 2006).
Conclusion

This study sought to examine existing literature on school related sexual
misconduct and understand where it started and how it has evolved into today’s
phenomenon. The research highlights both perpetrator and bystander behavior, and
provides insight into existing policy and training available for educators. Further, this
study adds to the literature by illuminating multiple measurement criteria for identifying
the warning signs of the school pedophile with the intent of increasing awareness of state
and federal laws that support student safety.
Chapter 2 presented the literature reviewed for this study. This comprehensive
review included five areas of focus: (a) Understanding Sexual Misconduct; (b) History
of Sexual Misconduct in U.S. Schools; (c) Sexual Misconduct in Schools Today; (d)
Policies and Practices Implemented to Address Sexual Misconduct and (e) Teachers’
Perceptions about Sexual Misconduct. The review of literature in this chapter lends itself
to further research and investigation into how sexual misconduct is occurring in our K-12
schools. Chapter 3 will explain the methodology used to complete this investigation.

48
Chapter 3
Methodology
Overview

This chapter describes the methodological design, sample, instrumentation, data
collection, and data analysis process of the proposed study. As mentioned in Chapter 1
the purpose of this study is to investigate, analyze and understand a teacher’s perception
of sexual misconduct by school workers. Knowing more about how teachers define
sexual misconduct and the conditions under which they would report may help us to
effectively design professional development and intervene in reducing occurrences of
sexual misconduct in public K-12 school settings.
The phenomenon this study examines is the increasing number of allegations of
sexual misconduct in schools nationwide, with the implication that other teachers knew
of or should have recognized these incidents, and thus intervened sooner. When
introducing or describing a phenomenon in education, most researchers look for a
strategic framework for decision-making and action (Patton, 2002).
Studying a real-world situation such as sexual misconduct lends itself to a
naturalistic inquiry approach as the framework for this study. Guba (1978) identifies two
dimensions of this type of study that make it the ideal methodology for the inquiry at
hand: (1) the researcher minimizes “investigator” manipulation of the phenomenon, and
(2) there are no prior constraints placed on the outcomes of the research. This study
employed a mixed method research design that focused on a representative sample of

49
teachers from the Sunville Unified School District (district named changed to protect
privacy of data) as the source used for my study. Data was gathered and triangulated
over a 9-week window through surveys, document analysis, and interviews with
administrators.
Study Design

This study employed a mixed method design directed at the perceptions of
teachers and administrators at three sites from an urban unified school district as
bystanders in relation to allegations of sexual misconduct in their schools and schools
nationwide. I selected a mixed methods approach for this study since such an approach
is well suited for examining the subjects’ experiences from an educational perspective
(Merriam, 1998). Utilizing a mixed method research design allowed for an in-depth
analysis of how teachers and administrators perceive their roles in understanding sexual
misconduct definitions on the one hand, and recognizing and reporting behaviors of a
potential predator in reducing the problem on the other. I anticipated that there would be
both success and challenges with this study. First, I anticipated success in capturing data
that could be used to identify common characteristics in hope that solutions to the
problem could be identified. There were three challenges which stemmed from the
research, which involved a highly charged topic. First, there is a limited amount of
current research available on teachers’ general knowledge: moreover, there is a lack of
history on effective policy and practices concerning sexual misconduct in schools, and

50
lastly I was concerned about whether teachers would participate in the survey without
fear of reprisal or union sanction.
Research Questions
The following three questions guided the research:
1. How do teachers define sexual misconduct by school personnel? To what extent
are their definitions correct, according to school policy and/or the law? What are
teachers’ common beliefs about sexual misconduct?
2. What has been teachers’ experience with sexual misconduct by their peers,
targeting students? To what extent do demographics play in allegations of sexual
misconduct?
3. What do teachers’ perceive as being barriers in addressing or reporting sexual
misconduct?
Sample and Population

The size of this study enabled the researcher to employ random sampling strategies
in order to investigate the phenomenon of teacher perceptions toward incidents of sexual
misconduct (Merriam, 1998). By randomly sampling all teachers at the three sites, the
participation rate was expected to be, at a minimum, 40%. The district and school sites
selected for this study met the following criteria: 1) the school district had a diverse
population of students and staff; 2) the community surrounding the district had been
exposed to media attention on the matter of sexual misconduct in schools by school

51
workers; and 3) the size of the district dictated that this study would yield a high number
of participants. The purpose for having such criteria was to ensure that both the district
selected and the teachers from the selected sites were aware of some of the issues
surrounding sexual misconduct based on prior media reports that had involved their
district but not necessarily their school—placing them in the role of the witness or
bystander. Thus, their insight provided valuable information for this study. In addition to
the teacher survey, the site administrators participated in an interview. The interviews
provided additional information on the type of district training already in place for
preventing sexual harassment toward students; it also revealed plans for future training on
this topic and created a forum for discussing the role teachers played in the study.
I received verbal approval for the study from the district superintendent. My plan
to access the three school sites was to contact all three school administrators by phone. I
solicited a brief time to meet in person in order to explain the study. The sensitive nature
of this subject necessitated a face-to-face meeting to obtain the principals’ permission for
their teachers to participate in the study. I followed up with the Deputy Superintendent to
ensure that everything ran smoothly.
District and Selected Schools Data

Sunville Unified School District (SUSD) opened its doors circa 1860 and today is
known as a high-performing district with a district-wide Academic Performance Index
(API) of 779. The State Board of Education set the statewide API target at 800. At the
time of the study, the enrollment was 33,341. The district has 4 comprehensive high

52
schools, 3 alternative high schools, 5 junior high schools, and 24 elementary schools.
SUSD is located in the Inland Empire area of Southern California, within close proximity
to the Ontario Airport, bordered by the San Bernardino Mountains and surrounded by
Riverside, Orange and Los Angeles Counties. SUSD is a large, urban, public unified
school system. The size of the district allowed a sufficient sample size for the survey,
using three randomly selected schools. To avoid bias and ensure a random selection, the
schools were broken into two categories: elementary and middle/ high schools. The
elementary schools were aligned with the middle and high schools that they promote into.
Next, the elementary schools were numbered and listed alphabetically. The smaller
teacher population at the two alternative high schools would make it more difficult to
maintain confidentiality of survey data; therefore, I omitted these two schools from the
data. Next, using an online sampling tool, one random number was chosen, resulting in
one elementary school being identified with the corresponding middle/ high school that
had been listed in the second category. Based on employee data taken from district
reports, there were 179 teachers from the three schools projected to participate in the
study.
The three schools selected have API scores of 770, 685, and 678 respectively, and
all provide free/reduced price meals and offer special programs for English learners,
compensatory education and Title I. Title I is a federal program that provides
supplementary services to low-achieving students from low-income families. The goal of
both compensatory education and Title I is to improve student achievement in reading
and mathematics. One other commonality among these three schools is that two of the

53
schools are considered “feeder” schools, which provide a considerable number of
graduates who intend to continue their studies at the promoting schools. These schools
are linked within the district and each mirrors the educational goal of the other two
schools.
Tables 3.1 and 3.2 provide the ethnicity data of the district broken into student
and staff populations. Table 3.1 depicts student ethnicities using data from several
sources: California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS), School Accountability
Report Card (SARC) and information from the SUSD website. Students enrolled in
SUSD represent over six ethnic groups and three languages (American Indian/Alaskan
0.3%, Asian 10.0 %, Pacific Islander and Filipino 4.4 %, African American 4.6%,
Hispanic/ Latino 50.4 % and Caucasian 29.6 %). Approximately 28 % of the district’s
student population are eligible to receive Title I services. Table 3.2 disaggregates down
the ethnicity of staff by selected school site.

54
Table 3.1 Ethnicity of Student Population by Selected Sites

Elementary
N=915
Middle School
N=1,017
High School
N=2,377
District
N=33,767
American
Indian/
Alaskan

0.6%

0.2%

0.2%

0.22%
Asian/Pacific
Islander/Filipin
o

3.1%

3.2%

5.1%

12.88%
African
American

3.9%

3.9%

3.8%

44.54%
Hispanic/
Latino

61.4%

71.7%

55.3%

4.34%

Caucasian

25.3%

18.9%

29.2%

32.00%

No Response

5.7%

2.2%

6.5%

6.02%

Table 3.2 Ethnicity of Staff Population by Selected Sites

Elementary
N=39
Middle School
N=42
High School
N=98

District
N=1,444
American
Indian/Alaskan

0.0%

2.4%

0.0%

0.4%
Asian/Pacific
Islander/Filipino

0.0%

4.6%

4.1%

2.7%
African
American

15.0%

25.6%

16.3%

14.7%
Hispanic/
Latino

5.0%

2.3%

2.0%

1.8%
White
American

80.0%

65.1%

77.6%

80.3%

No Response

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

55
Because it is important to understand how education and years teaching may affect
teacher perceptions, Table 3.3 reflects the highest education level attained by staff and
the average years spent in education.
Table 3.3 Teacher Demographics
Teachers’ Education Level by Site
Elementary Middle
School
High School District
Totals

Male
N=6

Female
N=33

Male
N=2
4

Femal
e
N=18

Male
N=57

Female
N=41

Male
N=420

Female
N=1025
Doctorate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Masters
+ 30
16.7
%
2.9% 4.2% 5.3% 3.5% 2.4% 2.1% 1.1%
Masters 16.7
%
47.1% 20.8
%
26.3% 45.76
%
34.1% 26.1% 10.1%
Bachelors
+ 30
49.9
%
32.4% 45.8
%
42.1% 33.3% 39.1% 27.3% 17.4%
Bachelors 16.7
%
17.6% 29.2
%
26.3% 17.5% 24.4% 44.5% 71.4%
Less than
Bachelors
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Average
Years in
Education
8.0 12.3 16.2 14.1 14.3 12.5 14.3 14.0

Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures

The methodology proposed is a mixed method in nature. The naturalistic inquiry
approach works well with societal, real-world issues and provides a means to design data-
gathering techniques that are non-manipulative and non-controlling. After consideration
of the strengths and weaknesses between quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods, the
researcher decided that the mixed method approach would use surveys and interviews for

56
a better understanding of teachers in a K-12 setting, taking into consideration the
sensitive nature of the data on the teacher perceptions pertaining to incidents of sexual
misconduct by school workers.
The researcher proposed to use two instruments to collect data related to the
research questions for this study: (a) teacher surveys, and (b) administrator interviews.
In addition, a review of related policy and procedure documents was undertaken. Table
3.4 provides the characteristics of the instruments used by site. Data was collected from
the three schools over a four-week period.
Table 3.4 Instruments by Site

Characteristics of the Sample and Data Collection Instruments

Participant Location Instruments Used

Administrator Elementary Interview Questions
Administrator Middle School Interview Questions
Administrator High School Interview Questions
Teachers All Survey Questionnaire

57
Sample Selection

All teachers (N=179) from each of the three selected sites representing an
elementary, middle and high school were asked to participate in the study. Because of
the sensitivity of the subject matter, the researcher met with the site administrators before
and after administering the surveys and attended staff meetings at each of the schools in
order to explain the study and answer any questions.
Data Collection

The first section of the survey solicited the teacher’s experience, age, and years
teaching at their current school. Excluded were the teacher’s name, ethnicity, gender and
any other personal data that could affect the confidentiality of the document. At the
request of the site administrator, the survey was distributed to each participant for
completion at the elementary school in several small meetings that lasted throughout the
day over a two-day period. The smaller group size enabled the researcher to collect
100% of the surveys back from those attending the meetings. Both the middle and high
school administrators selected a large group forum for dissemination, completion and
collection of the surveys. The larger group format assisted the researcher in gathering
data that would not be easily identifiable but prevented the researcher from collecting
100% of the surveys back as some of the teachers in these two groups chose not to turn in
a survey after it was distributed.

58
Survey Document

The Teacher Perceptions Survey consisted of sixteen questions covering
approximately 48 items and encompassing: (1) Demographic information; (2)
Understanding of what constitutes sexual misconduct toward a student; (3) Level of
factual knowledge and awareness level of sexual misconduct, including views/
assumptions/ beliefs about the “typical” perpetrator / “typical” victim; (4) Experience in
dealing with sexual misconduct targeting students; (5) Awareness of prior incidents or
questionable behavior by school workers; (6) Teachers’ role as opposed to
administrators’ role in reducing sexual misconduct; and, (7) Implementation and
effectiveness of district policies and school practices.
The six-page survey used a Likert-type scale to promote a higher response rate.
Teachers were asked to indicate the amount of agreement or disagreement (from strongly
disagree to strongly agree) on a 5-point scale using standard labels (Gall et al., 2003).
Research question responses related to individual beliefs regarding district and school
policy, procedures, design, and strategies were indicated by one of the following
responses: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.
In addition, the model gave the research participants an opportunity to indicate whether
their level of knowledge does not apply or is unknown.
Interview Protocol

The purpose of the interview was to meet the elementary, middle and high school
administrators to explain the survey and establish a framework to better understand the

59
problem. This was important because the researcher wanted to determine if there was
any correlation between their current perspectives on the subject matter, sexual
misconduct at their specific campus and or district and issues pertaining to what they see
or hear in the media. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest that interviews are to gather
information about important factors that contribute to the overall understanding of the
research. Similarly, Yin (1989) stated that interviews are one of the most critical sources
of data in studies. Following these recommendations, the interview protocol tool
developed enabled the researcher to use one-on-one conversations with key individuals
who could assist in gathering the needed information about district and school policy and
procedures.
The researcher’s use of an interview protocol tool included questions encompassing
three key themes: (a) background, (b) district policies and procedures, and (c) impact of
teachers’ perceptions, prior experiences and beliefs. For each of these themes, a series of
open-ended sub-questions were included at the time of the interview.
The interviews held occurred after the distribution of the survey. They lasted
approximately thirty to forty-five minutes. All interviews conducted used the following
approach: (a) researcher introduction, (b) overview of study, (c) assurance of
confidentiality, (d) explanation of the interview format, and (e) focused interview
questions. It is important to understand that individuals asked to participate in the
interviews were not being viewed as simple respondents but, more importantly, as
informants to the overall study (Gall et al., 2003; Yin, 1989).

60
Document Review

Due to the mixed method nature of this study, the types of information collected
were (a) responses and notes from interviews, (b) teacher surveys, (c) district policies
and procedures, and (d) information on district training practices relative to the study.
These instruments provided the researcher with specific data through documents related
to the research questions that then acted as supportive evidence to understanding teacher
perceptions of sexual misconduct in K-12 environments. As the researcher, I expected
that time spent visiting with the administrators would allow me time to discuss district
policies, procedures and training records from the district. Included in the study is a list
of collected documents. There were no additional interviews and or conversations
conducted with any other staff or district administration during the site visits to be
included in the Appendix. To establish a context for reviewing the district’s policy, I
examined three areas within the realm of policy. These included the process for defining
sexual misconduct, policy dissemination and applicable laws that would sustain the
policy. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2008), every district should
have a comprehensive policy establishing a framework for handling sexual misconduct
that includes standards for how staff access students, safeguards for false reporting and
sanctions against students when appropriate.
Following the approval of this dissertation study by the committee, the researcher
began collecting documents in 2008 following the University Park Institutional Review
Board (IRB) approval. In addition, a follow-up discussion describing the study,

61
parameters, and timeline was made available to the district so that they would be aware of
when the study was to commence. During this time, I had frequent telephone
conversations and meetings with the site administrators to ensure understanding of the
scope of the study.
Data Analysis Procedures
In describing a phenomenon in public schools, researchers look for constructs and
common themes to explain it. In developing their explanations, researchers look for
causal or relational patterns to develop theoretical models of the phenomenon. Finally, in
evaluating the phenomenon, researchers make judgments about it (Patton, 2002). The
data from this study has been analyzed and is being reported in Chapter 4. In addition,
policies, procedures, and training relative to sexual misconduct and or sexual harassment
from the district have been included as a part of the document analysis. Although
according to Merriam (1998, p. 88), “… verbatim transcription of recorded interviews
provides the best database for analysis,” the administrator interviews were not recorded
because of the sensitivity of the subject. Instead, an information sheet (Appendix C) and
a confidentiality statement (Appendix E) was provided to the administrator and
interviews were conducted as informal oral discussions between the administrator and the
researcher.
Researchers frequently use the terms "independent variable" and "dependent
variable" when describing variables studied in their research. The independent variables
are those which the researcher has control over and which allow the researcher to search

62
for common perceptions that may exist among those with less experience over the more
experienced teachers as it pertains to the subject matter. As anticipated the independent
variables such as age, years teaching and related background data collected from the
survey affected the dependent variables used in this study. The dependent variables used
in the teacher survey are those that cannot be manipulated such as information,
participants’ prior exposure to issues pertaining to sexual misconduct and willingness to
report or the conditions under which teachers will report their suspicions. Both variables
were identified as they pertain to:
(1) Demographic information; (2) Understanding what constitutes sexual
misconduct toward a student; (3) Level of factual knowledge and awareness level
of sexual misconduct, including views/ assumptions/ beliefs about the “typical”
perpetrator / “typical” victim; (4) Experience in dealing with sexual misconduct
targeting students; (5) Awareness of prior incidents or questionable behavior by
school workers; (6) Teacher’s role versus administrator’s role in reducing sexual
misconduct at their school; and, (7) Implementation and effectiveness of district
policies and school practices.

