Title IX and School Employee Sexual Misconduct: How K-12 Schools Respond in the Wake of an Incident

Abstract

Purpose: To help protect students from school employee sexual misconduct, this qualitative case study examines implementation of school employee sexual misconduct policies in five geographically and demographically diverse school districts that experienced incidents of school employee sexual misconduct in 2014. Method: Data were collected from 92 school employees and county officials from five school districts from January 2016 to September 2017 via interviews (N = 41) and 10 focus groups (N = 51), as well as through document and policy reviews. Findings: This article outlines findings with regard to the key elements of Title IX guidance including: (a) policies and procedures; (b) prevention; (c) training for staff, students, and parents; (d) reporting; (e) investigations; and (f) response. Although participants reported improvements in these areas after incidents, various challenges, including a lack of understanding of Title IX requirements, continue to affect district-level approaches to sexual misconduct policies. Implications: Recommendations are that school districts review their policy and implementation efforts to determine if they are compliant with Title IX guidance. Researchers also recommend that the federal and state departments of education establish accountability measures to track policy implementation and ensure school districts comply with Title IX guidance and provide high-quality low-cost training options. Further examination of how often these cases occur, victim and offender characteristics, effects on victims and school communities, criminal justice responses, and the effectiveness of prevention efforts are also recommended.

Keywords

sexual misconduct K-12 schools education sexual abuse school personnel Title IX policy implementation Office for Civil Rights OCR school employee sexual misconduct educator sexual misconduct educator sexual abuse

Introduction

Parents send their children to school trusting that school employees will act in loco parentis—taking on the physical and legal roles of the parent, including considering children’s best interests—while their children are at school, a role that extends to protecting children from sexual harassment or abuse (Hogan & Mortimer, 1987). Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, the federal nondiscrimination law, requires that schools protect children from sexual harassment by school employees. However, media articles are issued daily summarizing cases of school employee sexual misconduct and one study conducted in the United States estimates that 10% of K-12 students will be subjected to sexual abuse by school employees at some point in their school experience (Google Alerts, 2014; Shakeshaft, 2004). To date, this estimate is the only generalizable study conducted specifically on the prevalence of school employee sexual misconduct. It is supported by a number of studies on sexual misconduct in youth-serving organizations (i.e., Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Shattuck, Finkelhor, Turner, & Hamby, 2016).

There are a number of federal and state laws designed to protect children from sexual abuse, including the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, which requires states to comply with a set of requirements intended to protect children from abuse. The primary law that establishes criteria for the prevention of and response to school employee sexual misconduct is Title IX, which is perhaps best known for its antidiscrimination provisions rather than its measures to prevent sexual exploitation. The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (U.S. DOE, OCR) has provided specific guidance for the implementation of particular provisions of Title IX, including those concerned with sexual abuse and sexual misconduct, via a series of documents and memoranda (U.S. DOE, OCR, 2001, 2008). Although the law specifically mandates compliance by all educational institutions receiving federal funds, district-level implementation of the guidance remains inconsistent (Grant, 2011) and reports to OCR for sexual violence complaints are infrequenct with only 186 complaints nationwide over a 6-year period from 2009 to 2015 (OCR, 2016).

To help protect students from school employee sexual misconduct, this qualitative case study examines how districts that experienced an incident of school employee sexual misconduct in 2014 defined, interpreted, and implemented key elements of Title IX guidance before, during, and after the incident. The study investigated district strengths and challenges in dealing with incidents, analyzed what policies districts had in place at the time of the incident, and examined what steps these districts are taking to prevent future cases of school employee sexual misconduct and strengthen responses to incidents in the future.

Background

In this study, the term school employee sexual misconduct is used to encompass both sexual abuse¹ and sexual misconduct² (criminal violations) in addition to behavior that does not reach to the level of criminal activity but still represents an ethical violation (e.g., sexual contact with a student over the legal age of consent) by any K-12 school employee, including teachers, coaches, administrators, volunteers, and staff members, while interacting with a K-12 student.

Although victims of school employee sexual misconduct span most demographic profiles, students who are low income, female, and in high school are most likely to be the target of sexual misconduct by school employees (Fazel, Sjostedt, Grann, & Langstrom, 2010; Finkelhor, 1984; Gallagher, 2000; Hendrie, 1998; Moulden, Firestone, Kingston, & Wexler, 2010; Shakeshaft, 2004).

Offenders come from a similarly broad group. Although they are most frequently male (Hendrie, 1998; Jennings & Tharp, 2003; Moulden et al., 2010; Shakeshaft, 2004), they span all ages, ethnicities, and income levels (Shakeshaft, 2004). Furthermore, they include all types of school employees, such as teachers, school psychologists, coaches, principals, and superintendents (Hendrie, 1998; Shakeshaft, 2004; Shoop, 2004); they are typically popular and many have been recognized for excellence in their work with children. Offenders can be either “habitual,” abusing many different children and engaging in a pattern of misconduct, or “opportunistic,” falling into an abusive role while experiencing stressors such as a failed relationship, loss of income, or death, events that can lower inhibitions (Finkelhor, 1984; Shoop, 2004).