The following steps describe the data analysis procedures used for the surveys and
interviews in this study (Creswell, 2003). I first organized the teacher perception surveys,
preparing the data for analysis. Using data analysis software, I obtained a detailed
analysis of the data that assisted me in understanding common perceptions of the
teachers. From this, I was able to use the data to draw out key themes that linked to the
literature review in Chapter 2. The data analysis software allowed me to run the data by
school, years teaching and age. Within each of these categories, I ran further tests
looking for themes from the analysis. I also organized the data into tables, figures and
charts to aid in the analysis process. Finally, I used narratives to convey the findings of

63
my analysis, making meaning of the data, discussing lessons learned for policy and
practice, and suggesting new questions for further research. These findings were reported
and interpreted in Chapter 4; they describe key elements of educator sexual misconduct
through teacher perceptions taken from the teacher surveys, administrator interviews and
document review.
Limitations

The study focused on teacher perceptions of sexual misconduct towards students
by adult school workers. The design of the study presented a range of limitations.
Respondents to the survey participated on a volunteer basis. Surveys were limited in
their capacity to obtain in-depth responses without identifying the participating subjects.
Overall, demographic data for the three schools selected considered level of education,
ethnicity and gender as independent variables. These variables could not be captured in
the survey without compromising participant identity. Every attempt to ensure that
respondents fully understood the meaning of the survey questions took place; however,
neither this nor ensuring that all respondents understood the question in the same way
could be validated. This study is limited to the findings within the boundaries of the
school selected and may not reflect changes to future policies and procedures.
Summary

This chapter discusses the research methods utilized in this study. Included in the
discussion are descriptions of the study design, sample and population, instrumentation

64
and data collection, data analysis and ethical considerations. The research study was
guided by three questions. School site administrators and teachers participated in the
study. The data collection instruments used were administrator interviews, a teacher
perceptions survey that served as the written response data collection instrument and a
collection of quantitative data consisting of school policies.
The outcome or focus of this study illuminates teacher perceptions toward
incidents of sexual misconduct in elementary, middle and high school settings using a
large and diverse Southern California school district as a representative sample. One
cannot always easily identify who the next school predator will be, but through the data
collected and the conclusions drawn from examining teacher perceptions as they pertain
to sexual misconduct, this study seeks to provide a deeper understanding of the
occurrence of educator misconduct and aid in the school district’s ability to combat this
emerging issue.

65
Chapter 4
Analysis of Data Findings
Overview

This chapter presents and analyzes the data collected in this case study from
Sunville Unified School District (SUSD), which addresses teacher perceptions of sexual
misconduct in public school environments. The data were driven by three research
questions focusing on four areas of concentration: (a) district policy, (b) teacher beliefs,
(c) factors that shape teachers’ ideas and understanding and (d) perceived effectiveness of
teacher training on sexual misconduct.
The main source of data consists of quantitative information gathered from a
single source, a teacher survey with responses from 78% of the 179 teachers originally
targeted. In addition, qualitative information collected from three additional sources
consisted of: 1. Interviews with the district administrators 2. Informal observations of the
school site and district environment conducted at each of the survey locations 3. A
document review of SUSD policies and training practices.
The objective of this study was to understand more about the bystander, in this
case the teacher, and perceptions of sexual misconduct in schools through a small case
study. Additional input from interviews with school administrators added to the study by
capturing their comments and observations on sexual misconduct at SUSD. The data are
organized and presented topically using the three research questions as main headings in
this chapter. Much of the recorded data is presented in word tables, which are commonly

66
used to present qualitative comparisons or descriptive information. Table 4.1 provides a
matrix indicating which data collection instruments and questions were used to gather
information for each of the research questions.
Table 4.1 Data Instrument Organization

Research Questions Teacher
Survey
Administrator
Interview
Document
Review
How do teachers define
sexual misconduct by
school personnel?

To what extent are their
definitions correct,
according to school
policy and/or the law?

What are teachers’
common beliefs about
sexual misconduct?

4

9, 13

8

1

2

4

BP 5145.7

BP 5145.7
BP 5141.4
BP 5141.41
BP 4119.11
What has been teachers’
experience with sexual
misconduct by their
peers, targeting students?

To what extent do
demographics play a role
in allegations of sexual
misconduct?
6, 7

1-3

3

1

BP 4119.11

What do teachers
perceive as being barriers
in addressing or reporting
sexual misconduct?

5,
10 - 12
14 - 16

2

BP4119.11
BP 5141.4
BP 5141.41
AR 4112.62

67

Background of Study

For the purpose of the study, all schools were from one single district. My study
involved three “feeder” schools to look for any conclusions that could be drawn from the
collected data. A feeder school is an educational institution that provides a considerable
number of graduates who continue their studies at specific schools linked within a
network. My observation through visits with each of the three schools was that each was
unique, having its own culture, teaching staff and administration, but they shared district
policy and occasional training. Each school administrator had the ability to conduct
additional training outside of what the district provides if he or she chose to do so. Other
than the student population belonging to one district and migrating into the next feeder
school upon completion, the similarities among the school sites are limited.
Of the 179 people invited to participate, 22% were absent on the days the survey
was given. There was no opportunity to capture the missing respondents. Of the 139
(78%) that did participate, 22% were elementary school teachers, 25% were middle
school teachers and the largest group, 53%, were high school teachers. The demographic
data for the sample across the three schools are presented in Table 4.2. In order to assure
each participant’s identity would remain confidential, questions relating to gender were
not included. The small sample size would have made it easier for the researcher to
identify male employees working at the elementary and middle schools. The average age
of the sample group was 44 years old; the average time spent teaching at the location

68
surveyed was 10 years. Two-thirds of the teachers surveyed had an average of fifteen
years of teaching experience. By school site, elementary school teachers generally had
the least teaching experience with a mean of 11.9 years; middle school teachers averaged
14.17 years of teaching experience; high school teachers averaged 15.15 years of
teaching experience.
Table 4.2 Demographic Data of Sample Group – Questions 1 – 3

Mean Standard Deviation Sample size

1. Years teaching 14 10 132

2. Years at location surveyed 10 9 126

3. Year born 1964 11 130

Survey and non-responses

In analyzing the data, I looked for patterns that would bring significance to the
study. The data have been run in a variety of ways, isolating survey questions and
examining the data by school site, age, and years teaching. One pattern noted was in the
number of questions left unanswered. Isolating these non-responsive questions, an
analysis of the data was run looking for patterns by school site, respondents’ age, years
teaching and survey topics to determine patterns. While it is not known with certainty
why these questions were skipped over and left blank, some likely reasons for a non-
response could be related to the nature and sensitivity of the topic. Other reasons may
include the respondent not fully understanding the question and not wanting to appear to

69
be in the wrong. After looking at the school sites in comparison with the non-response
data, I examined the survey response ratio. I noticed that all of the 31 elementary school
teachers chose not to respond to at least one survey question, whereas 20% of the middle
school teachers chose not to respond to at least one question. In the mid- range of non-
response to questions were the high school teachers, where 63% of the teachers in the
sample did not answer at least one question. Figure 4.1 breaks this data down by school
site showing the number and percent of teachers who omitted responses compared to the
total number of teachers participating in the survey.
Figure 4.1 Non-responses to Questions by School Site

Another pattern emerged when looking at the average response ratio for all of the
questions by school site. With a total of 48 question responses, the largest percentage of
unanswered or non-responses came from the elementary school teachers, who averaged
6.1 missed questions per survey, followed by the high school teachers with an average
31
35
73
31 (100%)
7 (20%)
46 (63%)
Elementary Middle High
Non-responses to Questions by
School Site
total # surveys taken # respondents with missing answers

70
missed response ratio of 4.4 missed questions. The smallest number came from the
middle school teachers with an average of 2.3 missed questions as shown in Figure 4.2 on
the following page.
Figure 4.2 Survey Question Response Ratio

In an attempt to understand the phenomena behind the large number of non-
responses as noted above in Figure 4.2, I sorted the data by teaching experience to
ascertain whether the least experienced teachers had more difficulty than those with more
experience. I did find that there were missed questions throughout the survey; however,
in general the more experience a group had, the fewer questions went unanswered (Figure
4.3).

Elementary Middle High
6.1
2.3
4.4
12.6%
4.7%
9.2%
Survey Question Response
Ratio
48 Questions
Avg # unanswered % unanswered

71
Figure 4.3 Teaching Experience and Non-Responses

Since it has been suggested that the sensitive nature of certain questions may be cause for
non-response to survey questions, and teachers with less experience skipped more
questions than their more experienced peers, I felt it important to penetrate more deeply
into the phenomenon of these non-responses to look for any specific patterns that may be
related to the questions left unanswered. The full list of survey questions has been
included in Appendix B. Overall, general questions pertaining to reporting sexual
misconduct and questions on teacher beliefs and perceptions were those skipped. On the
following page, Figure 4.4 isolates the questions by school site.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1
7
13
19
25
31
37
43
49
55
61
67
73
79
85
91
97
103
109
115
121
127
133
139
Teaching Experience and Non-responses
Number of Years Teaching Number of Missing Responses

72

Figure 4.4 Percentage of Missing Responses to Questions by School

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Peer pressure influences reporting …
Teacher flirting with student - beliefs
Teacher hugging a student - beliefs
Teacher kissing a student - beliefs
Teacher dating a student - beliefs
Teacher messaging student - beliefs
Student flirting with teacher - beliefs
Teacher propositioning student - beliefs
Teacher offering reward for sex -…
Teacher touching a student - beliefs
Teacher alone with student - beliefs
Report if victim told me ?
Report if parent of victim told me ?
Report if teacher told me ?
Report if I saw it happen ?
Report if student told me ?
Report if I overheard victim …
Report if I found evidence ?
Reporting difficult if accused has …
Reporting difficult if accused is an …
Reporting difficult if accused known …
Reporting difficult - confidentiality …
Reporting easier if handled well in past
Reporting difficult if previous cases …
Reporting difficult if accused faces …
Reporting unlikely if victim seems OK
Reporting unlikely if victim misbehaves
Red flag training invaluable
High
Middle
Elementar
y

73
The elementary school teachers appeared to have the most difficult time consistently
completing questions pertaining to their own beliefs and perceptions about what
constitutes sexual misconduct as shown in Figure 4.4. Thirty-one elementary school
teachers chose not to respond to six questions. The survey included both questions and
statements that solicited teachers’ views. There were ten questions concerning their
beliefs on sexual misconduct between teachers (or staff) and students. Of these ten
questions, middle and high school teachers missed responding to some questions that
solicited teachers’ views, with the higher percentage of missed responses coming from
the high school sample group.
First Research Question: Teachers’ Definition of Sexual Misconduct

The first research question consisted of three parts and asked, “How do teachers
define sexual misconduct by school personnel? To what extent are their definitions
correct, according to school policy and/or the law? What are teachers’ common beliefs
about sexual misconduct?”
To begin to understand how teachers define sexual misconduct, let us re-examine
the terms used to describe sexual misconduct in this study and relate the concept to
common terms seen in school policy, sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Sexual
misconduct is a broad term defined as any unwanted or unwelcome behavior of a sexual
nature, applying to levels of behavior that range from non-contact (exhibitionism, making
sexual comments, taunting and inquiring of another person’s sexual activity) to contact
behavior (molestation, fondling, touching, kissing, sexual or genital contact). In school

74
policy definitions, however, references to sexual misconduct were used interchangeably
with “sexual abuse” and “sexual harassment.” The term sexual abuse has no one specific
definition but has been described as sexual assault, sexual exploitation or other related
conduct (Shakeshaft, 2004). Similarly, the Department of Children and Family services
describes sexual abuse as sexual contact between an adult and a minor. Sexual
harassment, however, refers to a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act. The legal definition for this behavior specifically applies to
unwelcomed verbal, physical, or visual conduct or behavior of a sexual nature. Sexual
harassment is viewed as a workplace sex discrimination issue between two adults. Sex
discrimination cases with students are often associated with Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, now known as the Equal Opportunity in Education Act. Title IX
prohibits sex discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance. This law is significant to this topic because cases addressing gender
and sexual misconduct are typically brought up against schools as Title IX violations
since schools receive federal funding, even though it is not always applicable.
In analyzing the first two parts of the first research question, I examined the
district’s policy. Using SUSD as the case study, I was able to see what types of school
policy schools have in place to guide teacher behavior. I then compared this to current
laws in order to determine how well respondents knew the differences between what is
against school policy and what is against the law. In capturing data for the third part of
this research question, I analyzed responses from the survey regarding teacher behavior
and beliefs pertaining to sexual misconduct.

75
Sexual misconduct as defined by school personnel

To determine a baseline for how teachers define sexual misconduct, the survey
asked respondents if they would recognize sexual misconduct, the behavior, if their peers
or other staff targeted it at students and they were eyewitnesses to it. The data for the
percentage giving each answer against the total number of responses is shown in Table
4.3. Only 19% of elementary school teachers would always recognize sexual
misconduct. Data from the middle and high schools were less significant, but it is
certainly worth noting that the data reveal that these teachers perceive themselves as
knowing the most about sexual misconduct.
Table 4.3 Recognizing Sexual Misconduct - Question 4
Response Combined
schools
%
of N
Elem.
school
% of
N
Middle
school
%
of N
High
schoo
l
%
of N

Always

56

40%

6

19%

21

60%

29

40%

Probably

78

56%

25

81%

13

37%

40

55%

Not sure

5

4%

0

0%

1

3%

4

5%

N=

139

31

35

73

The entire sample responded to this question, indicating that overall, teachers’ belief in
their ability to recognize sexual misconduct if they observed the behavior is high.

76
Knowledge of sexual misconduct according to school policy and/or the law

Teachers were asked to read ten statements and then indicate whether a behavior
described to them was against school policy and/or against the law, and to indicate
whether they had seen and/or heard about that misconduct involving these behaviors in
the past twelve months on their campus. From the first part of the study, we have already
concluded that the teachers were of the opinion that they would recognize sexual
misconduct. The behaviors identified ranged in severity from “a teacher/staff member
who is always alone with students” to “a teacher/staff member offering a student a reward
(such as a better grade, for example) for having sex with him/her” (the full list appears in
section 4 of the survey, found in Appendix B). There is no definitive law or district
policy about some of the statements on beliefs or behaviors the teachers were asked
about; however, several of these statements are implied in existing school policy on
sexual harassment; or, found in case law such as in statutory rape laws. After reading the
ten statements, the sample group checked a box indicating whether they believed those
statements violated district policy or violated the law.
In general, when elementary, middle and high school teachers’ responses were
compared to questions on whether the belief statements went against school policy,
against the law, or against both the policy and the law, there was a higher than expected
awareness and accuracy in their responses across the board meaning that teachers
correctly checked responses against policy more often. Yet, the most surprising response
to this survey question pertained to offering a student a reward (i.e., a better grade) in
exchange for sex. I had expected to see a more significant increase in the percentage who

77
indicated that these two statements would be against both school policy and the law
(Table 4.4).
Table 4.4 Beliefs Concerning Sexual Misconduct against Policy and/or Law –
Question 9

Beliefs Concerning Sexual Misconduct -
Against Policy/Against Law
%
Against
Policy
%
Against
Law
%
Against
Both
A teacher/staff member flirting with a student. 37.0 5.0 32.0

A teacher/staff member hugging a student that
made you feel uncomfortable.
34.0 4.0 17.0

A teacher/staff member kissing a student.

22.0

12.0

50.0

A teacher/staff member dating a student.
15.0

13.0

59.0

A teacher/staff member calling or, sending
inappropriate notes, email or text messages to a
student.

22.0

12.0

50.0

A student flirting with a teacher/staff member.

47.0

6.0

16.0

A teacher/staff member propositioning a student
for sexual favors.

8.0

17.0

63.0

A teacher/staff member touching a student
inappropriately.

7.0

15.0

67.0

A teacher/staff member who is always alone
with students.

30.0

0.0

17.0

I attempted to desegregate the data to look for any other factors that influenced the data.
Correct responses about which belief statements were against policy and which against

78
the law were sorted by age and experience, but this action revealed no significant
findings.
Knowledge of School Policy & Law by School Site

Continuing to examine school policy in comparison with the law, Figure 4.5
breaks down the data by school and shows the totals for the three schools combined.
Showing this data by percentages enabled me to capture the correct answers from the
group, rather than comparing individual answers against a common number of questions
for each school type.
Figure 4.5 Knowledge of School Policy and Law by School Site

A review of the above data in Figure 4.5 indicates that there is no significant
statistical difference between the various school samples. The combined data from the
entire sample shows only a small difference between the ability to distinguish correctly
between school policy and the law, with 70% correctly identifying behaviors that were
70% 70%
76.%
64%
55%
53%
61%
52%
Combined Elementary Middle High
Knowledge of School Policy & Law by School
Site
Against School Policy Against the Law

79
against school policy, compared to 55% correctly identifying behaviors that were against
the law. Further comparison of individual school site data confirms nothing of
significance in the data, though school policy continues to be more consistently
recognized than the law across the board within a range of 12% - 17%.
Figure 4.6 Correct Responses Determining Whether Behaviors/Beliefs Contravene
School Policy

In Figure 4.6 above, school policy data is shown by school site with the
percentages of how teachers view the correct responses to statements on policy. At a
glance, this information tells us that there were five statements across the board where
17%
31%
14%
90%
86%
24%
83%
83%
86%
100%
3%
21%
21%
79%
85%
24%
73%
79%
79%
18%
22%
56%
20%
80%
78%
38%
80%
78%
80%
38%
Flirting with a student
Hugging a student
Kissing a student
Dating a student
Communicating with student
Student flirting
Propositioning student for sex
Rewarding student for sex
Touching student
Alone with student
Correct Responses Determining Whether
Behaviors/Beliefs Contravene School Policy
High
Middle
Elementary

80
middle school teachers perceived statements on flirting and hugging as not related to
district policy. The elementary school teachers all answered that being alone with a
student was against policy. I looked into the response on being alone with students and
found that the administrator of that site has taught all staff that it is inappropriate to be
alone with a student in closed quarters regardless of gender. Teachers at the elementary
school site are reminded to keep a door open at all times when conducting one-on-one
interviews. There were no additional findings of significance with this data.