More telling are the characteristics of teacher–student relationships that provide the structure for exploitative acts. Offenders often focus their attention on students who are vulnerable—children who appear needy, who are picked on or bullied by others, or who have challenges with relationships at home—because it may be easier to gain the trust of these students (Salter, 2003). For a child struggling with interpersonal relationships or with challenges outside the school environment, the attention of an educator can be transformative. When that educator is a sexual abuser, it can also be devastating.

The same characteristics of teacher–student relationships that help create a successful educational environment—and that can profoundly reshape a child’s educational experience—can also offer fertile ground for sexual misconduct and abuse. Research has shown that school employees whose jobs require intensive one-on-one time with students (such as music teachers, coaches, and counselors) are more likely to engage in sexual misconduct (Gallagher, 2000; Jennings & Tharp, 2003; Shakeshaft, 2004; Willmsen & O’Hagan, 2003). This kind of close contact and intense engagement with students, often around activities students enjoy, provides the opportunity for an offender (or potential offender) to “groom” students—establishing an emotional connection and normalizing sexual behavior by giving special attention and rewards while slowly increasing the amount of touching or other sexual behaviors (Robins, 2000; Salter, 2003; Shoop, 2004). In the grooming process, offenders exploit students’ need to please and take advantage of their control over grades, discipline, playing time, and other rewards students may covet (van Dam, 2001).

Studies of the effects of school employee sexual misconduct on victims are limited. However, we do know that victims of sexual abuse by any adult can suffer serious psychological, physical, academic, behavioral, and financial consequences, and those repercussions can extend through a lifetime (American Association of University Women, 2001; Dube et al., 2003; Felitti et al., 1998; Hornor, 2009; Kendall-Tackett, 2002; Macmillan, 2001; Monnat & Chandler, 2015). Potential effects can include an increased likelihood of substance abuse (Ford et al., 2011; La Fond, 2005; Shakeshaft, 2004), as well as chronic headaches, fatigue, sleep disturbance, recurrent nausea, eating disorders, sexual dysfunction, suicide attempts, fear, anxiety, depression, anger, hostility, and poor self-esteem (Kendall-Tackett, 2002). Because sexual abuse impairs victims’ ability to trust others, it can also destroy their ability to develop close relationships, and especially healthy sexual relationships (La Fond, 2005).

The Legal Infrastructure

Only two federal laws include provisions specifically addressing sexual abuse and misconduct by school employees. The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) includes a provision (§ 8546) that makes aiding and abetting school employee offenders a crime and requires states to implement laws prohibiting “passing the trash”—allowing a known sexual predator to leave a school district without record, leaving the offender free to seek work in another school setting (ESSA, Section 8546 [20 USC § 7926], 2015; Hobson, 2012). This occurs when school administrators seek to avoid the consequences of reporting by entering into confidentiality agreements or negotiating private settlements with offenders (Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1994; Shoop, 2004; Stein, 1999). Furthermore, collective bargaining clauses can allow for scrubbing of personnel files, so no record is left once an offender leaves the system. With no criminal conviction or disciplinary record, predators can obtain new jobs—and move on to other victims. On average, a teacher-offender will pass through three school districts before being stopped; one offender can have as many as 73 victims in his or her lifetime (Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2010).

The primary law addressing the prevention of and response to school employee sexual misconduct is Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sexual discrimination and sexual harassment in all educational institutions, at all levels, which receive federal funds. The law applies to any education program or activity that is part of any school operation; thus, schools must protect students engaged in extracurricular, athletic, and other school programs as well as while they are engaged in the regular school day. The Supreme Court has confirmed through multiple landmark cases that schools have an obligation under Title IX to prevent and address harassment against students, regardless of whether the harassment is perpetrated by peers, teachers, or other school officials (i.e., Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 1992).

These laws are implemented and enforced by the U.S. DOE and the OCR, the Office of Safe and Healthy Students, and the National Center for Education Statistics, as well as all the agencies concerned with child sexual abuse more generally. Despite the proliferation of agencies, however, prevention, research, and data collection on school employee sexual misconduct remains rare, making it difficult to gather the information needed to shape prevention efforts and extrapolate prevalence rates (GAO, 2014; Shakeshaft, 2004). This gap is reinforced by a lack of national surveys or comprehensive, searchable national databases to collect complete data on incidents or their resolution (GAO, 2014).

Implementing Title IX

The U.S. DOE, OCR has issued multiple documents providing guidance for the implementation of Title IX, including:

Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, other students or third parties (U.S. DOE, OCR, 2001),

Sexual Harassment: It’s Not Academic (U.S. DOE, OCR, 2008),

Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Violence (U.S. DOE, OCR, 2011)³, and

Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence (U.S. DOE, OCR, 2014).⁴

These documents, which are intended to assist schools and other stakeholders in meeting their obligations under Title IX and provide members of the public with information about their rights under the law and associated regulations, lay out key requirements of Title IX, including requirements for policies and procedures and information regarding prevention, investigation, and response to incidents of school employee sexual misconduct. Two of the guidance documents, Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Violence (U.S. DOE, OCR, 2011) and Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence (U.S. DOE, OCR, 2014), have since been rescinded by the U.S. DOE. If implemented correctly, the Title IX requirements are intended to reduce the risk of school employee sexual misconduct, prevent mismanagement of cases when incidents do occur, and ensure a safe environment for all students. Case law has established that school districts that do not comply with Title IX can be held liable for civil damages in the event of sexual misconduct or abuse by school employees (see, e.g., Doe v. School Administration District N. 19, 1999; Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 1992; Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 1998). In Gebser (1998), the Court held that for a school authority to be liable, a person with the authority to take correction action must have had “actual knowledge” of the sexual harassment and acted with “deliberate indifference” or turned a “blind eye” to the allegations (see Beck, 2006; Keefe, 2017; Payne, 2017; Schneider, 2016). School districts and school officials are most often held liable due to negligent hiring practices, negligent supervision, or failure to investigate alleged misconduct (Beck, 2006; Keefe, 2017; Pak-Harvey & DeLaney, 2017; Payne, 2017; Schneider, 2016).

To date, there are very limited studies that examine the implementation of Title IX requirements in K-12 schools with regard to school employee sexual misconduct. In one study, Grant (2011) found that school staff might lack knowledge and awareness about school employee sexual misconduct and be unaware of district policies and procedures, resulting in being ill-equipped to recognize cases or properly report them to child welfare and law enforcement agencies. Another study that examined the implementation of sexual harassment policies found that only 14% of policies were available online and rarely incorporated the key elements specific to Title IX federal guidelines (Lichty, Torres, Valenti, & Buchanan, 2008). These findings suggest that Title IX policies are not widely implemented and lack accountability.

Policy Implementation

Federal policy implementation happens in the context of the interplay between the federal, state, school district, and school-level governmental actors. Policy implementation relies on many stages of bargaining, negotiation, adaptation, and transformation (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002), meaning that policies may be transformed at the local level while initiating and developing administrative regulations or implementing programs. Thus, policy implementation and practice are affected by how individuals interpret policies based on their values and beliefs and then act on them in the context of political, institutional, and practical constraints (Bardach, 1977; McLaughlin, 1991; Smith, Miller-Kahn, Heinecke, & Jarvis, 2004; Spillane & Zeuli, 1999; Yanow, 1990).

The Study

This study sought to illuminate how districts that experienced an incident defined, interpreted, and implemented key elements of Title IX guidance before, during, and after the incident. The study investigated district strengths and challenges in dealing with incidents, analyzed what policies districts have in place after an incident, and examined what steps they are taking to prevent and respond to future cases of school employee sexual misconduct.

Methodology

Researchers used a qualitative multiple-case study design involving five school districts to address the research questions for this study (Yin, 2003, 2004). This method was deemed most appropriate because the research aims were to produce an in-depth understanding of policy implementation by addressing both descriptive and explanatory questions (Yin, 2004). The unit of analysis for this multiple-case study was the school district. The district was the most appropriate unit of analysis, or “case,” for the study because it allowed us to describe and explain the contextual factors and conditions within districts that hinder and support policy definition, interpretation, and implementation within a case. Researchers selected multiple districts for participation to allow for greater geographic, size, and ethnic variations among the cases.

This qualitative case study, which was conducted between January 2016 and September 2017, collected data through three methods: (a) document analysis, (b) interviews with primary actors (school employees and county officials directly involved with responding to the incident identified in the database), and (c) focus groups with secondary actors (school employees who were not directly involved with the incident but might have been indirectly affected by it). Document analysis included review of written policies and protocols, training materials for staff and students, staff and student handbooks, case documents, and other guiding documents as applicable. The document review followed a checklist that included items on policy type, scope, purpose, definition, enforcement, and procedures. Semistructured 45-minute interviews and 90-minute focus groups asked participants to discuss their knowledge of district policies and procedures, describe the dissemination of these policies and procedures and of any changes to them, and provide recommendations for improvement. Sample questions include the following: “Can you name or identify the school employee sexual misconduct policy(s) that is/are in place in your school/district?” “How is the written policy communicated to (a) staff members, (b) parents, and (c) students?” and “What steps would an employee take if he/she observed or was told about sexual misconduct by a colleague or other staff member with a student?”

Researchers used multiple data collection methods, to ensure findings were as robust as possible, and a triangulation process, to establish converging lines of evidence from more than one method or source (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Researchers also strengthened the credibility of the findings by accounting for multiple perspectives, including those of various stakeholders at the classroom, school, and district levels. To analyze data from interviews and focus groups, researchers applied the technique of analytic induction (Erickson, 1986) using the qualitative analysis software Atlas.ti. Three researchers coded data independently and established interrater agreement through a process that compared codes for consistency. Differences identified by the research team were discussed, clarified, and redefined as necessary to ensure accurate coding.