81
Figure 4.7 Correct Responses Determining Whether Behaviors Contravene the Law

To determine teachers’ knowledge of the law, the same belief statements were re-
examined but this time (Figure 4.7) as they pertain to whether teachers perceived them as
being against the law. Only one question of significance stood out. A relatively small
number of teachers perceived that kissing a student was against the law, whereas
rewarding students for sex or making sexual propositions was widely perceived as being
against the law.
62%
72%
31%
24%
34%
72%
86%
86%
93%
100%
55%
73%
24%
88%
67%
76%
88%
91%
94%
58%
58%
78%
33%
77%
72%
77%
89%
89%
88%
80%
Flirting with a student
Hugging a student
Kissing a student
Dating a student
Communicating with student
Student flirting
Propositioning student for sex
Rewarding student for sex
Touching student
Alone with student
Correct Responses Determining Whether
Behavior/Beliefs Contravene the Law
High
Middle
Elementary

82
Behaviors school policies and laws prohibit
A part of this research study included reviewing the policies of SUSD. The
district has standard board policy and administrative regulations similar to most school
districts. There were two administrative regulations included in my review: Criminal
Records Check (AR4112.5) and Maintenance of Criminal Offender Records (AR4112.5).
I also examined five Board Policies: Complaints Concerning District Employees (BP
1312.1), Employee Use of Technology (BP4040), Sexual Harassment (BP 4119.11),
Child Abuse Prevention (BP5141.21), and Sexual Harassment (BP5147). All of the
district’s policies are found in the Appendix A. Because these are standard policies, the
district is limited to identifying inappropriate behaviors under the less broad term sexual
harassment. Districts with similar policies in place may also want to consider revising
their policies to replace the terms “sexual harassment” or “sexual abuse” with the broader
term “sexual misconduct” in school policy documents.
As an example, the district does not include policy language addressing teachers
dating students under age 18, even though it is inappropriate for school personnel to do
so. It is not addressed in policy language, nor is it against the law to date a student; but
there are statutory rape laws for sex between an adult and a minor. The district’s policy
corresponds to laws on sexual harassment
5

5
Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employers are responsible for preventing and stopping
sexual harassment that occurs on the job. Title VII applies to private and most public employers, labor
organizations, employment agencies, and joint employer-union apprenticeship programs with 15 or more
employees.
; however, other sexual behaviors, including

83
some identified in the survey, were not addressed. In addition to sexual harassment, both
child abuse
6
and pornography
7
SUSD district policy states that computer files and any other electronic networks
belong to the district and are not private. School board policy 4040(a) addresses
employee use of technology, even suggesting that technological resources are for district
business and that their use is a privilege that may be revoked at any time. The policy was
last revised in 2003 and clearly conveys what types of data may not be transmitted
electronically and assumes that the user is engaged in school business when employing
this medium.
are included as violation of policy.
Inappropriate use shall result in a cancellation of the employee’s user privileges,
disciplinary action and/or legal action in accordance with law, board policy and
administrative regulations.

The district has given staff authority to use technology and guidelines for its use in their
policy language. Acceptance of access implies that the employee agrees to district
policy guidelines and understands appropriate use of the privilege granted. However, this
broad policy language could be enhanced to cover social, non-district networking or
personal access and should specifically refer to text, email, and interactions that take
place on social networking websites, all of which may include inappropriate
communications. The teachers lacked a clear understanding of sexual misconduct as it

6
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the Federal legislation that provides
minimum standards for the definition of child abuse and neglect that States must incorporate into their
statutory definitions.
7
Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography is defined as any visual depiction, including any
photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or
produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct.

84
applies to the law, especially in their use of electronic technologies. According to the
survey results, a majority of teachers perceived that social communications with students
such as notes, text messages and sexting (where nude or semi-nude visual images can
transmit from one phone to another through text messages and cell phone calls) were
against the law and against school policy. The district has done well to disseminate this
view and thus fend off litigation.
I recognize that the Governing Board of SUSD is committed to ensuring that all
students and employees have access to a safe and secure learning environment and
applaud them for taking steps to lay the foundation. The policy pertaining to sexual
harassment is currently accessible on the SUSD district’s website under District
Information/ Board Policy and Board of Directors/ Board Policy. At minimum, the
policy complies with state law in accordance with AB1825
8

8
Ch. 933, Statutes of 2004
, signed by Governor
Schwarzenegger in September 2004, which states that employers with more than 50
employees must provide two hours of training to their supervisory employees. Annually,
management and supervisory district personnel at SUSD receive the training; however,
there does not appear to be any regularly scheduled, district-provided training that would
apply to teachers or other school staff. The district must act to ensure that each school
site is free from sexual harassment by distributing to each employee an information sheet
on sexual harassment. Through this policy, information addressing sexual misconduct in
the [school] workplace can be disseminated, and employees who receive this information

85
will be made aware that sexual misconduct is a result of offensive, unwelcome sexual
behavior at work.
Training provided to the District
In my conversations with school site administrators, we discussed the type of
training teachers receive specific to any type of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment.
The finding that teachers have less knowledge in matters of the law may relate to the fact
that teachers and classified support staff do not receive the state-legislated sexual
harassment training, since employers are not required to provide this training to non-
supervisory personnel, nor does the district provide any other type of training on the
topic.
Common beliefs about sexual misconduct
The survey used a sequence of ten statements to ascertain the sample’s level of
agreement regarding statements about sexual misconduct issues between teachers (or
staff) and students (Table 4.5). Each statement required the sample to check whether
they strongly disagreed, disagreed, agreed or strongly agreed.

86
Table 4.5 Beliefs Concerning Sexual Misconduct between Teachers/Staff &
Students - Question 8

Beliefs Concerning Sexual
Misconduct between
Teachers/Staff & Students
Missing
data
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree

Personally this topic does not
affect me

7%

24%

37%

20%

12%
Teachers see more teacher/staff
SM than they report

5%

16%

42%

35%

3%
Student dress and their behaviors
make it difficult for me to report
an incident involving a teacher
or staff member

4%

17%

39%

35%

6%
I am not comfortable reporting
something I have not seen

4%

9%

26%

42%

19%
The pressure from colleagues
would make it difficult for me to
report an incident involving a
teacher or staff member

2%

40%

50%

7%

1%
The pressure from colleagues
would make it difficult for me to
report my suspicions involving a
teacher or staff member

25%

24%

42%

7%

1%
People who engage in SM are
“predators”

5%

5%

17%

39%

34%
Teachers accused of engaging in
SM with students may have
actually been seduced by
“mature” students

6%

22%

39%

32%

1%
Teachers must report the
suspicion of SM, even if they do
not have first- hand knowledge
of an event

5%

4%

25%

45%

22%
Teachers must report an
allegation of SM by a
parent/guardian or student even
if they think the student initiated
the behavior

4%

3%

3%

57%

33%

87
In this section, I will highlight only areas of interest that pertained to the questions
identified above in Table 4.5. These questions centered on statements about beliefs
pertaining to relationships between students and adults; however, there are only a couple
of areas worth noting. Of the 139 teachers surveyed, 12% strongly agreed and 20%
agreed that the topic of sexual misconduct did not affect them. The second statement in
this series asked for their level of agreement about whether or not teachers see more than
they report. One third of the sample expressed agreement, with 3% strongly agreeing and
35% agreeing. One role of the teacher is to build a sense of community and moral
character. The third statement in this series asked whether teachers think other teachers
find it difficult to maintain healthy relationships due to both student dress and behavior.
This time more than two-fifths agreed (35% agreed and 6% strongly agreed) that they
think they have colleagues who have trouble reporting.
The next statements focused on conditions that might affect a teacher’s decision
to report sexual misconduct. The majority of respondents noted that they would be
uncomfortable reporting if they had not witnessed the sexual misconduct (with 42%
agreeing and 19% strongly agreeing). However, if they did witness it, little would
prevent them from reporting it. This discussion will continue in addressing the third
research question. Two statements solicited teacher perceptions on how they see
themselves responding to pressure when it comes to reporting. In one case, the sample
group was asked if peer pressure would prevent them from reporting an incident, only ten
(7%) respondents agreed. The stronger majority disagreed (49% disagreeing and 40%
strongly disagreeing). Asked, furthermore, if peer pressure would stop them from

88
reporting a suspicion, 12 (7%) agreed, with the majority of responses disagreeing (42%
disagreeing and 23% strongly disagreeing).
Statement 7 asked whether educators felt that those who engaged in sexual
misconduct with students were sexual predators. Here, while a majority agreed to this
statement (39% agreed, while 33% strongly agreed), one fourth of the sample disagreed
(17% disagreed and 5% strongly disagreed).
The next statement suggested that teachers accused of sexual misconduct may
instead have been seduced by “mature” students, shifting the root cause of the problem
away from the teacher. The majority disagreed (39% disagreeing and 27% strongly
disagreeing), leaving less than one fourth agreeing (32% agreeing and 1% strongly) that
mature students are responsible for the seduction. This data compares to a related
question suggesting that teachers who struggle to form healthy relationships may find it
difficult to do so because of the way students behave and dress at school.
Through this next set of statements, I wanted to find related themes from the data.
The teachers were asked whether they must report suspicious incidents regardless of
whether their knowledge is firsthand. Slightly over one fourth of the sample did not
believe teachers must report suspicions if there was not firsthand knowledge. Although
we do not know why there was a small population of teachers with this belief, it may be
attributed to bystander behavior. These are where those who witness incidents will
isolate themselves from the issue and, as a result, not feel compelled to report. The
majority (66%) of the sample, however, agreed to reporting suspicious activity. In the last
of the teacher belief statements about sexual misconduct, teachers overwhelmingly

89
agreed that they must report an allegation of sexual misconduct in given situations. For
example, if told by a parent, even if they think the student initiated an interaction that
may identify a colleague, respondents affirmed their belief that they had a responsibility
to report (55% agreed and 33% strongly agreed), with only ten people in total disagreeing
(4% disagreed and 3% strongly disagreed).
Overall, the findings present evidence for a call for action in a couple of areas
related to the first research question. First, there needs to be a clear understanding of
what constitutes sexual misconduct. Second, it is crucial to identify and raise awareness
on appropriate and inappropriate behaviors in the classroom between adults and students.
A small case of bystander behavior may be all that is preventing a very small population
from reporting. These areas will be further discussed in Chapter 5.
Second Research Question: Teachers’ Reporting by Age and
Experience

The second research question asked, “What has been teachers’ experience with
sexual misconduct by their peers, targeting students? To what extent do demographics
play a role in allegations of sexual misconduct?”
Two different types of questions were used to gauge teachers’ experience with
sexual misconduct: their self-efficacy (do they think they can recognize the behavior) and
direct experience, either witnessing or hearing about an incident or helping a victim over
the past 12 months. When asked if they recognized the behavior, all but five teachers
(4%) of the sample felt that they could recognize the behavior. These five indicated that

90
they were not sure if they could recognize the behavior. According to the remaining
responses from the sample, the group did feel comfortable recognizing sexual misconduct
if they saw it. Fifty-six respondents (40%) would always recognize sexual misconduct
and 78 (56%) indicated that they would probably recognize the misconduct. Their self-
efficacy is high because they believe that they understand sexual misconduct, even
though a small number may be slow to report the incidents after they have recognized it.
Table 4.6 shows direct experience questions, in which the survey addressed
whether or not teachers had assisted someone in dealing with sexual misconduct. The
majority (74%) had not. Seventeen (12%) responded that they had assisted only a student
victim, 4 (3%) had assisted a student perpetrator, 2 (1%) had assisted a teacher/staff who
was a victim, and two (1%) had assisted a teacher/staff who was the perpetrator. The
story continues to unfold through the data, with the remaining 10 (7%) teachers
indicating that they had provided a combination of responses for assisting multiple
victims and perpetrators with sexual misconduct. The results were statistically
insignificant as it pertained to assisting the victim or perpetrator because of too many
choices offered in the survey. The sample size was not large enough to identify any
additional trends when respondents were broken down by age and years of experience.

91
Table 4.6 Assisting Someone in Dealing with Sexual Misconduct – Question 7

Assisting Someone in Dealing with Sexual Misconduct
Yes, a student (alleged victim) 18%
Yes, a student (alleged perpetrator) 8%
Yes, a teacher/staff member (alleged victim) 5%
Yes, a teacher/staff member (alleged perpetrator) 5%
No 74%

Detail about the types of misconduct experienced by teachers is provided in Table
4.7, with a summary of behaviors either seen or heard about in the past twelve months
rated by the sample group. There were three behaviors seen over the past 12 months:
flirting by students (8%), flirting by teachers (4%), and hugging (7%) worth highlighting.
Each of these three areas can be easily addressed with training programs.

92
Table 4.7 Behaviors Seen or Heard about in the past 12 Months

Seen it in the
Past 12
Months
Heard about it in
the Past 12
Months
A teacher/staff member flirting with a student. 4% -
A teacher/staff member hugging a student that
made you feel uncomfortable.
7% 1%
A teacher/staff member kissing a student. 1% -
A teacher/staff member dating a student. - 1%
A teacher/staff member calling or, sending
inappropriate notes, email or text messages to a
student.
1% -
A student flirting with a teacher/staff member. 8% 1%
A teacher/staff member propositioning a
student for sexual favors.
- 1%
A teacher/staff member offering a student a
reward (such as a better grade, for example) for
having sex with him/her.
- 1%
A teacher/staff member touching a student
inappropriately.

- 1%
A teacher/staff member who is always alone
with students.
2% 1%

I disaggregated the data about behaviors seen or heard about by the teachers’
years of experience (Figure 4.8) and age (Figure 4.9) below. There were no significant
findings as a result, and there were no significant relationships.

93
Figure 4.8 Number of Years Teaching Compared with Behaviors Seen or Heard

Figure 4.9 Age of Teacher Compared to Behaviors Seen or Heard

0
2
4
6
0 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 20 25 28 29 30 31 33 40
Number of Instances
Number of Years Teaching
Number of Years Teaching Compared with Behaviors
Seen or Heard
Seen SM in last 12 months Heard of SM in last 12 months
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
25 29 31 34 35 36 37 38 40 41 43 43 44 44 47 49 51 53 53 55 55 55 58 59 64
Number of Instances
Age of Teacher
Age of Teacher Compared to Behaviors Seen or
Heard
Seen SM in last 12 months Heard of SM in last 12 months

94
Breaking the above data down by school site (Figure 4.10) revealed that that 45%
of the high school teachers surveyed had seen one or more instances of perceived sexual
misconduct within the past twelve months.
Figure 4.10 Behaviors Seen or Heard by School Site

A related survey question asked teachers whether they have ever suspected a co-
worker of sexual misconduct with a student. All 139 teachers responded. When it came
to suspecting someone in the past, twenty-six respondents (19%) stated that they had,
although the majority, 113 respondents (81%), indicated that they had never suspected
any staff member in the past.
The data was then broken down by age and number of years teaching; however,
there were no statistically significant relationships between age and years of teaching and
recognizing or suspecting sexual misconduct.
The second research question causes one to make assumptions based on
conflicting data. Teachers stated that they could recognize sexual misconduct; however,
6 (19%)
10 (29%)
33 (45%)
7
13
39
11 11
18
Elementary Middle High
Behaviors Seen or Heard by School Site
Responses Seen in last 12 months Heard in last 12 months

95
only 19% of this same group sampled throughout this study had ever suspected a
coworker of sexual misconduct. With this in mind, I am not convinced of the data that
teachers know and are able to recognize sexually inappropriate behavior when they have
not been involved in direct training about reporting as well as laws and policies
pertaining to sexual misconduct. Since the majority (74%) of teachers have never
reported having any experience or even assisting with problems stemming from this
behavior, it is not known whether those teachers who say they can recognize sexual
misconduct are actually able to do so.
Third Research Question: Barriers in Addressing Sexual Misconduct
The third research question asked, “What do teachers perceive as being barriers in
addressing sexual misconduct?” The intent was to examine the responses in order to
identify areas where barriers exist as potential roadblocks to reporting. To address what
teachers perceive as barriers, the survey questions will assess three areas that tie to the
literature review in order to examine how these barriers impact teachers’ reporting of
sexual misconduct, training and awareness that hinders or encourages the decision to
report or even can escalate bystander behavior discussed in earlier sections of this study,
and lastly, maintenance of confidentiality of the reports so that teachers or other staff
may feel as though they can move forward in reporting.

96
Barriers to Reporting Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

Reporting is a major consideration in improving the odds of teachers or any other
school employee to report. The literature suggests that sexual misconduct is
underestimated in part due to the underreporting of data by schools and local agencies
(Shakeshaft, 2004). Determining teacher perceptions towards reporting suspicions or
incidents of sexual misconduct required the researcher to look in several areas for these
barriers. First, I examined situations teachers perceived as being potential barriers to
reporting based on the survey questions. Next, I considered influences or external factors
that could affect the ability of the teacher to report as suggested by the literature.
The survey questions addressing this research question consisted of a series of
seven statements targeting external influences that could sway teachers’ decision to
report. The teachers read the statements and then determined the likelihood that they
would report sexual misconduct in the given situation (Table 4.8). What can be gleaned
from this data overall is that teachers were more likely to report sexual misconduct if they
were presented with the conditions on reporting as though they had some type of buy-in.
While the majority of these outside influences supported the teachers position to report,
there were a couple of instances where external influences actually created a barrier to
reporting, reducing the likelihood of reporting. Although the issue pertaining to non-
response has been addressed previously, it should be noted that 26% did not respond to
the statement asking how likely they would be, if evidence of something inappropriate
were found, to report. Also of interest were the three scenarios that captured the highest

97
response. Specifically those responses where the sample group was either somewhat
unlikely to report or very unlikely to report sexual misconduct. While the correct
response would be that they would be likely to report under any circumstance, their
responses were that they would be unlikely to do so under the following conditions: if
another teacher/staff member told them (14%); if a student told them about it happening
(14%), and lastly, if they overheard the alleged victim telling another student (11%),
making this scenario the one with the lowest likelihood of reporting.
Table 4.8 Barriers that Influence the Likelihood of Reporting Sexual Misconduct -
Question 11

Barriers that Influence the
Likelihood of Reporting
Sexual Misconduct, if...
% Very
unlikely
% Somewhat
unlikely
% Somewhat
likely
% Very
likely
The student (alleged victim)
told me.

4%

2%

14%

76%
The parent/guardian of the
alleged victim told me.

4%

3%

14%

75%

Another teacher/staff
member told me.

6%

8%

29%

53%
I saw it happen.

3%

1%

4%

88%
A student told me about it
happening to another
student.

6%

8%

33%

48%

I overheard the alleged
victim telling another
student.

4%

6%

27%

58%
I found evidence of
something inappropriate
happening, such as finding a
note between a teacher/staff
and a student.

4%

4%

14%

52%

98
Teachers were to read the statements consisting of scenarios, situations and
factors shown in Table 4.8 and asked to indicate which of these barriers would influence
their likelihood to report. For each of the above statements, the percentages shown
indicate that none of these statements were perceived as barriers to reporting.
The second set of questions focused on factors involving others and the influence
that other individuals or circumstances play in acting as a barrier to reporting. Teachers
were asked to identify whether it would be much easier, easier, have no impact or be
somewhat harder or much harder to report (Table 4.9), given a set of barriers that might
influence their decision. For each item listed, a 5-point Likert-scale was used, with a
neutral response representing no impact. A majority of teachers indicated that the factors
in each scenario would have no impact on their decision to report. Therefore, the focus
will be on the smaller population that did find these scenarios to be barriers to their
individual reporting. The first statement presented the accused teacher as being older or
having more seniority. There were 118 (85%) responses of no impact.

99
Table 4.9 Barriers that Influence the Decision to Report - Question 12

Barriers that Influence the
Decision to Report
Influence Decision to
Report
% Much
harder
%
Somewhat
harder
% No
impact
% Easier % Much
easier
The accused teacher is older
or has more seniority than
you.

1%

5%

85%

3%

0%
The accused staff member is
an administrator.

4%

24%

60%

3%

1%
You know the accused
teacher/staff member very
well.

8%

39%

43%

2%

1%
Your identity will be kept
confidential.

0%

1%

36%

30%

24%
The district has handled
cases like this well in the
past.

2%

2%

45%

24%

16%
You have heard other stories
about teachers who were
never confronted.

2%

9%

74%

5%

2%
The accused teacher/staff
member may face prison
time if convicted.

1%

17%

71%

2%

1%
The alleged victim does not
appear to be suffering.

0%

6%

83%

2%

1%
Everyone knows that the
alleged victim behaves
inappropriately (flirtatious or
sexual) when around
teachers/staff.

1%

12%

52%

4%

1%

Overall, none of the above characteristics about the alleged victim or the alleged
perpetrator significantly or negatively influenced the teachers’ determination to report.
Nor did hypothetical characteristics of the reporting environment play an impact. Peer
pressure, however, did play a significant role in how teachers responded to the survey
(Figure 4.11).

100
Figure 4.11 Peer Pressure and Reporting Difficulty

If the teacher knew the accused well, respected the accused, or if the accused had
any type of influence over the teacher in a position of authority, the teachers were
influenced not to report (Table 4.10). Twenty-four percent felt it would be somewhat
harder to report if the accused was an administrator. If the teacher knew the accused very
well, again, 39% would find it somewhat harder to report and 8% much harder to report.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Incidents Suspicions
Peer Pressure and Reporting Difficulty
Agree
Disagree
No Response

101
Table 4.10 Barriers that Make it Difficult to Report

% No
Impact
%
Difficult
% More
Difficult
The accused teacher is older or has more seniority
than you.

85% 5% 1%
The accused staff member is an administrator.

60% 24% 4%
You know the accused teacher/staff member very
well.

43% 39% 8%
The accused teacher/staff member may face prison
time if convicted.

72% 17% 1%
The alleged victim does not appear to be suffering.

83% 6% 0%
You have heard other stories about teachers who
were never confronted.

74% 9% 2%
Everyone knows that the alleged victim behaves
inappropriately (flirtatious or sexual) when around
teachers/staff.
52% 12% 1%

Teachers found it easier to report where their identity remained confidential or
where the way in which the district handles the reporting assured privacy; in such cases
knowing a person and the relationship of authority were not seen as a barrier (Table
4.11). When asked if confidentiality would make a difference in respondents’ ability to
report, overwhelmingly, the respondents affirmed that they would find it easier or much
easier to report someone, regardless of who they are. Again, 8% chose not to respond.
There was a strong correlation to the above responses when the district’s handling of
similar cases in the past was factored in. If the district was perceived to have handled

102
similar cases well in the past, 16% would find it much easier, while 24% responded it
would be easier to report.
Table 4.11 Barriers that Influence Ease in the Decision to Report
% No
Impact
%
Easier
to
Report
%
Much
Easier to
Report
Your identity will be kept confidential. 36% 30% 25%
The district has handled cases like this well in the
past.
45% 24% 16%

If the teacher had heard stories that teachers who committed sexual misconduct
were never confronted, there was no impact (74%) on their ease in reporting. The data
did, however, point to some sense of loyalty when examining all the factors that
influenced the decision to report sexual misconduct allegations. If the accused teacher or
staff were to face possible prison time, 16% indicated that it would be much harder to
report.
The last of the statements on influence factors established whether there would be
an influence on reporting if educators had knowledge that the alleged victim acted
inappropriately. Sixteen people stood out by indicating that it would be somewhat harder
to report knowing that the student had played a role in the downfall of the teacher or staff
accused.

103
Barriers to Training on Sexual Misconduct
Identifying barriers also meant examining whether training or the lack thereof
played a part in encouraging or limiting one’s ability to report. Table 4.12 represents the
views of 61% of teachers, indicating that there was a need for additional training in order
for teachers to be sufficiently prepared. The data was also looked at by school site;
however, due to the large sample size of high school teachers, the results by each school
were skewed and therefore are not reported.

Table 4.12 School Offers Sufficient Training on Recognizing Sexual Misconduct -
Question 5

The survey asked whether the respondents received sexual harassment training,
considering that the more training is provided, the fewer barriers will exist. Oddly, the
majority, 74 (53%), indicated that they do receive this type of training (Table 4.13).
Twenty-three or 17% indicated they do not receive this training and slightly less than half
of the majority (27%) indicated that they did not know of any sexual harassment training.
According to site administrators, this training is not provided to site staff.

School Offers Sufficient Training on
Recognizing Sexual Misconduct
%
Yes 38%
No 61%
Missing Data – Non Response 1%

104
Table 4.13 School Offers Sufficient Training on Recognizing Sexual Misconduct -
Question 14

Sexual Harassment Training is
Provided to all Teachers
%
Yes 54%
No 17%
I don't know 27%
Missing Data - Non Response 3%

When asked about training to teach school workers the indicators of sexual
grooming and other red flag indicators of sexual misconduct (Table 4.14), 65%
responded that they believed the district should include some type of training or
awareness program. Twenty-eight percent chose not to respond to this question on red
flag indicators.
Table 4.14 Training Should Include Red Flag Warning Signs - Question 15

SUSD employs an anonymous hotline (1-800-78-CRIME) for any type of abuse
or crime against the district. Posters are available for posting throughout the campus,
even though these posters were not seen during my site visits. A rather large number,
Training Should Include Red Flag Warning
Signs
%
Yes 65%
No 1%
I don't know 7%
Missing Data - Non Response 28%

105
74%, of the 139 employees surveyed were unaware one way or another if an anonymous
hotline existed.
Table 4.15 Anonymous Hotline for Reporting Potential Problems - Question 16

Barriers to Maintaining Confidentiality of Reporting
To determine if confidentiality posed any barriers, the sample group was asked to
share their level of confidence on the district’s ability to maintain confidentiality of their
identity, if they were to report an incident of sexual misconduct. Their responses were
somewhat inconsistent with prior questions that spoke to confidence in reporting.
Nonetheless, the data reveals that forty-two percent of teachers affirmed that they were
somewhat confident the teacher’s identity would be kept confidential (Table 4.16).
The data is not overwhelming but does suggest that the majority of the sample
group, over 58%, were confident or somewhat confident that their reports filed on sexual
misconduct would be kept confidential. A higher percentage of elementary school
teachers (77%) were very confident that any sexual misconduct reports they submitted
would be treated confidentially. Yet middle school teachers trusting that any submitted
sexual misconduct reports would be kept confidential were fewer, at 69%.
Anonymous Hotline for Reporting Potential
Problems
%
Yes 12%
No 8%
I don't know 74%
Missing Data - Non Response 6%

106
Confidentiality of reporting is a strong influence in high schools, with only 45% of
teachers expressing confidence that their sexual misconduct reports would remain
confidential.
Table 4.16 Integrity in Confidence of Reporting for All Schools

Question 10: Integrity in Confidence of Reporting % of Confidence
Not at all confident that identity would be kept
confidential
15%
Not confident that identity would be kept
confidential
25%
Somewhat confident that identity would be kept
confidential
42%
Very confident that identity would be kept
confidential
17%

The data was examined by age, years teaching and by school level. There were no
significant findings from the data that stood out, as the population was too small to make
any meaningful analysis.
Summary

Just as surprising was the number of non-responses to questions on the survey.
Elementary school teachers had a 13% missing response rate, middle school 5% and high
school a 9% missing response rate. Another major finding was that on reporting. There
were a relatively low number of respondents who felt that there was no requirement of
reporting at all, which shall be addressed in Chapter 5. The majority of the sample
group, however, agreed that they would not report unless they had witnessed some form
of sexual misconduct occurring.

107
The second research question addressed teachers’ experience with sexual
misconduct targeting students by their peers and looked for correlations in demographic
data addressing the topic. The average years of teaching for this sample group fell
slightly under 15 years, with the average time spent at the location surveyed being 10
years. The average age of our sample group was 45 years. Since this study examined a
relatively small sample group, the total number (25%) of teachers who had actually
assisted victims of sexual misconduct startled me. More astonishing was the percentage
that had assisted student victims (12%), followed by 3% who had assisted student
perpetrators, 1% who had assisted either teachers/staff victims and 1% who had assisted a
teacher/staff perpetrator.
The third research question driving this study addressed the barriers stopping
teachers and other staff from reporting an allegation of sexual misconduct. The findings
were that in given situations, teachers perceive that they will report without regard to
external influences. However, if the perpetrator was an administrator or friend, or if there
was a fear in reporting because it could result in prison, teachers were influenced in their
decision and may choose to not report. The survey also addressed whether sufficient
training is available from the perspective of the respondents. The majority indicated that
there were unmet training needs, and that staff could benefit if further training were
available. While the majority felt confident that matters reported remained confidential,
there was strong evidence that teachers were not always confidant of the information
remaining confidential. Chapter 4 presented and summarized the data analysis and

108
identified major findings. In Chapter 5, these major findings from the data will be further
explored.

109
Chapter 5
Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
Overview

The results of this study on teacher perceptions of sexual misconduct clearly
identify a need for training. Few teachers were able to distinguish school policy from
laws addressing sexually inappropriate behavior. Teachers appear uncomfortable with
reporting and therefore may feel the need to help both victim and perpetrator on their
own without feeling obligated to report their suspicions. The data showed that a lack of
confidence progressed upwards, from teachers in elementary schools, to those in middle
and high schools, with the latter group having the least amount of confidence. As we are
learning, unless more is done at the site level to inform teachers of their role in reporting
suspicions or incidents of inappropriate conduct, incidents of sexual misconduct may
continue not only to erode the professional perception of our teachers, but also to impact
student achievement as result of schools’ inability to provide a safe learning environment
for students.
While there has been plenty of news coverage about sexual misconduct cases
occurring toward elementary, middle and high school students by school workers,
research remains limited with very little new data available on the reasons this type of
misconduct continues to be underreported. There has been no data collected addressing
perceptions of teachers or other school employees working in a public school
environment who have knowledge of these types of incidents. The lack of evidence

110
toward a solution that would assist teachers in protecting students from a tragic yet
controversial form of abuse led this researcher on the quest to gain better insight into how
school administrators and their districts are addressing the need for teachers to recognize
the signs of inappropriate behavior by becoming better informed. The challenge for
future researchers is to take this study forward, sharing what we have learned from this
research and conducting further study into the realm of educator sexual misconduct in
schools.
The purpose of this study was to investigate, analyze, and describe teachers’
perceptions of the occurrence of sexual misconduct in a public K-12 school setting. The
study further explored beliefs and perceptions from the perspective of the teacher as the
bystander. Ultimately, the purpose of this study was to examine whether teachers
understood the scope of the problem, realizing their role in stopping sexual misconduct
from occurring towards the student population they serve. An examination of programs,
policies and training offered by the school district was implemented to determine whether
they are useful tools in preventing school workers from demonstrating this type of
inappropriate behavior. From this, the researcher has investigated, analyzed, and
described the occurrence of sexual misconduct in public elementary, middle and high
school settings.

111
Summary of the Findings
First Research Question
The first research question sought to identify how teachers define sexual
misconduct by school personnel. We are accustomed to hearing about sexual harassment,
a concept that developed out of a federal law that generalizes inappropriate behavior
between adults and prohibits this type of behavior in the workplace. Employers are
responsible for preventing and stopping sexual harassment that occurs on the job.
Currently, failure to do so results in a violation of the employee’s rights under Title VII
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, the term “sexual misconduct” describes an array
of inappropriate behaviors between two or more parties, from sexual talk or touching to
full intercourse. In the educational arena, sexual misconduct or educator misconduct are
not understood well enough to be clearly defined. The U.S. Department of Education,
Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (2008), suggests that educational
entities may be best served using educator sexual misconduct in policy language as this
term broadens the definition to include child abuse as well as criminal and noncriminal
inappropriate behavior.
Based on the evidence from the survey, the participants felt strongly that they
could recognize sexual misconduct under most circumstances. Yet research tells us that
perpetrators of sexual misconduct defy traditional stereotypes (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004, 2008). Those engaged in sexual misconduct do not have a particular
profile; they are gender neutral, and they do not possess distinguishing characteristics that
can help researchers and educators to identify the next perpetrator. Among the teachers

112
in the study, there was an underlying belief that not only would they be able to recognize
inappropriate sexual conduct, but that they understood the differences between violations
of school policy and violations of the law pertaining to sexual misconduct. However, my
analysis from the survey findings suggests the participants are mistaken in their
confidence. The survey revealed a number of patterns and inconsistencies in survey
responses on questions related to policy and law.
A secondary question addressed the extent to which definitions held by educators
are correct according to school policy. The evidence suggested that while teachers did not
know school policy, they did know that some type of policy existed. In breaking down
the data by school, there was nothing significant to support that knowledge was more
accurate at any one school over the other two. I reviewed the districts’ policies to
determine why teachers were unaware of the policy language. Based on policy
documents, SUSD is not different from other school boards with regard to policies on
sexual harassment and teacher-student relations. There was evidence that sexual
harassment information has and continues to be disseminated to management staff, but
that interactive sexual misconduct training for certificated or classified staff has not
occurred. I found there is also room to improve policy so that its language becomes more
inclusive of all areas of sexual misconduct and thus correspond better to society’s literal
interpretations of rules as previously suggested by the U.S. Department of Education.
A review of the district’s existing policies suggests that they may be insufficient
to guide professional educators in their responsibility for protecting children from sexual
misconduct. This opinion is based in part on the variances and interpretations of

113
definitions used for sexual harassment and harassing behavior, which are traditional
terms and do not clearly articulate or include the noncriminal inappropriate behavior with
under-aged students often seen in sexual misconduct cases (Fauske, 2006). For example,
under the current sexual harassment policy language, nothing implicitly states that it is
against SUSD policy if a teacher were to date a student who is under the age of 18. Since
school policy does not address this specific type of behavior, it is not seen as a violation.
Listed in the Professional Advisory, the employee guidelines created by the Ontario
College of Teachers (OCT), is language addressing the establishment of a dating
relationship with any student, including those under the age of 18, as inappropriate
behavior. Policy language must clearly articulate district policy in order for employees to
feel accountable to what has been written. If the policy language on sexual abuse and or
sexual harassment were to be broadened to sexual misconduct, it would include a more
diverse definition that would include such inappropriate behaviors. Since dating and
other noncriminal behavior is not listed in SUSD’s policies, if employees are engaging in
this type of inappropriate behavior with students, the actions may not be reported since
there is no policy that has been violated. Clear, articulate and broadened policy language
may be necessary to address sexual misconduct and thus lead to early intervention with
the capacity to deter the inappropriate behavior that could lead to cases of sexually
charged misconduct.
The third part of this question addressed teachers’ common assumptions and
beliefs about this topic from their own life experiences. The expectation was that teachers
would have an accurate sense of what are considered appropriate behaviors with students.

114
Instead, the survey revealed an inconsistency among teachers. An alarming example is
that 20-30% of the sample surveyed felt that propositioning students for sexual favors,
offering a reward for having sex and inappropriate touch were not against school policy.
Similarly, teachers were questioned about their beliefs on what actions were against the
law compared to policy. There was a significant gap between teachers’ perceptions of
what is against the law and their knowledge of district policy. This suggests that more
could be done to educate staff with regard to both policy and its relation to the law. The
expectation is that teachers should be able to identify behaviors that fall under school
policy and under the law. Yet, fifteen percent of the survey group was unable to identify
behaviors that were against the law. The evidence further implies discomfort and
confusion about the appropriateness of flirting, hugging or kissing students. These red
flag behaviors could escalate to sexual misconduct because of inappropriate physical
contact. Similar to an earlier comment regarding observations about district policy, there
was no clear, concise language defining appropriate and inappropriate physical contact.
Second Research Question

The second research question consisted of two parts. The first sought to identify
teachers’ experience with sexual misconduct by their peers, targeting students.
Historically, one of public education's purposes in America has been the development of
moral citizens. Today’s educator deals with increased academic accountability. At the
same time, our educators are expected to play a role in the moral development of
students. Consequently, teachers must strike a balance between achieving quantifiable

115
academic standards and assisting with students' character development (Brimi, 2009).
Understanding the need for balance between teaching students to learn and assisting
students with greater confidence and self-esteem may help us to create tools that can be
used to identify individuals who are struggling to form healthy relationships with students
and thus forestall inappropriate conduct or behaviors that could lead down the path of
sexual misconduct.
The second part of the question determined the role demographics play in
allegations of sexual misconduct. Using demographic data can allow the researcher to
examine trends or draw conclusions from the data that are relevant to the topic (Patton,
2002). I used demographic data to search for significant themes. As an example, I
looked for common perceptions, such as particular beliefs about reporting that may have
been shared across the three schools; or the number of non-responses to survey questions
generated by the high school was examined. I also considered the knowledge between
experienced and less experienced teachers as it pertains to sexual misconduct.
Teachers’ Experience
Among the teachers in the surveyed elementary and middle schools, less than a
quarter had seen or heard of any incident of sexual misconduct. Similarly, in these two
schools, there was no significant difference in the number of incidents of sexual
misconduct reported. The exposure rate at the high school level was 45% revealing that
teachers personally witnessed more than double the number of incidents they heard of
indirectly over the same period.