Preliminary coding revealed a strong alignment with the Title IX guidance documents issued by the OCR. Thus, researchers synthesized the guidance from these Title IX documents into the “Key Elements of Title IX Guidance” including six overarching areas: (a) comprehensive policies and procedures; (b) prevention programs; (c) training for staff, students, and parents; (d) processes to ensure timely reporting; (e) thorough and coordinated investigations; and (f) effective response procedures (see Figure 1). Codes addressing each of the six key elements of Title IX were applied to the collected documents, interviews, and focus groups. For each of the codes, sites were rated as “yes” = fully meeting Title IX guidance requirement, “somewhat” = meeting some parts of the guidance but not all, or “no” = not meeting the Title IX guidance requirement.

Figure 1.

Key elements of Title IX guidance.

Sample

To be included in the study, school districts had to have employed a school employee accused of school employee sexual misconduct (i.e., sexual assault, indecent liberties with a child, and pornography) and reported to law enforcement. The study’s purposeful sample was recruited by e-mail and phone contact from a database of 459 cases of school employee sexual misconduct that attracted media coverage in 2014; the database was maintained by Stop Educator Sexual Abuse Misconduct and Exploitation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preventing school employee sexual misconduct (Google Alerts, 2014).⁵ The five school districts in this study were located in the Northeastern, Midwestern, and Southern regions of the United States; two are suburban, one is urban, and two are rural. The school districts range in size in terms of the numbers of schools, students, and teachers. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with a total of 92 participants in 41 interviews (13 district administrators, 3 school-level administrators, 13 school employees, and 12 county officials) and 10 focus groups with 5 to 8 school employees and county officials in each group (i.e., school administrators, school staff members, and county officials).

Findings

This section describes the findings generated from interviews, focus groups, and document review across five K-12 school districts that experienced a case of school employee sexual misconduct in 2014. Findings, which include assessments of the districts’ compliance with Title IX requirements, summaries of the challenges faced by districts in implementing the requirements, focus group and interview participants’ recommendations for addressing the guidance, and researcher recommendations, are organized according to the six key elements of Title IX guidance; a summary of findings is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Study findings, by key elements of Title IX guidance.

Policies and Procedures

All five districts’ policies, examined after each district had experienced an incident of school employee sexual misconduct, lacked at least one of the key elements of Title IX guidance regarding policies. Only one of the districts provided a notice of nondiscrimination and only one included examples of boundary-crossing behaviors, sometimes known as “gray areas,” such as giving students rides home, engaging in one-on-one time with students, using social media to contact students, or giving gifts or special attention to particular students. Grievance procedures, which allow staff, students, and parents to file a complaint, were defined in only three of the five districts. While three of the five districts identified Title IX coordinators, most participants across all five sites were unaware of who the Title IX coordinators were.

Participants cited a number of challenges with policy implementation including being unaware of model policies from either state- or district-level sources, difficulties addressing the use of evolving technologies to interact with students, and the ambiguity of boundaries around physical contact. Participants emphasized the role of social media platforms in the lives of students and staff members and discussed the challenge of creating policies to cover all of the common platforms, as well as those that might evolve going forward. Participants also struggled with setting boundaries on physical contact with students; some believed that students sometimes need hugs and other physical signs of affection, and many said that teachers should be able to console a crying child. It is difficult, participants reported, to know where exactly to draw the line on physical contact between staff and students. For example participants described, “We need a policy that teachers can’t hug students. . . . Teachers must know the boundaries and not cross them” and “You don’t want teachers who are robots.”

Participants recommended having clear, written policies, especially around technology and social media use, and providing guidelines for appropriate behaviors that minimize ambiguity. They particularly suggested creating guidelines for technology use (including social media and texting) and for one-on-one interaction to help ensure that all employees clearly understand what is expected. As an example, one participant stressed that “there needs to be a formal policy in place [for text messaging]. There should be a window of time for texting, to limit communication as much as possible.” Another suggested, “Never text only one kid. Everything has to be a group message and that group message should include the parents.” Participants recommend that social media expectations be made very clear: “You have to be incredibly clear on how we do not cross the social media line.” At one district, participants made a list of suggestions for what to tell staff, including the following: (a) do not put yourself in a situation where you and a student are alone, (b) do not “friend” students on social media, (c) keep all communication to e-mail, and (d) do not use a personal cell phone to communicate. One interviewee noted, “Your job is not [to] socialize out of school. [There is] no reason to be one-on-one. Put yourself in safe situations.”