116
A child’s attitude toward school will be determined by the degree of social
success experienced at school. With educators currently faced with increased academic
accountability, the study revealed that a number of teachers find it a challenge to
maintain healthy relationships. Since one aspect of the role of teachers is to assist in the
development of moral and social character (Lavoie, 2002), it is significant that 41% of
the sample indicated they feel teachers struggle to form healthy relationships with their
students. Lavoie defines the role of the educator as one who should foster and promote
the social development of their students. Children not socially developed may be
vulnerable and at higher risk for victimization by a pedophile in sexual misconduct cases
(van Dam, 2001).
Role of Demographics
There was no evidence to suggest that teachers’ lack of understanding of sexual
misconduct could be attributed to age or years teaching; however, it was noted that the
more experienced the teacher was, the more likely they were to complete the survey
questions. There were more non-responses by the least experienced teachers, who chose
to skip over at least one question.
Third Research Question
The third research question sought to determine what teachers perceive as barriers
in addressing sexual misconduct. Four barriers emerged, all related to reporting. First,
there was a concern about under which conditions, influences and factors to report.
Second, there may be a lack of sufficient training provided to the teachers or other staff in

117
order for them to feel confident about recognizing the misconduct. Third, the question of
confidentiality pertains to how well teachers perceive that their reports are being handled.
Finally, certain external influences are perceived as barriers to reporting; these include
factors associated with sexual misconduct cases. This section highlights the key findings
from the survey.
Reporting Sexual Misconduct
Reporting allegations of sexual misconduct to authorities is a long, scary, painful
and highly stressful process. Reporting is seen as a barrier because teachers were unaware
of what constitutes sexual misconduct, therefore preventing them as witnesses from
reporting it altogether. Based on the data gathered, the majority of teachers (86%)
responded to the question on reporting. Of the 86% responding to the question, the
majority of teachers (65%) agreed that they had to report; however, there were 21%
identifying reasons for not having to report.
The next sequence of questions sought to determine if there were influences or
outside factors that would make it easier or more difficult to report. The data provides
evidence that teachers may be influenced to withhold from reporting based on who is
involved or how they are informed of the allegation. The overall majority of the teachers
felt that there was little impact associated with these outside influences on reporting, and
would report, especially if a student confided in them. I did notice a trend where teachers
found it harder to report in three specific areas worth noting. If these outside influences
were due to knowing the accused could face time in prison (18%), if the accused were an

118
administrator (28%), and if the accused was someone that they knew well (47%), the
sample indicated through their responses that it would be more difficult to report the
abuse.
Under the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) that was
passed in 1974, all states have passed state laws mandating the reporting of child abuse
and neglect commonly known as Mandated Reporting Laws. Therefore, the expectation
is that 100% of teachers know they need to report any suspicion or incident of abuse
regardless of any other factor, influence or belief. School district employees are
informed of this obligation to report upon hire. In spite of the existence of mandated
reporting laws, the fact that a small group of teachers had the belief that teachers do not
need to report (21%) is troubling. Another note worth mentioning is that questions
soliciting teacher perceptions on reporting sexual misconduct had the highest percentage
of non-responses.

119
Training provided to the teachers or staff
In addition to reporting as a barrier, the lack of training on the topic of sexual
misconduct is also seen as a barrier. When asked about training to teach school workers
the indicators of sexual misconduct, 65% responded that they believed the district should
include some type of training awareness program. Twenty-eight percent chose not to
respond to the question. District administrators seek to establish a safe learning
environment for their students. The district’s Board Policy 3515 (a) defines the role of
key stakeholders at the district. First, it states that the Board of Education is fully
committed to preventing violence and crime on school grounds through policies related to
crime, campus disturbances, campus intruders, student safety, student conduct and
student discipline, and that rules will be strictly enforced. The principal of each school is
responsible for having a comprehensive school safety plan that includes strategies for
preventing crime and violence on school premises that is not limited to but includes
sexual misconduct. The district provides sexual harassment training that addresses
workplace situations: adult-to-adult harassment, sexual advances and inappropriate
visible sexual references. The target group for this training is administrators, supervisors
and managers. However, there was no evidence of prevention programs that address
student behavior and red flag indicators of sexual misconduct, or that keep adults safe
from false reporting, provided to staff from these three schools.
Because training or awareness programs are not currently provided to the teachers
or school site staff, I was concerned that 67% of high school, 45% of middle school and

120
35% of elementary school teachers believed that sexual harassment training was
provided. There was also a belief that the current training offered by the district or by the
individual school site is not sufficient. In examining this issue more closely, I did find
that the district currently provides annual training in sexual harassment under AB1825 to
district administrators, including managers and supervisors. There is also evidence of
existing written sexual harassment policies: BP4119.11 (a), BP4219.11 (a), BP4319.11
(a) and BP5145.7 (a). This may be cause for the perception that training is provided, yet
not considered by the sample to be sufficient, as policies may be reviewed online by any
employee.
An interesting observation noted by the researcher was that although high school
teachers constituted the largest group of survey recipients, high school teachers felt the
least need for any type of training. At the same time, the high school teachers were the
largest group affected by outside influences or factors to not report incidents of sexual
misconduct. In addition, they had the highest survey nonresponsive rate at the same time
as they had, as noted earlier, witnessed more instances of sexual misconduct than their
peers in elementary and middle schools.
Confidentiality of Reporting
The third barrier to addressing sexual misconduct dealt with the teachers’ perceptions
about the confidentiality of reporting. This barrier suggests that high school teachers are
more concerned over their information remaining confidential than their peers in middle

121
and elementary schools. What we do not know is whether this group would be more
likely to report if they knew how the district handled confidentiality.
Suspecting or assisting with sexual misconduct cases

The last of the perceived barriers to reporting incidents of sexual misconduct
stems from teachers’ own perceptions concerning personal involvement in sexual
misconduct cases. The data imply that one out of four teachers across the three schools
had assisted someone in dealing with sexual misconduct, the significant majority of them
assisting a student victim. Sexual misconduct is more prevalent at the high school level,
where one of every two teachers assisted someone with sexual misconduct. From
discussions with district personnel, the number of reported sexual misconduct claims on
file does not appear to reflect any incidents where teachers or any other school site staff
may have provided the assistance as indicated in the survey response. This could pose a
concern for the district if there is a systemic problem whereby teachers are handling
issues themselves rather than involving district administration. The underreporting of
sexual misconduct incidents and/ or a lack of understanding of the definition of sexual
misconduct may account for at least two possible reasons for this finding. Both issues
have been cited by researchers as being a cause for concern in the reporting of sexual
misconduct cases in school environments (Fauske, 2006, Shakeshaft, 2004).

122
Conclusion

A seven-month Associated Press investigation was released in 2007 with
overwhelming results. They had uncovered 2,570 educators with teaching credentials
that had been either revoked, denied, surrendered or sanctioned from 2001 through 2005
following allegations of sexual misconduct (Fox News, 2007). These reporters had been
successful in accessing the disciplinary records of school employees involved in sexual
misconduct cases in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. What these reporters had
uncovered was a problem that is known. The educational community has a problem with
educator sexual misconduct. Unfortunately, this study alone has not gained the attention
of lawmakers, educators, parents, or the community at large. It will take several larger
studies of this magnitude with real hard evidence to bring this problem into the spotlight
in order to address it. Obtaining information such as employee records or student victim
reports is difficult because schools are not likely to share their data. However, the
findings from smaller case studies such as these on teachers’ perceptions toward incidents
of sexual misconduct in school settings will provide additional insight into the
phenomenon and lead to further studies.
With the assistance of SUSD teachers and administrators, the intent of this survey
was to analyze and report teachers’ perceptions on sexual misconduct that involves K-12
students through a small sample case study. The findings from this case study will be
used to develop best practices relating to sexual misconduct that fall within the areas
where survey results indicate a need for measures be adopted and implemented by school

123
districts. Evidence to support these findings has been provided through interviews,
teacher surveys and document review and has been carefully analyzed to ensure
accuracy.
From this study alone, three major areas surrounding teacher perceptions of
sexual misconduct surface worth examining more closely. Ways schools might address
these three areas are through policy development, training and reporting. What we still
do not know about teachers’ perceptions toward sexual misconduct as it relates to these
three key areas is how effective our solutions will be in preventing sexual misconduct
from occurring. This could be studied by reexamining teacher perceptions after
implementing solutions such as those identified in this research.
Implications for Policy Development and Implementation

The literature tells us that there are still few empirical studies available on
educator sexual misconduct. In addition, while there have been increases in additional
references and articles addressing educator sexual misconduct over the past two years,
there are a limited number of books and articles that introduce new data addressing
sexual misconduct in schools. This study adds to the data currently available, focusing on
teacher perceptions in their roles as both educator and bystander in the lives of children at
our schools. The findings suggest that teachers do not clearly understand sexual
misconduct. Even though some, through their personal beliefs and knowledge, may
possess a strong sense of right and wrong based in moral values, there are teachers in our
schools who are not sure of what constitutes inappropriate behavior at school unless it is

124
defined in school policy. School district policy and laws relating to sexual misconduct
need an overhaul. In one study (MacDonald, 1996) on school violence, administrators in
the study perceived that school safety was less of a problem than students did. Similarly,
the media depicts occurrences of sexual misconduct incidents occurring at schools, but
since we do not have the data to correlate with what we are reading in the media, there is
a chance that we may be underestimating the problem. The data indicate that the
population consistently generating the cause for concern is not the majority. If this study
were to effect change in just the small segment of school employees who need change—
because of a district developing and implementing broader policy language addressing
sexual misconduct that covers all staff—it could be considered a step toward success in
combating a larger issue.
Training and Awareness
Sexual misconduct laws require schools to adopt policies, provide training,
conduct investigations, and initiate reporting. AB1825 requires training of all managers
and supervisors every two years but does not go far enough to combat the issue of sexual
misconduct. This training is inadequate to meet the needs of schools for a variety of
reasons. First, the main message speaks to sexual harassment between two adults and it
can only be inferred indirectly that misconduct could occur between an adult and student.
The training, even if not mandated, could be extended to include misconduct between
adult and student, addressing inappropriate behavior and activities with students. Second,
existing training is only mandated for management and supervisory staff where

125
employers have fifty or more employees, yet we have many small school districts across
our nation. There is a missed opportunity to inform a much larger population of
employees: support staff, teachers, coaches and volunteers who work with children all
need to understand the definition of sexual misconduct and learn ways in which it can be
prevented. While this mandate falls short of meeting school districts’ needs, the district
by providing AB1825 training every two years to management staff is meeting the legal
requirements of training.
An argument that increased awareness of sexual misconduct, training on red-flag
indicators and teaching others to recognize inappropriate behaviors may result in
vigilantes going after their peers or other school workers but is unsubstantiated because
there is no evidence.
Reporting Allegations of Sexual Misconduct
Sexual misconduct is occurring at an alarming rate but remains underreported
(Shakeshaft, 2004). Teachers exemplify standard bystander behavior; they currently do
not report all that they see for fear of reprisal or identifying the wrong person (van Dam,
2001). Schools must take action to ensure child safety by posting policies where they
will be visible, provide training and create multiple streams of reporting for cases of
sexual misconduct to allay this type of bystander fear. Reporting remains an individual
task. However, whatever is reported must be done so in such a way that the person
bringing the issue forward has confidence in the integrity of the investigation and the
confidentiality of the reporting process. By informing staff so that they have an

126
understanding of this process and the handling of reported information, we are more
likely to see teachers and other staff coming forward with information, and their reports
will be directed at the correct district personnel so that their identity remains protected.
Additionally, there must be a clearly defined process in place to prevent retaliation by
peers should the reporters’ identity be compromised.
School district employers conducting internal investigations of any kind should
realize that information learned through employee interviews might serve as the basis for
future lawsuits. The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that witnesses who report
harassing behavior in internal investigations, even if they are not the original reporters of
the alleged wrongdoing, are protected under the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII
9
Implications of the Findings
.
Therefore, districts should ensure that all personnel involved in conducting an
investigation, interviewing witnesses or victims as well as any other investigatory
reporting be properly trained in how to conduct workplace investigations.

Putting this study into perspective requires understanding the behaviors associated
with sexual misconduct. If we understand the associated behaviors, we can understand
the pedophilic behavior. It is only then that we can use this knowledge to develop
broadened policy language, identify appropriate training tools, and improve reporting
outcomes identified from this study.

9
Title VII, the federal law that prohibits most workplace harassment and discrimination, covers all private
employers, state and local governments, and educational institutions with 15 or more employees.

127
Chapter 2 addressed the seductive, coy and sadistic behavior of the pedophile.
Those employees who are pedophiles will attempt to stay below the radar by identifying
and grooming their target and quickly moving on to the next school district before they
are noticed.
While existing legislation is not perfect, its foundation is in place. As school
leaders, we must take additional steps to secure and protect our future leaders. If teachers
who are on the front lines interacting with our students are not made aware of correct
definitions of sexual misconduct and behaviors associated with it, or of their role in
reporting suspicious activity or behavior, how effective can we be at reducing the
prevalence of sexual misconduct in educational settings and stopping the cycle of abuse
from occurring.
Recommendations for Practice
First, it is imperative that in order to address educator sexual misconduct, it must
be identified as a systemic problem with the right people being asked the right questions.
Currently as educators, we do not do so, in that we tend to tiptoe around the issue of
sexual misconduct by school workers, possibly because either we do not really want to
know, or we fear knowing and anticipate problems in addressing the unionized
associations that want to protect their members from consequences that could possibly
result. Countries that have monitored student victimization as a result of sexual
maltreatment or misconduct have found that it is a common practice and one impacted by
socioeconomic status (Benbenishty, Astor, 2005).

128
Second, in order to mitigate the frequency of sexual misconduct, we need to have
data that could help us determine areas where we can implement sound policies and
practices. In order to accomplish this, sexual misconduct data should be better tracked at
the school district level. Reports should be requested and monitored at the state and
federal level along with other forms of teacher maltreatment data already being collected
by Safe and Healthy Kids, California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS), and Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. And while data is already being collected by public
health centers, educator sexual abuse does not appear to be on the radar as a public health
concern possibly because it is not seen as a form of violent behavior as with assault or
rape. These two areas are broader and reach beyond the context of this individual case
study. We need to begin with increased awareness at bridging the gap between sexual
misconduct and school violence in addition to improving upon and expanding existing
school, state and federal policies.
The recommendations for practice that stem from this study and which can be
addressed at a school district level fall into the following categories of remediation: 1)
being proactive; 2) encouraging reporting; and 3) protecting high-risk children. In each
of these categories, specific areas of techniques, strategies or programs can be explored
and implemented as a means to reduce sexual misconduct allegations in public schools.
Become Proactive. In a joint statement on sexual abuse of children issued by
the American Association of School Administrators and the National Association of State
Boards of Education (1987), it was emphasized that when a school employee is convicted
of sexual abuse, states should disseminate information on the conviction to all public and

129
private schools. The statement also encouraged schools to participate in the National
Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC)
Clearinghouse system for reporting revocations and suspensions of teaching credentials
nationwide. Schools should not wait for board policies to be adopted but rather develop
policy language for adoption that specifically addresses educator sexual misconduct.
In addition, districts need to broaden technology policy language that includes the
social networking aspect of inappropriate communications specifically referring to text,
email, and references to the many social networking websites.
Districts need to ensure that steps have been taken to create a safe learning
environment. One way they can do so is to become aware of related liability issues
surrounding the many programs offered to students. Our laws do not necessarily keep
pace with changes made by schools, such as asking who should be transporting students.
On the other hand, tutoring programs are offered by many public schools. Depending on
the state, students abused in this context may fall outside the legal purview of the
education code. In California for example, the Ed. Code §44808 does not view tutoring
as a school-related activity and it may therefore impose a financial hardship on a district
if it becomes necessary to defend itself from a lawsuit.
Encourage Reporting. Two factors stood out that currently cause a roadblock in
staff reporting their suspicions: (a) it is easier to report if the reporter’s rights are
protected, (b) it is easier to report if the district’s history in resolving these matters is well
known. SUSD has an anonymous reporting hotline in place. Although its availability is

130
not widely known, the district as well as any other school district should consider this a
simple, yet effective tool in reporting suspicious activity.
All staff should be reporting suspicious behavior so that school administration
may investigate, but the evidence shows that this is not occurring. An effort must be
made by schools to explain the investigative process, reassuring staff about the steps
taken in investigating suspicions over incidents known to have occurred. Furthermore,
school districts should identify whether they have a systemic lack of trust towards
reporting cases of misconduct by staff as the district in this case study.
School leaders and those responsible for professional development and facilitating
change should ensure that sexual harassment policies are updated. The new policy should
include broader terminology that addresses sexual misconduct as well as language that
relates directly to employee-student relationships. Outlined in this policy should be
language that addresses sexual harassment in adult-adult relations and sexual misconduct
in adult-student relations.
Furthermore, there is a greater need for prevention training in different styles and
on red flag indicators, targeted at all employees and volunteers. Having knowledge on
the characteristics of sexual harassers may assist educators in developing a more effective
prevention program (Sundt, 1996). The ultimate goal of developing a comprehensive
sexual misconduct prevention program is to create awareness among district faculty that
will protect children in grades K through 12. By preventing the abuse from occurring, we
can also mitigate the cycle of sexual misconduct that continues because of student
victims who may grow up to demonstrate pedophilic behavior. The byproduct of having

131
a strong prevention program is that it will also assist in relieving schools of educator
abuse and the scandals that continue to plague our news today.
In examining the teacher’s role as a bystander and the responsibility to report
suspicions, the researcher found that teachers are not held accountable by the system in
place. This may be a result of teachers not being properly trained on the definition of
sexual misconduct and their role in recognizing it or knowing what to do if they perceive
wrongdoing. One approach to this problem is to implement bystander training designed
to identify tools and strategies that will assist staff in having the courage to report.
Knowledge and information allows the bystander to have a sense of being a part of the
solution by preventing students from being victimized by predators.
Protect high-risk children. We have learned from research that children who
display loneliness or a need for attention are most likely to become a target for
victimization. Site administrators spend a great deal of time in the classroom and have
the opportunity to observe instructional practice. The majority of educators are not
harming children; however, a small percentage of school workers display pedophilic
behavior. Paying closer attention to small bonds that appear to be forming between adult
and students and monitoring changes in behavior could lead to early intervention if red-
flag indicators are recognized. Through early identification of these children at a site
level, changes in their social behavior could alert district administration to potential
problems requiring an intervention with teachers or other adults the child meets at school.

132
Suggestions for Additional Research
The findings for this study on sexual misconduct in K-12 schools are the result of
examining teacher perceptions of incidents by school workers in an academically high-
performing school, with an academic performance index of over 700. The scope of this
study was delimited to one school district that resulted in a small case study. The smaller
case study prevented the researcher from obtaining gender data without risk of
identifying the participants. A larger sample would provide more anonymity and very
useful data that could determine if gender has any bearing to perceptions. Based on the
evidence found, this study lends itself to further research to broaden the scope of the
study to reach a wider cross-section of schools that would allow gender of the sample
group to be captured.
In this study, only the perceptions of teachers were targeted. A short interview
with administrators provided additional insight into each school. However, in addition to
administration and teachers, school site support staff such as custodians and coaches as
well as parents and volunteers are all possible survey respondents who would be of value
in future research projects to understand how we can address the problem of sexual
misconduct.
Bystander behavior was a byproduct of this research. Through the research
described in the literature review, the issue of bystander behavior became evident. There
did not appear to be any studies that focused on bystander behavior and sexual
misconduct. A future study that examines bystander behavior in relation to sexual

133
misconduct and other forms of school violence may shed additional light on why so many
educators who encounter misconduct fail to report.
Another study may want to evaluate the effectiveness of any implementation
strategies from schools that have already adopted broadened policy language and
implemented new training and awareness programs by examining the stakeholders
included (i.e., parents, students, teachers, support staff, administration, volunteers,
coaches, etc.). Moreover, there is a need to evaluate the effects of psychological profiling
as a method of empowering schools with the ability to protect students from pedophiles
who work with children. While this could assist in identifying potential pedophiles that
work in the school system, consideration needs to be given to the potential risk of misuse
and extreme controversy associated with profiling, as we have seen in cases of ethnic
profiling since 9/11.
Each school district is unique in how it allows researchers to come into its
campuses and meet with its staff. Teachers and other school site personnel are limited as
to how much time is afforded to non-curricular activities. There may be questions with
school unions that would need to be addressed either prior to or following the survey.
Further considerations in any study should be given to these issues. The time to allot for
disseminating, taking and collecting the surveys appears insignificant but could skew the
findings if the process is rushed or inconsistent among schools. A follow-up to the
selected schools that participated in the survey to receive the results may be viewed
positively, especially if the district desires further assistance in addressing sexual
misconduct issues at their campuses.

134
Although this case study has centered around one large urban school district in
California with comparative data in the United States, it is important that future research
consider studies involving staff victimization of students in comparison to empirical
research that has been conducted internationally, addressing student victimization by
educators as part of the conceptualization of school violence theory. The reason is
straightforward. Educators play a vital role in the providing a safe learning environment.
In California, school policies provide the basis for establishing a safe and drug- free
school campus. Even in other countries, educators as well as other school staff have the
same importance in the lives of children, providing them with knowledge and skills that
become the foundation for their social development (Benbenishty, Astor, 2005). As we
have learned from this case study and other research on this subject, some educators have
turned to inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature, which can lead to forms of physical,
social and emotional abuse falling under the term used throughout this study, sexual
misconduct. This phenomenon is not isolated to the United States. The two common
denominators are students and teachers or other school workers.
Any type of victimization by teachers or other school workers, including sexual
misconduct, should be linked to the broader phenomenon of school violence, a variable
that this study did not address. Literature exists linking this type of maltreatment by
school workers to school violence, examining its prevalence in comparison to what has
been uncovered internationally. In addition, while laws and cultural differences may be
cause for the existence of or tolerance for this type of adult behavior, we can parallel the
international literature on school violence and student victimization to gain knowledge of

135
what specific issues are addressed by other countries concerning this type of
victimization. If we want to further understand sexual misconduct in the context of
school violence, we would need to solicit information directly from students on the types
of risky behaviors they are exposed to by both peers and teachers or other school
workers. This is in itself a much broader issue as there have been far fewer studies
conducted that ask students in surveys to report any type of sexual harassment or
violence, including sexual assault and rape. This is an aberration from the international
research. It is possible that in the United States, education is much more willing to
sacrifice direct knowledge of this threat to avoid possible confrontations with the various
organized unions. There is a fear of knowing too much as it relates to student to staff
violence, although these interests are not really in control of academic research at the
university level and therefore, the data is not collected.
We need to not only raise awareness of educator sexual misconduct occurring in
schools across our nation, which can be done by stringent tracking, reporting and
monitoring by school violence databases; but we must also connect with studies drawn
from an international perspective where a school safety monitoring structure already
exists and has been studied extensively.

136
References

Associated Press (2005): Some Major Settlements in Catholic Clergy Sexual Abuse
Cases, Salt Lake City National Wire, 6 August 2005, page 258.

AAUW. (2001). American Association of University Women. Washington, DC: AAUW
Education.

AAUW. (2001). Hostile Hallways: Bullying, Teasing, and Sexual Harassment in School.
Washington: American Association of University Women Educational
Foundation.

AAUW. (1993). Hostile hallways: the AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America's
schools. Journal of School Health , 355.

Barrett, J. (1986): The Evaluation of Teachers, Washington, DC. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Teacher Education. ERIC No. ED278657.

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. (2005). School Violance in Context Culture, Neighborhood,
Family, School, and Gender. New York: Oxford University Press.

Boston Globe (2002), Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church. Boston:.

Brandenburg, J. B. (1995). Sexual Harassment: A Challenge to Schools of America.

Brandenburg, J.B. (1997): Sexual Harassment of Adolescents.
www.springerlink.com/index/J000166825M72P83.pdf.

Brimi, H. (2009). Teaching with Awareness: The Hidden Effects of Trauma on Learning.
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas , 82 (3),
125-130.

California Department of Eduation. (2002). Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999.
Retrieved October 28, 2007, from California Department of Education:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa.

California Department of Education. (2000). Selected statewide data for the year 2006-
07. Retrieved October 2007, 2007, from California Department of Education:
http://data1cde.ca.gov.dataquest/state.

California Schools Boards Association. (1999). CSBA sample board policy, Sacramento.

137

Chuang, L.M, Kleiner, B. (1999); Sexual harassment in public schools. Equal
Opportunities International Patrington: 1999. Vol 18, Iss 2-4.
Clowes, A.G. (1999) Reporting the Unthinkable: Sex Between Teachers and Students.
The Heartland Institute.
CNN (2001): Child Sex Abuse ‘Epidemic’ in US. Cable News Network.
CNN.com (2003): Catholic Church Struggles with Growing Sex Scandal. Cable News
Network.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (2
nd
ed). Sage Publications.

Crime Prevention Center (1988): Child Abuse Prevention Handbook. Office of the
Attorney General.

Davis, R., Millon, T., Blaney, P.H. (1999): Gender Development. Google Books.

Dobie, M. (2002, June 9). Violation of Trust: When Young Athletes Are Sex-Abuse
Victims, Their Coaches Are Often the Culprits. Newsday, p. 25.

Dougherty, E. (2005): Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse than Catholic Church.
Newsmax.com.

ERIC (1990): Managing Inappropriate Behavior in the Classroom. ERIC Clearinghouse
No. ED371506. ERIC is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of
the U.S. Department of Education.

Estes, R. (2001, September 11). Study: Chlld Sex Abuse "Epidimic" in the U.S. Retrieved
from CNN.com: www.archives.cnn.com.

Farrell, M. (2004): Long Term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse. Psychiatry 2004 Sep;
185:220-6.

Finkelhor and Araii, D. S. (1986). Explanations of Pedophilia: A Four Factor Model. The
Journal of Sex Research , 22 (2), 145-161.

Finkelhor, D.A., & Ormrod, R. K. (2001). Factors in the Underreporting of Crimes.
Child Maltreatment, 6 (3), 219-229.

138
Frawley-O’Dea, M.G. (2007): Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic
Church. Vanderbilt University. Publisher’s Weekly.

Furlong, J.L., Greif, M.P., Bates, A.D., Whipple, T.C., Jimenez, Morison, R. (2005):
Child Abuse & Neglect: Student Victimization by Educational Staff. Elsevier.

Globe, T. I. (2002). Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church. Boston: Little, Brown
and Company.

Hauser, P. M. (1975). Social Sttistics in Use. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Heatley, E. (2002). The Use of Data to Improve Instruction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Hendrie, C. (2003) April 9. California Department of Education:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb.sr.tq.

Hendrie, C. (1998) Sex With Students: When Employees Crossrs the line.
Education Week December 2..

Hendrie, C. (1998) Cost is High When Schools Ignore Abuse. Education Week
December 9; 1, 14-16.

Hickock, Eugene. (2002). Educator Sexual Misconduct: Deputy Secretary of Education.

Gall, M. P., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction
(7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gerdes, L. (2004): Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church. Greenhaven Press, 2003.

Gittens, W, (1990): Sexual Harassment in the Schools: Preventing and Defending
against Claims. ERIC No. ED334658. National School Board Association.

Goldenflame, J. (2004): Overcoming Sexual Terrorism: 40 Ways to Protect Your
Children from Sexual Predators. Xlibris Corporation.

Goorian, B. (1999): Sexual Misconduct by School Employees. ERIC No. ED436816.
Greenberg, N. (1979): The Epidemiology of Childhood Sexual Abuse. Pediatric Annals, 8
(5), May.

Greenhouse, L. (1998): Schools Districts Are Given a Shield in Sex Harassment. New
York Times.

139

Guba, E. (1978): Naturalistic Inquiry and Computer-based instruction..Springer, Boston.

Hoopes, T. (2006): Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse in School ? National Catholic Register.

Kleiner, B.H., Chuang, LM: (1999): Sexual Harassment in Public Schools.

Kleiner, B.H. , Birshan, M.: (2001): Sexual Harassment of Students by Teachers in
Public Schools. Emerald Group Publishing.

Lavoie, R. D. (2002).Teacher's Role in Developing Social Skills.
http://www.ascendgroup.org/documents/ASCEND_news_fall_winter_2006.pdf.

Lewis, J.F: Sexual Harassment in Education ERIC No. ED356549. National
Organization on Legal Problems of Education.

Lockyer, B. (2003): Child Abuse: Educator’s Responsibilities, Crime &Violence
Prevention Center, CA Attorney General’s office.

Lumsden, L.S. (1991): School Sexual Abuse Prevention: Unintended Consequences and
Dilemmas. Haworth Press.

Lumsden, L.S. (1991): Literatur Review on Sexual Victimization of Minors. John Wiley
& Sons.

McIntyre, T. (1987): Teacher Awareness of Child Abuse and Neglect. Child Abuse and
Neglect 11, 1: 33-35.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education
(2nd ed., Rev.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. (1994): Quantitative Data Analysis, 2
nd
Ed. Newbury
Park, CA. Sage.
National Crime Victim’s Research and Treatment Center (2003): Educator Sexual
Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature.
National Center for Victims of Crime (2004): Sexual Crimes Against Children.
www.cops.usdoj.gov/html/cd_rom/school_safety/pubs/NCVC08.pdf.

National Catholic Register (2006): Catholic Church – More Than 500 Victims of
Childhood Sexual Abuse.

140
National School Boards Association (1986): Preventing and Defending Actions by School
District Employees. ERIC No. ED278098

Neddermeyer, D. (2007): If I’d only known – Sexual abuse in or out of the family.
http://dmneddermeyer.gen-assist.com/p=57.

Oakleaf, L., Gruber, A.J. (2003): Sexual Harassment at Camp: Reducing Liability.
Camping Magazine.

Ontario (Canada) College of Teachers (2001) “Professional Advisory : Professional
Misconduct Related to Sexual Abuse and Sexual Misconduct.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3
rd
ed. Rev).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pfeifer, M., Lentz, M.A. (2007): Fear, Silence and Secrecy – Locked Doors Hide the
Facts About Sexual Abuse. The Catholic World.

Phillips, A. (2005): Support Changes to NCLB. National School Board Association.

Phillips, S. (2004). The use of data to improve instruction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation., University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Phillips, S. (2004). The use of data to improve instruction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Presser, L., Lowenkamp, CT. (1999): Restorative Justice and Offender Screening.
Journal of Criminal Justice – Elsevier.

Professional Development and Curriculum Support Division. (2004). NCLB Teacher
Requirements Resource Guide. California Department of Education.

PsycNET. (2001). American Psychiologica Associaiton: What is Child Sexual Abuse?
Retrieved from American: http://www.apa.org/releases sexabuse.

Ramsland, K. (2006): Child Abuse and the Angry Parent. Crime Library.

Ring, D. (2001): Sexual Abuse in Schools. Taylor & Ring, LLP.

Robinson, B.A. (2006): What Percentage of Priests Abuse, and Who Do They Victimize?
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.

141
Russell, D.E.H. (1983). The Incidence and Prevalence of Interfamilial and Extra familial
Sexual Abuse of Female Children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 7, 133-146.

Sadker, M., Sadker, D. (1994): Failing at Fairness; How America’s Schools Cheat Girls.
NY. Scribner’s.

Sandler, Shoop (1998): “What is Sexual Harassment?” in Sexual Harassment on
Campus: A Guide for Administrators.

Sandler, B.R. (1998): Handling Sexual Harassment. WEEA Digest (October 1998); 7.

Scott, K.P. (1982): Sex Fair Education and the Male Experience. Social Education,
46,53-57.

Seattle Public Schools. (2007). Adult sexual misconduct: Keeping students and staff safe.
Seattle: Seattle Public Schools.

Shakeshaft, C. (2004). Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary.
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview.

Shakeshaft, C. (2003). Educator Sexual Abuse. Hofstra Horizons, pp. 10-13.

Shakeshaft, C. (2002). Sexual Violence in Schools. In J. Koch and B. Irby (Eds.),
Defining and Redefining Gender Equity in Education (pp. 117-132). Connecticut:
Information Age Publishing.

Shakeshaft, C., and Cohan, A. (1995). Sexual abuse of students by school personnel. Phi
Delta Kappa, 76 (7) pp. 513-520.

Shakeshaft, C. (1994). Responding to complaints of sexual abuse. The School
Administrator, 51 (9), 22-27.

Shakeshaft, C., and Cohan, A. (1994). In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in
schools (What administrators should know), 1-40. Administration and Policy
Studies, Hofstra University.

Shoop, R. J. (2004). Sexual Exploitatio im Schools: How to Spot it. Thousand Oaks:
Corwin Press.

Shoop, Robert J. (1999, May/June). See No Evil: Sexual Abuse of Children by Teachers.
The High School Magazine, pp. 6, 7.

142
Shoop, Robert J. (1999). Sexual Exploitation in Schools: How to Spot it and Stop it.
Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Sitler, H. C. (2009). Teaching with Awareness: The Hidden Effects of Trauma on
Learning. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,
82 (3), 119-123.

Smith, A. (2001). Ex-teacher faces sex sentence. Newsday.

Smith, E.L. (1994). Jail for teacher in student’s sex abuse: Newsday, pp. A4, A45.

Stein, ND., Marshall, L., & Troop, L.(1993). Secrets in Public: Sexual Harassment in
Our Schools. Wellesley, MA. Wellesley Centers for Women.

Stein, N., Marshall, N.L., Troop, L.R. (1997) : Sexual abuse survey in Seventeen
Magazine. Wellesley College & NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Stein, N.(1999) Classrooms and Courtrooms: Facing Sexual Harassment in K-12
Schools. New York, N.Y. : Teachers college Press.

Stein, N. (1997): Sexual harassment in schools. US Department of Education Office for
Civil Rights.

Stein, N. (1992, Nov. 4). School harassment- An update. Education Week, p. 37.

Stein, N. (1991, Nov. 27). It happens here, too: Sexual harassment in the schools.
Breaking the K-12 silence on sexual harassment. Education U.S.A., pp. 25, 32.

Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct, and Exploitation (S.E.S.A.M.E). (n.d.).
Retrieved from S.E.S.A.M.E.: http://www.sesamenet.org.

Sundt, M. (1996): Understanding the characteristics of the sexual harasser. ISSN 1042-
413X ERIC No. EJ522667.

Timmerman, G. (2003): Sexual harassment of adolescents perpetrated by teachers and
by peers. www.questia.com.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Educator Sexual Misconduct. A Synthesis of
Existing Literature. Office of the Under Secretary Policy and Program Studies
Service. Doc No. 2004-09. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from U.S. Department of
Education: http://www.ed.gov/print.

143
U.S. Department of Education (2004): Sexual Misconduct in Schools.
www.hqeducation.com/news/education-news/report-on-educator-sexual-
misconduct.php.

Van Dam, C. (2006). The Socially Skilled Child Molester: Differentiating the Guilty from
the Falsely Accused. New York: Haworth Press, Inc.

Van Dam, C. (2001): Identifying Child Molesters: Preventing Child Sexual Abuse by
Recognizing the Patterns of the Offenders. Haworth Press.

Winters, P.A.(2005): “Introduction” At issue: Child Sexual Abuse. Greenhaven Press
www.enotes.com article #39042.

Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

Zemel, J., & and Twedt, S. (1999, November 1). Dirty Secrets: Three-part Series on
Teachers who Molest Children. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

144
Appendices

Appendix A
Related Board Policies
Students
BP 5141.41
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION

Every child has the right to live free of physical and emotional abuse, including neglect
and sexual assault. The Board of Education recognizes that such abuse has severe
consequences for the child, sometimes resulting in the child's own violent behavior or in
drug addiction. Schools are in a position to promote the prevention of child abuse and its
reoccurrence, and to reduce the general vulnerability of children.

Age-appropriate and culturally-appropriate child abuse prevention curriculum shall be a
component of the district's health and safety instruction. This curriculum shall explain
students' rights to live free of abuse, inform them of available support resources, and
teach them how to obtain help and disclose incidents of abuse. The curriculum also shall
include training in self-protection techniques.

The Superintendent or designee shall provide coordinated training for teachers who will
use the child abuse prevention curriculum, including instruction in the physical and
behavioral indicators of abuse, crisis counseling techniques, community resources, rights
and responsibilities to report abuse or neglect, and care for a child's needs after a report is
made.

(cf. 5141.4 - Child Abuse and Neglect (Reporting Procedures)

The Superintendent or designee shall seek to incorporate community resources into the
schools' child abuse prevention programs. To the extent feasible, the Superintendent or
designee shall also use these community resources to provide parents/guardians with
instruction in parenting skills and child abuse prevention.
Parents/guardians shall receive prior notice of child abuse prevention instruction
whenever such instruction will include family life or sex education for which notification
is required by law.