Prevention Efforts

All five districts reported an increase in awareness of school employee sexual misconduct and of preventive behaviors after an incident. Participants stated they were more aware of things that “just don’t feel right” and more thoughtful in their own behaviors when interacting with students. For example, one participant described, “People are a lot more cognizant of what they say and how they say it and what they are doing.” Another participant recalled, “There’s more of an awareness. Something you wouldn’t think twice about, now, they [the staff] are aware if situations look questionable.” This increase in awareness often came with a change in behavior from district leadership; in many cases, this came in the form of administrators communicating more effectively and emphatically about the issue, establishing clear boundaries for staff and students, and encouraging bystander reporting. At one site, the local prosecutor was instrumental in changing the culture after a former superintendent was charged for not reporting an incident.

Despite the increase in awareness, some participants were reluctant to believe another incident could occur in their districts, seeing the 2014 incident as an anomaly, despite prevalence studies that would suggest multiple cases can occur at one school with some regularity (Shakeshaft, 2004). Most administrators remained uncomfortable discussing the issue with staff members; they felt embarrassed having to discuss a sexual topic, especially with staff members they do not believe need the training. It should be, many of these administrators said, a “common sense” issue. One participant described, “We can’t even say the word sex. People get wigged out by that. I think as a whole culture we do not really know how to talk about that.” Another participant reported that the district administrators and staff did not use the terminology “school employee sexual misconduct” because “we are uncomfortable.” This difficulty discussing the issue inhibits the development of preventive measures.

Administrators were also hesitant to address school employee sexual misconduct because they felt they did not have the proper training, they were concerned about staff time, or they were fearful of what they might uncover. Most administrators reported not receiving training on how to prevent school employee sexual misconduct. One participant recalled, “I don’t think we have been trained . . . we don’t have something that tells you about what you should be doing.” Another administrator was worried about staff time: “The number of things staff deal with is overwhelming. So it’s another thing we have to deal with.”

Others reported being worried about the public image of the school and feared “shining a light” on their community for fear of what they might find. One participant reported, “We tend to scoot it under the rug and hope we can move on quietly.” Another participant said, “I think we live in a day and age where people do not want to be bothered. Easier to turn your cheek and ignore it.” These kinds of attitudes make it difficult, if not impossible, for administrators to engage with prevention efforts or to encourage staff and school communities to do so.

Participants recommended fostering accountability and encouraging all staff to be proactive in reporting suspicious behavior and improving district leadership. Specific recommendations to create a more proactive environment included having a prevention plan, discussing the issue openly, having a plan for managing media in the event of an incident, and fighting the belief that “it can’t happen here.” Participants also recommended that staff be held accountable for knowing and implementing policies such as mandatory reporting. Finally, participants said it was important to identify “champions for change”—people who can make positive change happen—at every level (state, district, school, and county). One participant reported,

We need to be aware of this like we are aware of common core standards and our curriculum and give it the same level of importance. These kids are here on our watch. That is the biggest pill for me to swallow, that it happened on my watch.

Training for Staff, Students, and Parents

All five school districts had trainings for staff, and one offered training for students; none offered training for parents. Overall, there was very little communication of policies with students and parents at any of the five districts. Staff trainings ranged from 30-minute online programs to longer, in-person sessions. Four of the five districts did not have trainings for nonlicensed staff (i.e., secretaries, custodians, bus drivers, volunteers, coaches, and paraprofessionals). Given the lack of training, it is unsurprising that most participants in this study (83%) were unaware of laws and policies specifically directed at school employee sexual misconduct, even with the increase in awareness generated by a reported incident. Some thought the issue fell under sexual harassment policies; many assumed their school had a policy but could not identify it. For example, one participant reported, “Many of us don’t know [the policies] the way we should, we don’t have anything concrete. If you ask teachers what it covers, I don’t think they would be descriptive and I can’t either.” Finally, nonlicensed employees such as office staff or bus drivers were largely overlooked and received no orientation or training at all on what employee sexual misconduct is or how to identify it.

Participants cited a variety of challenges in implementing training programs, including limitations in budget, time, and parental engagement and a greater training need for younger teachers. Participants in several districts cited financial and time barriers to adding another training to their already long list of training requirements. One participant described, “You don’t want to hype it too much but you want to inform . . . You don’t want to bring alarm but you have to enlighten people.” Engagement was also a barrier, particularly with regard to training for parents and students; participants from districts in high-poverty areas noted that parent engagement with schools was limited and there were few channels to reach parents. Participants also reported worrying that offering training to students would “put ideas in their heads,” resulting in false accusations. Finally, some participants said younger, more inexperienced teachers need more thorough and frequent training, citing a belief that they are more at risk to cross boundaries with students close to their own age.

Participants recommended offering annual, in-person staff, student, and parent trainings that include real-world examples. They believed that, although online trainings are often more affordable, quicker, and easier to track, in-person training is more effective and engaging. Participants indicated that training for middle and high school age students would be appropriate, and they encouraged using engaging methods for presentation.

Timely Reporting

Participants indicated they were more likely to report future incidents after experiencing an incident in their districts, due to increased awareness of reporting requirements and new channels that facilitated reporting. Some participants recalled they used to “sweep things under the rug” or “handle on the down-low” but now “the atmosphere of protection is gone.” For example, one participant remarked, “People are more sensitive to anything that is even questionable” and staff understand “not to investigate” and to “report immediately.” Some districts generated new ways of reporting, such as mechanisms to allow students to make reports anonymously, and offered technology-enabled reporting mechanisms. Participants noted that technology is both a help and a hindrance in preventing sexual misconduct: it can facilitate reporting but it can also provide a venue for inappropriate behavior and grooming that is difficult to monitor. At the same time, although offenders can use technology to access students, that technology also creates a record of conversations that can be used as evidence.

Participants noted a number of challenges around reporting, including overcoming individual fears of community and media response, breaking down student and staff reluctance to report, and identifying warning signs. To avoid media response, several participants noted that incidents were handled internally or offending teachers were given an opportunity to resign. School administrators recalled the main goal was to “protect the school’s reputation,” “cover up/save face,” and not “create drama in your school.” Administrators discussed being wary of reporting an incident due to “fear of retribution” and wanting to “keep the dust down,” including not wanting “another parent screaming at me,” “the Internet blazing away,” and “people leaving and going to home school.” One participant observed,

It’s going to bring a spotlight on you, people are fearful of getting fired although I don’t think we have ever fired someone for reporting it. There’s a general reluctance from people . . . you wish you didn’t see it but you did.

Participants noted that students are also reluctant to report for several reasons; they may feel shame and embarrassment, like receiving gifts or attention from the offender, or simply do not think of themselves as victims. As one participant reflected, “Teenagers perceive [abuse] as a sincere relationship with the teacher” and, “They believe that these people care about them,” so, “they don’t want to hurt that person.” Participants also noted challenges identifying warning signs, especially in cases where the employee in question is a long-time friend and colleague. Teachers worried about negatively affecting teacher or school reputations and feared retribution if they accused someone mistakenly.

Mandatory reporting laws did little to alleviate these fears and, some felt, were too hard to enforce. Participants said it was difficult to know whether someone knew something but did not report it. Only one district in the study had experienced a case of a school employee charged with failing to report the incident to law enforcement. No students or parents reported the incidents or filed formal complaints with the OCR.

Participants recommended having clear policies and procedures for reporting that includes: (a) a process that is clearly explained so everyone understands it, (b) a designated contact person whose role is widely publicized, and (c) a mechanism for making sure students know how and what to report. One county official commented that school staff should “let CPS [child protective services] decide”: “It isn’t your decision to determine if it is or isn’t [abuse].” Another official added, “If something doesn’t look right, report it. Don’t worry about the teacher getting in trouble.” Participants also suggested considering new reporting mechanisms, such as anonymous tip lines or surveys for students.

Thorough and Coordinated Investigations

Three of the five school districts improved their investigation processes and strengthened collaborations with criminal justice and child welfare agencies after experiencing an incident. For example, some districts implemented memorandums of understanding to streamline cross-agency relationships. One local prosecutor discussed the roles of law enforcement and school administrators, “Teachers educate. [Law enforcement agency] investigates. I prosecute. I am not an educator and teachers are not an investigator or prosecutor. We all have individual roles.”

However, districts have still experienced challenges in executing investigations, including poor communication and competing roles among multiple agencies, continued school-level investigations (as opposed to allowing outside agencies to investigate), and challenges associated with technology use. In the investigation process, school districts, child welfare agencies, and law enforcement bodies have different priorities. The school district has a responsibility to students; it must make an immediate decision about whether to remove the employee in question from the classroom or school. Child welfare and law enforcement agencies need to collect evidence that will support prosecution; they typically have 60 to 90 days to complete their investigations. These competing roles and conflicting timelines, especially when coupled with poor communication among the various agencies, can have consequences for both the case and the victims. Early interviews by school administrators, for instance, can alert an offender to an investigation, giving him or her time to destroy evidence or further intimidate victims.

Participants recommended proactively developing collaborative relationships with criminal justice and child welfare agencies, before an incident emerges, and considering the use of school safety officers on campuses to reinforce positive, ongoing relationships with law enforcement for students and employees. Participants suggested implementing a memorandum of understanding, having “open lines of communication” and “getting to know each other really well” before an incident arises. Critically coordinating interagency investigative efforts can help reduce the number of times a victim is interviewed, minimizing ongoing trauma, and assist with being able to prosecute cases in the courts.

Effective Response

School districts took various actions to respond to incidents, but none of the five districts engaged in all of the responses recommended by Title IX guidance (see Figure 1). Some administrators struggled with how to provide support to staff, students, and parents and how to respond to community and media requests in the wake of an incident. District leaders were slow to respond to media inquiries, if they responded at all. These struggles trickled down to school staff members, who expressed a wish for talking points or other guidance so they knew what to do when they received inquiries from parents or students. Many reported feeling that the media response was “sensationalist and inappropriate.”

Participant recommendations included providing support to staff, parents, and students; developing protocols for administrator responses to media and to staff in the event of an incident; and establishing accountability measures. Participants suggested that counseling should be offered to staff following an incident and said student victims and their parents needed a more comprehensive response than they had received in the past. They also thought administrators should respond proactively to the media and develop checklists for how to respond when an incident is reported.

Discussion

The key elements of Title IX guidance lay out the essential components for preventing and responding to school employee sexual misconduct, including: (a) policies and procedures that address school employee sexual misconduct; (b) prevention efforts; (c) training for staff, students, and parents; (d) timely reporting; (e) thorough and coordinated investigations; and (f) effective response. Proper implementation of all of these elements is critical to a comprehensive response to school employee sexual misconduct.

Although all of the districts in this study had experienced an incident of school employee sexual misconduct, none fully complied with all elements of Title IX guidance even 2 years later. The districts made some changes to policies and procedures in the wake of the reported incident, such as defining boundary-crossing behaviors, documenting grievance procedures, identifying Title IX coordinators, or displaying notices of nondiscrimination, but none addressed all of the recommended responses. Study participants reported improvements in the awareness of and communication about school employee sexual misconduct in these districts, as well as in the frequency of reporting, but they also noted that the districts continued to experience various challenges that precluded some responses, including budgetary limitations, low parent engagement, fear of reporting, and uncoordinated or ineffective responses from criminal justice and child welfare agencies. All of these issues hindered implementation of the key elements of Title IX guidance.

Representatives from all five districts in the sample remained unclear—even after having experienced an incident—about how to implement Title IX requirements. Although the requirements are comprehensive and the guidance is prescriptive, districts continued to remain unaware of model policies and procedures. Title IX guidance tells school districts and policymakers what to do, but not how to do it; the literature offers little assistance in this regard. This finding points to a critical need for additional empirical study to drive the development of effective model approaches to school employee sexual misconduct policy and to examine how model policies can be better disseminated. The failed policy implementation by the five districts in this study is another example of how the intent and requirements of federal policies governing school safety can be misunderstood or unknown at the local level.

Based on these findings, researchers offer several recommendations for stakeholders across the spectrum, from federal education leaders to researchers and teacher educators; these are enumerated in Figure 3. Overall, researchers recommend that school districts review their policy and implementation efforts to determine if they are compliant with Title IX guidance. Researchers also recommend that the federal and state departments of education establish accountability measures to track policy implementation and ensure school districts comply with Title IX guidance and provide high-quality low-cost training options. Further examination of how often these cases occur, victim and offender characteristics, effects on victims and school communities, criminal justice responses, and the effectiveness of prevention efforts are also recommended.

Figure 3.

Recommendations for Stakeholders.

Limitations

This study provides an in-depth look at policy implementation in five K-12 school districts after an incident of school employee sexual misconduct; the results are not generalizable to all K-12 schools and should be interpreted with caution. The primary limitation is in the nature and size of the sample. The districts that participated in this study represent a purposeful sample of schools that were willing and able to participate in the study. The sample does not include schools that did not have cases of school employee sexual misconduct, districts that did not formally report cases to law enforcement, or districts that reported cases but could not participate. Sample sizes varied by district, depending on the number of primary and secondary actors identified by the coordinating administrator; final sample sizes were smaller than originally proposed due to unanticipated circumstances, such as staff absences during site visits. However, the final sample adheres to current research on sufficient sample sizes for reaching a point of saturation in the analyses when no new information is generated by increasing the sample (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006; Morse, 1995).

Conclusion

The successful implementation of federal laws and policies has to occur at each level of the educational system; state, district, and school. A lack of accountability at the federal level fails to ensure nationwide protections of our students. In September 2017, shortly after the completion of this study, the OCR rescinded the 2011 and 2014 guidance previously issued by its office (Dear Colleague Letter, 2017). While the 2011 and 2014 guidance documents were used to formulate the key elements of Title IX referenced in this article, these guidance documents focus primarily on student-on-student sexual harassment and the key elements are still strongly supported by the 2001 and 2008 OCR guidance (OCR, 2001, 2008). Guidance from the OCR are currently being revised with input from the recommendations from this study.

Title IX intends to prevent sexual harassment and discrimination of all kinds in educational settings; that includes school employee sexual misconduct. Yet, in spite of the comprehensive guidance provided by the Department of Education, districts continue to fail to implement all of its key elements and properly report incidences to law enforcement or child welfare, whether out of a lack of awareness of the full scope of requirements or due to various other challenges outlined here. An estimated 1 in 10 students will experience the lifelong consequences of school employee sexual misconduct (Shakeshaft, 2004); the law stipulates that school districts must implement policies and practices to prevent and reduce the incidence of school employee sexual misconduct and ensure a proper response when it does occur (OCR, 2001, 2008). With federal support, district leaders need to establish clear policies and procedures, enable training for the staff, students, and parents, and allocate more resources to support thorough district-level prevention, investigation, and response. Proper compliance with Title IX guidance is essential for creating a safe school environment where students can thrive as learners rather than suffer as victims of sexual misconduct.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. This article continues the research on school employee sexual misconduct included in UCEA publications (Fauske, Mullen, & Sutton, 2006).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project is supported by Award No. 2015-CK-BX-0009 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. This study was awarded to and completed by Magnolia Consulting, LLC.

Notes

Author Biographies

Billie-Jo E. Grant has a PhD in educational research, statistics and evaluation from the Curry School at the University of Virginia and is a professor at Cal Poly State University. She is an experienced quantitative and qualitative methodologist, researcher, and evaluator and was the principal investigator on a 2015-2017 Department of Justice funded study, examining school employee sexual misconduct policy implementation nationwide.

Stephanie B. Wilkerson has a PhD in education research, statistics, and evaluation from the Curry School at the University of Virginia, and is the president of Magnolia Consulting, a woman-owned education research and evaluation firm (). She directs national studies that produce relevant and useful results for informing teaching, learning, and education policy. She partners with local and state education agencies as well as for-profit and nonprofit organizations in improving data use for cultivating learning and positive change.

L. deKoven Pelton has a PhD in educational policy and research from the University of Virginia, and is a Research and Evaluation Associate with Magnolia Consulting. She has broad experience with qualitative data collection and analysis. Her expertise is in the areas of educational policy and research and in the education and development of girls’ and women.

Anne C. Cosby has a Master of Social Work from Virginia Commonwealth University and is a research and evaluation associate for Magnolia Consulting. She has experience supporting qualitative and quantitative research and evaluation studies across a wide range of social impact areas.

Molly M. Henschel has a PhD in research, assessment, and evaluation from Virginia Commonwealth University and serves as a researcher and evaluator with Magnolia Consulting where she supports an array of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies. Her research and evaluation interests span a wide range of areas and include educational inequity, curriculum research and evaluation, professional development, professional learning communities, and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education.

References

American Association of University Women. (2001). Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America’s schools. Washington, DC: Author.

Bardach

(1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Beck

(2006). Entity liability for teacher-on-student sexual harassment: Could state law offer greater protection than federal statutes? Journal of Law & Education, 35, 141-151.

Doe v. School Administration District N. 19. 66 F. Supp. 2d 57. (1999). Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/66/57/2489035/

Dube

Felitti

Dong

Chapman

Giles

Anda

(2003). Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: The adverse childhood experiences study. Pediatrics, 111, 564-572.

Erickson

(1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock

M. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).

Fauske

J. R.

Mullen

C. A.

Sutton

L. C.

(2006). Educator sexual misconduct in schools: Implications for leadership preparation. In Thompson

D. C.

Crampton

F. E.

(Eds.), Exploring contested intersections of democracy, social justice, and globalization: UCEA Conference Proceedings for Convention (pp. 1-16). Austin, TX: UCEA.

Fazel

Sjostedt

Grann

Langstrom

(2010). Sexual offending in women and psychiatric disorder: A national case-control study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 161-167.

10.

Felitti

Anda

Norenberg

Williamson

Spitz

Edwards

. . . Marks

(1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245-258.

11.

Finkelhor

(1984). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. New York, NY: Free Press.

12.

Ford

Robert

Edwards

Geraldine

Zhao

Croft

(2011). Adverse childhood experiences and smoking status in five states. Preventive Medicine, 53, 188-193.

13.

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools. 503 U.S. 60. (1992). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/503/60/case.html

14.

Gallagher

(2000). The extent and nature of known cases of institutional child sexual abuse. British Journal of Social Work, 30, 795-817.

15.

Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District. 524 U.S. 274. (1998). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/274/case.html

16.

Google Alerts. (2014). 2014 List of reported cases of school employee sexual misconduct. Compiled by Dimple Gupta, Senator Toomey’s Office.

17.

Government Accountability Office. (2010). K-12 education: Selected cases of public and private schools that hired or retained individuals with histories of sexual misconduct. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/313251.pdf

18.

Government Accountability Office. (2014). Child welfare: Federal agencies can better support state efforts to prevent and respond to sexual abuse by school personnel. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660375.pdf

19.

Grant

B. E.

(2011). Educator sexual abuse in Virginia: A policy study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://libra2.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/qn59q426c

20.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59-82.

21.

Hendrie

(1998, December 2). Sex with students: When employees cross the line. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1998/12/02/14abuse.h18.html

22.

Hobson

(2012). Passing the trash: A parent’s guide to combat sexual abuse/harassment of their children in school. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.

23.

Hogan

Mortimer

(1987). In loco parentis in the United States, 1765–1985. Journal of Legal History, 8, 260-274.

24.

Hornor

(2009). Child sexual abuse: Consequences and implications. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 24, 358-364