(cf. 6142.1 - Family Life/Sex Education)

Legal Reference:
18975-18979 The Maxine Waters Child Abuse Prevention Training Act of 1984
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE

145

Policy [Sunville] Unified School District
adopted: January 23, 1997

Community Relations BP 1312.1

COMPLAINTS CONCERNING DISTRICT EMPLOYEES

The Board of Education accepts responsibility for providing a means by which the public
can hold employees accountable for their actions. The Board desires that complaints be
resolved expeditiously without disrupting the educational process.

The Superintendent or designee shall develop regulations, which permit the public to
submit complaints against district employees in an appropriate way. These regulations
shall protect the rights of involved parties. The Board may serve as an appeals body if the
complaint is not resolved.

(cf. 1312.2 - Complaints Concerning Instructional Material)
(cf. 1312.3 - Uniform Complaint Procedures)
(cf. 3515.2 - Disruptions)

The Board prohibits retaliation against complainants. The Superintendent or designee at
his/her discretion may keep a complainant's identity confidential, except to the extent
necessary to investigate the complaint. The district will not investigate anonymous
complaints unless it so desires.

Legal Reference:
33308.1 Guidelines on procedure for filing child abuse complaints
EDUCATION CODE
35146 Closed sessions
35160.5 Requirement for school district policies: parental complaints re employees
44031 Personnel file contents and inspection
44811 Disruption of public school activities
44932-44949 Resignation, dismissal and leaves of absence (rights of employee; procedures to
follow)
48987 Child abuse guidelines
54957 Closed session; complaints re employees
GOVERNMENT CODE
54957.6 Closed session; salaries or fringe benefits
PENAL CODE
273 Cruelty or unjustifiable punishment of child
11164-11174.3 Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act
300 Minors subject to jurisdiction of juvenile court
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE

146
Management Resources:
0910.93 Guidelines for parents to report suspected child abuse by school district employees or
other persons against a pupil at school site (LO:4-93)
CDE LEGAL ADVISORIES

Policy [Sunville] Unified School District
adopted: October 19, 1995
All Personnel AR 4112.5(a)
4312.5
CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK

The Superintendent or designee shall ensure that no person is hired in a position requiring
certification qualifications or supervising positions requiring certification qualifications
who have been convicted of a violent or serious felony, unless that person has obtained a
Certificate of Rehabilitation and a pardon. (Education Code 44830.1)

(cf. 4112.2 - Certification)

However, a certificated employee may be hired by the District without obtaining a
criminal record summary, if that employee became a permanent employee of another
school district as of October 1, 1997. (Education Code 44830.1)

The Superintendent or designee shall ensure that no current certificated temporary,
substitute or temporary employee serving before March 15 of the employee’s second
probationary year who has been convicted of a violent or serious felony is retained.
(Education Code 44830.1)

When the Board of Education requests a criminal record summary of a temporary,
substitute or probationary certificated employee, the District shall submit two fingerprint
cards in accordance with law, together with a personal description of the person and a
fee, to the department of justice. (Education Code 44830.1)

(cf. 4121 - Temporary/Substitute Personnel)

Upon notification by the Department of Justice that a current temporary, substitute or
probationary employee, serving before March 15 of the employee’s second probationary
year, has been convicted of a violent or serious felony, the Superintendent or designee
shall immediately place that employee on leave without pay. (Education Code 44830.1)

When the District receives written electronic notification of the fact of conviction from
the Department of Justice, the Superintendent or designee shall immediately terminate the
employee without regard to any other procedure for termination specified in the
Education Code of district procedures, unless that employee has received a Certificate of
Rehabilitation and a pardon. (Education Code 44830.1)

147

If the employee challenges the Department of Justice record and the Department of
Justice withdraws in writing its notification, the Superintendent or designee shall
immediately reinstate the employee with full restoration of salary and benefits for the
period of time from the suspension without pay to the reinstatement. (Education Code
44830.1)

The Superintendent or designee shall request subsequent arrest service from the
Department of Justice as provided under penal code 11105.2 (Education Code 44830.1)

CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK (continued) AR 4112.5(b)
4312.5
Temporary Certificates of Clearance

Before issuing a temporary certificate of clearance to an applicant who credential is being
processed, the Superintendent or designee shall obtain a criminal record summary from
the Department of Justice. The Superintendent or designee shall not issue a temporary
certificate of clearance is the applicant has been convicted of a violent or serious felony,
unless the applicant has obtained a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. (Education
Code 44332, 44332.5, 44332.6)

The Superintendent or designee may issue a temporary certificate of clearance without
obtaining a criminal record summary to an employee currently and continuously
employed by a district within the county who is serving under a valid credential and has
applied for a renewal of that credential or for an additional credential. (Education Code
44332.6)

The Superintendent or designee may issue a temporary certificate of clearance to a
person who has been convicted of a serious felony that is not also a violent felony, if that
person can prove to the sentencing court of the offense in question, by clear and
convincing evidence, that he/she has been rehabilitated for the purpose of school
employment for at least one year. (Education Code 44332.6)

Legal reference
44010 Sex Offense
EDUCATION CODE
44332 Temporary Certificate
44332.6 Criminal Record Check, County Board of Education
44346.1 Applicants for Credential, Conviction of a Violent or Serious Felony
44830.1 Certificated Employees, Conviction of a Violent or Serious Felony
44830.2 Certificated Employees; Interagency Agreement
44836 Conviction of a Sex Offense
45122.1 Classified Employees, Conviction of a Violent or Serious Felony
45125 Use of Personal Identification Cards to Ascertain Conviction of Crime

148
45125.01 Classified Employees; Interagency Agreements
45125.5 Automated Records Check
45126 Duty of Department of Justice to furnish Information
667.5 Prior Prison Terms, Enhancement of Prison Terms
PENAL CODE
1192.7 Plea Bargaining Limitation
11105.2 Subsequent Arrest Notification
703 Release of Criminal Offender Record Information
CODE OF REGULATIONS, Title 11
708 Destruction of Criminal Offender Record Information

Management Resources:
WEB SITES
Department of Justice/Attorney General’s Office:
http://www.caag.state.ca.us/app
CSBA:
http://www.csba.org

All Personnel BP 4040(a)

EMPLOYEE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

The Board of Education recognizes that technology can enhance employee performance
by improving access to and exchange of information, offering effective tools to assist in
providing a quality instructional program, and facilitating district and school operations.
The Board expects all employees to learn to use the available technological resources
provided that will assist them in the performance of their job responsibilities. As needed,
staff shall receive training in the appropriate use of these resources.

(cf. 0440 - District Technology Plan)
(cf. 4032 - Reasonable Accommodation)
(cf. 4131/4231/4331 - Staff Development)
(cf. 6162.7 - Use of Technology in Instruction)
(cf. 6163.4 - Student Use of Technology)

Employees shall be responsible for the appropriate use of technology and shall use
district Technological resources only for purposes related to their employment. Such use
is a privilege which may be revoked at any time.

(cf. 4119.25/4219.25/4319.25 - Political Activities of Employees)

Employees should be aware that computer files and communications over electronic
networks, including e-mail and voice mail, are not private. These technologies shall not
be used to transmit confidential information about students, employees, or district
operations without authority.

Online Services/Internet Access

149

The Superintendent or designee shall ensure that all district computers with Internet
access have a technology protection measure that prevents access to visual depictions that
are obscene or contain child pornography, or is harmful to minors and that the operation
of such measures is enforced. The Superintendent or designee may disable the technology
protection measure during use by an adult to enable access for bona fide work related
research or other lawful purpose. (20 USC 7001; 47 USC 254)

To ensure proper use of the system, the Superintendent or designee may monitor the
district’s technological resources, including e-mail and voice mail systems, Internet use,
and use of network resources at any time without advance notice or consent. If passwords
are used, they must be known to the Superintendent or designee so that he/she may have
system access. Employees must keep their passwords secure to ensure the security of
district information resources.

EMPLOYEE USE OF TECHNOLOGY continued BP 4040(b)

The Superintendent or designee shall establish administrative regulations which outline
employee obligations and responsibilities related to the use of technology. The

Superintendent or designee also may establish guidelines and limits on the use of
technology resources. Inappropriate use shall result in a cancellation of the employee’s
user privileges, disciplinary action and/or legal action in accordance with law, board
policy and administrative regulations.

(cf. 4118 - Suspension/Disciplinary Action)
(cf. 4218 - Dismissal/Suspension/Disciplinary Action)

The Superintendent or designee shall provide copies of this and other related policies,
regulations and guidelines to all employees who use the district’s technological resources.
Employees shall be asked to acknowledge in writing that they have read and understood
these policies, regulations and guidelines. Use of the district’s technology by an
employee, volunteer, contractor, or other individual shall constitute that person’s
acknowledgment of an agreement to abide by these policies.

(cf. 4112.9/4212.9/4312.9 - Employee Notifications)

In the event that an employee’s use of any district technology resource negatively affects
his or her own work, the work or working conditions of one or more other employees,
students, the educational environment and/or the district’s ability to effectively and

150
efficiently carry out its business, the Superintendent or designee shall notify the
employee’s exclusive representative.

Legal reference see next page.

151
EMPLOYEE USE OF TECHNOLOGY continued BP 4040(c)

Legal Reference:
51870-51874 Education technology
EDUCATION CODE
3543.1 Rights of employee organizations
GOVERNMENT CODE
502 Computer crimes, remedies
PENAL CODE
632 Eavesdropping on or recording confidential communications
6801-6979 Technology for Education Act
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 20
7001 Internet safety policy and technology protection measures, Title III funds
254 Universal service discounts (E-rate)
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 47
54.520 Internet safety policy and technology protection measures, E-rate discounts
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, TITLE 47

Management Resources:
K-12 Network Technology Planning Guide: Building the Future, 1994
CDE PUBLICATIONS
1223.94 Acceptable Use of Electronic Information Resources
CDE PROGRAM ADVISORIES
CDE: http://www.cde.ca.gov
WEB SITES
CSBA: http://www.csba.org
Federal Communications Commission: http://www.fcc.gov
U.S. Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov
American Library Association: http://www.ala.org

Policy adopted: September 4, 1997 [Sunville] Unified School District
Revised: July 18, 2002
Revised: September 18, 2003

152
All Personnel AR 4112.62(a)
4212.62(a)
MAINTENANCE OF CRIMINAL OFFENDER RECORDS 4312.62(a)

All information received from the Department of Justice is confidential. (Education Code
44830.1, 45125)

The Superintendent shall designate an employee as record custodian of all confidential
fingerprint and criminal record history who shall be responsible for the administration of
information. Any questions regarding criminal offender record information shall be
resolved by the record custodian.

(cf. 1240 Volunteer Assistance)
(cf. 3515.6 - Criminal Background checks for contractors)
(cf. 4112.5/4312.5 - Criminal Record Check)
(cf. 4112.6/4212.6/4312.6 - Personnel Files)
(cf. 4212.5 - Criminal Record Check)

Criminal offender record information shall be accessible only to the record custodian and
shall be kept in a locked file separate from other files. The contents of these records shall
not be disclosed and shall not be reproduced. (Education Code 44830.1, 45125)

The record custodian shall be fingerprinted and processed through the California
Department of Justice. He/she shall sign and employee statement form, acknowledging
an understanding of the laws regarding criminal offender record information.

These records shall be used only for the purpose for which they were requested.

Upon a hiring determination, the records hall be destroyed to the extent that the identity
of the individual can no longer be reasonably ascertained. (Education Code 44830.1,
45125, 11CCR708)

Violation of this administrative regulation may result in suspension, dismissal and/or
criminal or civil prosecution.

(cf. 4119.23/4219.23/4319.23 - Unauthorized release of confidential/privileged information)
(cf. 9011 - Disclosure of confidential/privileged information)

The record custodian shall ensure that the district compiles with destruction, storage,
dissemination, auditing, backgrounding and training requirements as set forth in 11 CCR
700-708 and the rules regarding use and security of these records as set forth in Penal
Code 11077. (Education Code 44830.1, 45125)

153

MAINTENANCE OF CRIMINAL OFFENDER RECORDS AR4312.62(b)
4112.62(b)
4212.62(b)
Interagency Agreements

Upon receipt from the Department of Justice of a criminal history record or report of
subsequent arrest for any person on a common list of persons eligible for employment,
the designated district shall give notice to the Superintendent or any participating district,
or the person designated in writing by that Superintendent that the report is available for
inspection on a confidential basis by the Superintendent or the written designee. The
report shall be made available at the office of the designated district for 30 days
following the receipt of the notice. (Education Code 44830.2, 45125.01)

The designated district shall not release a copy of that information to any participating
district or any other person. In addition, the designated district shall retain or dispose of
the information in the manner specified in law and in this administrative regulation after
all participating districts have had an opportunity to inspect it in accordance with law.
(Education Code 44830.2, 45125.01)
The designated district shall maintain a record of all persons to whom the information has
been shown. This record shall be available to the Department of Justice. (Education Code
44830.2, 45125.01)

The designated district shall submit an interagency agreement to the Department of
Justice to establish authorization to submit and receive this information. (Education Code
44830.2, 45125.01)

Legal Reference: See next page

154

MAINTENANCE OF CRIMINAL OFFENDER RECORDS AR4312.62(c)
4112.62(c)
4212.62(c)

Legal Reference:

44332 Temporary Certificate
EDUCATION CODE
44332.6 Criminal Record Check, County Board of Education
44346.1 Applicants for Credential, Conviction of a violent or serious felony
44830.1 Certificated employees, conviction of a violent or serious felony
44830.2 Interagency agreements
45122.1 Classified employees, conviction of a violent or serious felony
45125 Use of personal identification cards to ascertain conviction or crime
45125.01 Interagency agreements
45125.5 Automated records check
45126 Duty of Department of Justice to furnish information
667.5 Prior Prison Terms, Enhancement of Prison Terms
PENAL CODE
1192.7 Plea bargaining limitation
11075-11081 Criminal Record Dissemination
11105 State Criminal History Information; furnishing to authorized persons
11105.3 Record of conviction involving sex crimes, drug crimes or crimes of violence; availability
to employer for applicants for positions with supervisory or disciplinary power over minors
11140-11144 Furnishing of state criminal history information
13300-13305 Local summary criminal history information
700-708 Criminal Offender Record Information
CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 11

Regulation [Sunville] Unified School District
approved: April 1, 1999

155
All Personnel BP 4119.11(a)
4219.11(a)
SEXUAL HARASSMENT 4319.11(a)

The Board of Education prohibits sexual harassment of school district employees,
applicants for employment, or students by any employee or non-employee who conducts
business with the school district. This policy applies to conduct during and relating to
school, school sponsored activities, and school district business. The Board considers
sexual harassment in the work and educational environment to be inappropriate and
offensive.

For the purpose of this policy, district employees shall include applicants for employment
in the District.

Discipline/Consequences

Any employee who permits or engages in the sexual harassment of anyone in the school
setting may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. The school
district's ability to discipline a non-employee will be limited by the degree of control the
school district has over the alleged harasser or employer of the alleged harasser. An
employee shall be deemed to have permitted sexual harassment where he/she has
knowledge that a student or an employee has engaged in sexual harassment and fails to
report such student or employee to the appropriate authorities, whether or not the victim
makes a complaint.

A supervisor, principal or district administrator other than the Superintendent or designee
who receives a harassment complaint shall promptly notify the Superintendent or
designee.

(cf. 4030 - Nondiscrimination in Employment)
(cf. 4117.4 - Dismissal)
(cf. 4118 - Suspension/Disciplinary Action)
(cf. 4218 - Dismissal/Suspension/Disciplinary Action)
(cf. 4318 - Suspension/Disciplinary Action)

Any district employee who feels that he/she has been sexually harassed or who has
knowledge of any instance of sexual harassment by another employee or a student, shall
immediately contact his/her supervisor, principal, superintendent or designee, or other
district administrator, to obtain procedures for reporting a complaint. However, an
employee may bypass his/her supervisor in registering a complaint where the supervisor
is the alleged perpetrator of the sexual harassment. Employee complaints of sexual
harassment shall be filed in accordance with AR 4031 - Complaints Concerning
Discrimination in Employment.

156

(cf. 4031 - Complaints Concerning Discrimination in Employment)

SEXUAL HARASSMENT (continued) BP 4119.11(b)
4219.11(b)
4319.11(b)

The Superintendent or designee shall take all actions necessary to ensure the prevention,
investigation, and correction of sexual harassment, including but not limited to:

1. Providing training to all staff regarding the District’s sexual harassment policy,
particularly the procedures for registering complaints and employees’ duty in
availing themselves of the complaint procedure in order to avoid harm.

2. Publicizing and disseminating the District’s sexual harassment policy to staff.

3. Ensuring prompt, thorough and fair investigation of complaints in a way that
respects the privacy of all parties concerned, to the extent necessary.

4. Taking timely and appropriate corrective/remedial actions after completion of
investigation. This may require subsequent monitoring of developments.

Reporting Complaints

Any employee or applicant for employment who feels that he/she or another individual in
the school district is being sexually harassed should immediately contact his/her
supervisor, principal or the Coordinator for Nondiscrimination in Employment in order to
obtain procedures for reporting a complaint. Complaints of harassment can be filed in
accordance with AR 4031.

Any supervisor or principal who receives a harassment complaint shall notify the
Coordinator for Nondiscrimination in Employment who shall ensure that the complaint is
appropriately investigated and resolved in conformity with AR 4031.

Retaliation Prohibited

The District prohibits retaliatory behavior against any complainant or any participant in
the complaint process. The initiation of a complaint of sexual harassment will not reflect
negatively on the employee who initiates the complaint nor will it affect the employee's
job assignment status, rights, privileges or benefits.

157
Any employee who retaliates against any individual who has made a complaint of sexual
harassment or participated in an investigation of a complaint of sexual harassment will be
subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT (continued) 4119.11(c)
4219.11(c)
4319.11(c)

Any nonemployee doing business with the District who retaliates against any individual
who has made a complaint of sexual harassment or participated in an
investigation of a complaint of sexual harassment will be disciplined subject to the extent
that the District has control over the non-employee or his/her employer.

Privacy

Each complaint of sexual harassment shall be promptly investigated in a way that
respects the privacy of all parties concerned to the extent permitted by law and to the
extent practical and appropriate under the circumstances.

Legal Reference:
200-262.4 Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex, especially:
EDUCATION CODE
12900-12996 Fair Employment and Housing Act
GOVERNMENT CODE
1101 Political activities of employees
LABOR CODE
1102.1 Discrimination: sexual orientation
2000d - 2000D Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42
2000E-2000E-17 Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended
2000H-2 - 2000H-6 Title IX, 1972 Education Act Amendments
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, TITLE 34
106.9 Dissemination of Policy
Faragher V. City of Boca Raton, (1998) 118 s.ct. 2275
COURT DECISIONS
Burlignton Industries V. Ellreth, (1998) 118s.ct. 2257
Gebser V. Lago Vista Independent School District, (1998) 118 s.ct. 1989
Oncale V. Sundowner Offshore Serv. Inc., (1998) 118 s.ct. 998
Juarez V. Ameritech Mobile Systems, (N.d.iii.) 746 F.supp. 798
Dornhecker V. Malibu Grand Prix Corp., (5th Cir. 1987) 828 F.2d. 307
Meritor Savings Bank, Fsb V. Vinson et Al. (1986) 447 U.S. 57

Management Resources

158
Protecting Students From Harassment And Hate Crime, January 1999
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL
EEOC: http://www.eeoc.gov
WEB SITES
OCR: http://www.ed.gov/offices/ocr

Policy adopted: November 16, 1995 [Sunville] Unified School District
Revised: March 23, 2000
Students

BP 5145.7(a)
SEXUAL HARASSMENT

The Board of Education is committed to maintaining a school environment that is free
from harassment. The Board prohibits sexual harassment of students by other students,
employees, or other persons, at school or at a school-sponsored or school-related activity.
The board also prohibits retaliatory behavior or action against persons who complain,
testify, assists, or otherwise participate in the complaint process established in accordance
with this policy.

Instruction/Information

The Superintendent or designee shall ensure that all district students receive age-
appropriate instruction and information on sexual harassment. Such instruction and
information shall include:

1. What acts and behavior constitute sexual harassment, including the fact that
sexual harassment could occur between people of the same gender

2. A clear message that students do not have to endure sexual harassment

3. Encouragement to report observed instances of sexual harassment, even where the
victim of the harassment has not complained.

4. Information about the person(s) to whom a report of sexual harassment should be
made.

(cf. 5131.5 - Vandalism, Theft and Graffiti)
(cf. 5137 - Positive School Climate)
(cf. 5141.41 - Child Abuse Prevention)
(cf. 5145.3 - Nondiscrimination/Harassment)
(cf. 6142.1 - Family Life/Sex Education)

Complaint Process

159
Any student who feels that he/she is being or has been subjected to sexual harassment
shall immediately contact his/her teacher or any other employee. A school employee to
whom a complaint is made shall, within 24 hours of receiving the complaint, report it to
the Title IX Coordinator or a school employee who will then report to the Title IX
Coordinator.
Any school employee who observes any incident of sexual harassment on a student shall
report this observation to the principal or designee, whether or not the victim files a
complaint.

160
SEXUAL HARASSMENT (continued)

In any case of sexual harassment involving the principal or any other district employee to
whom the complaint would ordinarily be made, the employee who receives the student’s
report or who observes the incident shall report to the Title IX Coordinator or the
Superintendent or designee.

(cf 4119.11/4219.11/4319.11 - Sexual Harassment)
(cf. 5141.4 - Child Abuse Reporting Procedures)
(cf. 4145.3 - Nondiscrimination/Harassment)

The principal or designee to whom a complaint of sexual harassment is reported shall
immediately investigate the complaint in accordance with administrative regulation.
Where the Title IX Coordinator finds that sexual harassment occurred, he/she shall take
prompt, appropriate action to end the harassment and address its effects on the victim.
The Title IX Coordinator shall also advise the victim of any other remedies that may be
available. The Title IX Coordinator shall utilize the District’s Uniform Complaint
Procedures and file a report with the Superintendent or designee and refer the matter to
law enforcement authorities, where required.

(cf. 1312.1 - Complaints Concerning District Employees)

Disciplinary Measures

Any student who engages in sexual harassment of anyone at school or at a school-
sponsored or school-related activity is in violation of this policy and shall be subject to
disciplinary action. For students in grades 4 through 12, disciplinary action may include
suspension and/or expulsion, provided that in imposing such discipline the entire
circumstances of the incident(s) shall be taken into account.

(cf. 5144.1 - Suspension and Expulsion/Due Process)

Record-Keeping

The Title IX Coordinator shall maintain a record of all reported cases of sexual
harassment to enable the District to monitor, address, and prevent repetitive harassing
behavior in its schools.

All complaints and allegations of sexual harassment shall be kept confidential except as
necessary to carry out the investigation or take other subsequent necessary action. (5
CCR 4964)

(cf. 4119.23/4219.23/4319.23 - Unauthorized Release of Confidential/Privileged Information)

Legal references see next page.

161

SEXUAL HARASSMENT (continued) BP 5145.7(c)

Legal Reference:
200-262.4 Prohibition of Discrimination on the Basis of Sex
EDUCATION CODE
48900.2 Additional Grounds for Suspension or Expulsion; Sexual Harassment
48904 Liability of Parent/guardian for Willful Student Misconduct
48980 Notice at Beginning of Term
51.9 Liability for Sexual Harassment; Business, Service and Professional Relationships
CIVIL CODE
1714.1 Liability of Parents/guardians for Willful Misconduct of Minor
4900-4965 Nondiscrimination in Elementary And Secondary Education Programs Receiving State
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 5
Financial Assistance
1681 - 1688 Title Ix, Discrimination
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 20
2000d - 2000E-7 Title Vi, Civil Rights Act of 1964 as Amended
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42
106.1 - 106.71 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, TITLE 34
Reese V. Jefferson School District, (2001) 208 F.3D 736
COURT DECISIONS
Davis V. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) 526 U.S. 629
Gebser V. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998) 118 S.Ct. 1989
Nabozny V. Podlesny (1996, 7th Cir.) 92 F.3d446
Doe V. Petaluma City School District (1995, 9th Cir.) 54 F.3d 1447
Oona R.-s Etc. V. Santa Rosa City Schools et Al (1995) 890 F.Supp. 1452
Rosa H. V. San Elizario Ind. School District, (W.d. Tex. 1995) 887 F. Supp. 140, 143
Clyde K. V. Puyallup School District #3 (1994) 35 F.3d 1396
Patricia H. V. Berkeley Unified School District (1993) 830 F.Supp. 1288
Franklin V. Gwinnet County Schools (1992) 112 S. Ct. 1028
Kelson V. City of Springfield, Oregon (1985, 9th Cir.) 767 F2d 651
Management Resources:
Office for Civil Rights and National Association of Attorneys General
Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crime: a Guide for Schools, January 1999
Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance, January 2001
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS PUBLICATIONS
Sexual Harassment Guidance, March 1997
OCR:
WEB SITES
http://www.ed.gov/offices/ocr

Policy Adopted: October 7, 1999 [Sunville] Unified School District
Revised: August 15, 2002

162
Appendix B
Teacher Survey

163

164

165

166

167
Appendix C
Administrator Interview Questionnaire

APPLICABLE DATA USE INSTRUMENT USED BY
INVESTIGATOR FOR CONDUCTING ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEWS
Interview Questions for Administrators
Background
1. How long have you been an administrator? How long at this school? How prevalent is
sexual misconduct at this district? What types of challenges have you dealt with as it pertains
to sexual misconduct? Does being an administrator with considerable experience/a new
administrator, etc. influence your perceptions of sexual misconduct in schools between
students and school workers? Is there anything else you would like to share that would help
me better understand your point of view regarding sexual misconduct?
District Policies and Procedures

2. What types of policies and procedures are in place to address sexual misconduct? How
readily are these policies known? How effective are the written policies and procedures? Is
there more to be done to increase their effectiveness? How often do teachers receive
training? What is your opinion concerning the extent of a schools responsibility to shield
students from engaging sexual misconduct?
Impact of Teachers’ Perceptions, Prior Experiences and Beliefs
3. How aware of predator behaviors are teacher’s at this school? Do teachers openly discuss
their perceptions of incidents of sexual misconduct? How certain are you that teachers will

168
report a colleague or other school worker they perceive that has engaged in questionable
behavior? What is your prediction on the outcome of the teachers’ survey at your school/
sampling of all three schools?
4. Is there anything else at all you would like to share with me regarding teacher
perceptions dealing with sexual misconduct?

169
Appendix D
Anonymous Information Sheets

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION SHEET FOR ADMINISTRATORS OF
NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST K-12 STUDENTS:
TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF INCIDENTS BY SCHOOL
WORKERS

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted investigator, Karla Rhay, MS
and Faculty Advisor, Melora Sundt, PhD, from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California because you are a school administrator. The results of
this research study will be contributed to a dissertation. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study to be interviewed by the researcher because school administrators
are often the bystanders of incidents of sexual misconduct by school workers.

The study participants are anonymous and there is no personal data that will link you to
the study. You must be at least18 years of age to participate. A not to exceed total of
nine subjects will be selected from the administrative staff of the Chino Valley Unified
School District to participate. Your participation is voluntary and you may quit at any
time. The researcher uses a tape recorder to capture the essence of the interview;
however, if you prefer not being recorded, you must inform the researcher immediately.
You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need
to read the information sheet. You will be given a copy of this form for your records.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more
about teachers’ perceptions toward incidents of sexual misconduct that occur at the hands
of school workers. The media continues to report increased numbers of sexual
misconduct issues between school staff and students. However, other than tabloids
depicting the latest student/teacher sex scandal, there is currently limited published

170
information on this topic. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to examine public
school teacher perceptions toward sexual misconduct of children by school employees
and to understand if barriers exists and if so, what may be preventing reporting.
Completion or response to the interview questions will constitute consent to
participate in this research project.

PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in the survey through an interview conducted by the
researcher. The interview tool consists of three segments:
1. Background
2. District Policies and Procedures

3. Impact of Teachers’ Perceptions, Prior Experiences and Beliefs

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks and/or discomforts to your participation. Although you
may be inconvenienced from taking time out of your day to participate in the interview.
Should any question make you uncomfortable, you may ask for clarification or ask that
the question be skipped and not answered.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no payment to any participant for being included in this study.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in any product being
studied.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Only members of the research team will have access to the research data associated with
this study. The research data from the study will be stored in the investigator’s office in a
locked file cabinet/password protected computer and stored for three years after the study
has been completed and then destroyed. There will be no information obtained in
connection with this study that can be identified with you. Your name, address or other
information that may identify you will not be collected during this research study.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, there will be
no information that will be included that may reveal your identity since no identifiers are
being collected from you.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

171
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team
to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can
not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Researcher
Karla Rhay, MS Melora Sundt, PhD
Faculty Advisor
PO Box 2245 3740 Trousdale Parkway
Riverside, CA 92516 Los Angeles, CA 90089
(951) 662-4406 (213) 740-2157

172

INFORMATION SHEET FOR TEACHERS OF
NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST K-12 STUDENTS:
TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF INCIDENTS BY SCHOOL
WORKERS

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted investigator, Karla Rhay, MS
and Faculty Advisor, Melora Sundt, PhD, from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California because you are a public school teacher. The results
of this research study will be contributed to a dissertation. You were selected as a
possible participant in this study because school teachers are often the bystanders of
incidents of sexual misconduct by school workers.

The study participants are anonymous and there is no personal data that will link you to
the study. You must be at least18 years of age to participate. A not to exceed total of
175 subjects will be selected from the teaching staff of the Chino Valley Unified School
District to participate. Your participation is voluntary and you may quit at any time.
This survey is anonymous. You should read the information below, and ask questions
about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take
as much time as you need to read the information sheet. You will be given a copy of this
form for your records.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more
about teachers’ perceptions toward incidents of sexual misconduct that occur at the hands
of school workers. The media continues to report increased numbers of sexual
misconduct issues between school staff and students. However, other than tabloids
depicting the latest student/teacher sex scandal, there is currently limited published
information on this topic. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to examine public
school teacher perceptions toward sexual misconduct of children by school employees
and to understand if barriers exists and if so, what may be preventing reporting.
Completion of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research
project.

173
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in the survey. The survey tool consists of six segments:
1. Introduction
2. Demographics
3. Views on Sexual Misconduct
4. Knowledge of School Incidents
5. Reporting
6. Survey Completion – Note of Appreciation

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks and/or discomforts to your participation. Although you
may be inconvenienced from taking time out of your day to participate in the interview.
Should any question make you uncomfortable, you may choose to skip that question.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no payment to any participant for being included in this study.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in any product being
studied.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Only members of the research team will have access to the research data associated with
this study. The research data from the study will be stored in the investigator’s office in a
locked file cabinet/password protected computer and stored for three years after the study
has been completed and then destroyed. There will be no information obtained in
connection with this study that can be identified with you. Your name, address or other
information that may identify you will not be collected during this research study.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, there will be
no information that will be included that may reveal your identity since no identifiers are
being collected from you.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.

174
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team
to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can
not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Researcher
Karla Rhay, MS Melora Sundt, PhD
Faculty Advisor
PO Box 2245 3740 Trousdale Parkway
Riverside, CA 92516 Los Angeles, CA 90089
(951) 662-4406 (213) 740-2157

175

Appendix E
Verbal Consent Scripts

APPLICABLE DATA USE INSTRUMENT USED BY INVESTIGATOR FOR
ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEWS

VERBAL CONSENT SCRIPT FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEWS

Introduction
My name is Karla Rhay and I am a student at the University of Southern California. In
partial fulfillment for my doctorate in education, I am completing my dissertation and
have chosen to conduct a research study on sexual misconduct, a topic that we are seeing
more and more depicted by the media.

You may have read newspaper reports, or seen stories on the evening news about
allegations involving misconduct between school employees and students -- Mary Kay
Letourneau for example. One of the only groups we have not heard from is the teachers
who may see these events unfolding, and/or have to deal with the fallout afterwards.
While the survey will allow us to understand teacher perceptions, it is equally important
to understand through the interviews your views on this subject as the administrator of an
urban school site.

As the researcher, I will conduct a tape recorded interview. Your responses may help to
understand how administrators' perceptions may vary. Knowing more about your views
and experience may help strengthen training and resources for teachers. There is no
identifiable information recorded about you. The only interest is in your responses to the
questions; however, it is your choice to be recorded. If you choose not to have your
responses recorded, please inform me at anytime and the recorder will be stopped. By

176
answering questions in this interview, you agree to be a participant in this study. You
may quit the interview at any time or skip any question you do not wish to answer.
APPLICABLE DATA USE INSTRUMENT USED BY INVESTIGATOR
FOR TEACHER SURVEYS
Verbal Script for Teacher Perception Survey

My name is Karla Rhay and I am a student at the University of Southern California. In
partial fulfillment for my doctorate in education, I am completing my dissertation and
have chosen to conduct a research study on sexual misconduct, a topic that we are seeing
more and more depicted by the media.
Introduction

You may have read newspaper reports, or seen stories on the evening news about
allegations involving misconduct between school employees and students -- Mary Kay
Letourneau for example. One of the only groups we have not heard from is the teachers
who may see these events unfolding, and/or have to deal with the fallout afterwards.

I have designed a survey in order to capture the perceptions of teachers in our public
schools. The paper and pencil survey should take approximately 30 minutes to complete.
The data collected from your responses to the survey are anonymous and there is no way
for the researcher to link your identity to these responses. The information collected from
the surveys may help to understand how teachers' perceptions may vary. Knowing more
about your views and experience can help strengthen training and resources for teachers
on this very important and difficult subject. By completing the survey, you agree to be a
participant in this study. You may quit the survey at any time or skip any question you
do not wish to answer. Your participation is voluntary and you may quit the survey at
any time. Once you have completed the survey, please leave it in the box provided by the
door.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate, analyze, and describe teachers' perceptions of the occurrence of sexual misconduct in public elementary, middle and high school settings. The study explored and assessed teachers' beliefs and perceptions of sexual misconduct to ascertain why it is prevalent among school workers from the perspective of the bystander. Ultimately, the purpose of this study was to examine whether programs, policies and training offered through school district employers are useful tools to avert school workers from demonstrating this type of inappropriate behavior.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The perceptions of cross cultural student violence in an urban school setting

PDF

Teacher perceptions of classroom management practices in public elementary schools

PDF

Student, staff, and parent perceptions of the reasons for ethnic conflict between Armenian and Latino students

PDF

The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence

PDF

Sexual violence prevention on college campus as a Clery Act requirement: perceptions from the field

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

PDF

Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior

PDF

The vortex of homophobic bullying: the reporting behavior of teachers

PDF

An investigation of students' perceptions and fears before and after transitioning to middle school

PDF

Physical aggression in higher education: student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

PDF

Understanding the reporting behavior of international college student bystanders in sexual assault situations

PDF

Corporal punishment of students by teachers in elementary and middle schools in Taiwan: the relationship with school level, gender, school location, academic performance, and emotional reactions

PDF

Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor

PDF

Understanding the teachers' perception of impeding bullying in the middle school classroom

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

PDF

Middle school teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

PDF

The perceptions of principals towards proprietary online teacher credential programs and their effect on hiring

PDF

"Thinking in the middle" what instructional approaches are employed by urban middle school teachers to effect changes in African American students' learning outcomes and performances?

PDF

An examination of prospective teacher qualities related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment

Asset Metadata

Creator Rhay, Karla Freeman (author)

Core Title Sexual misconduct against K-12 students: teachers' perceptions of incidents by school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 02/05/2010

Defense Date 05/28/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Child abuse,educator misconduct,inappropriate conduct,molestation,OAI-PMH Harvest,school safety,sexual misconduct

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Astor, Ron Avi (committee member), Phillips, Stefanie (committee member)

Creator Email karla_rhay@sbcss.k12.ca.us,kw5753@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2492

Unique identifier UC1189527

Identifier etd-Rhay-3170 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-180738 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2492 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Rhay-3170.pdf

Dmrecord 180738

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rhay, Karla Freeman

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu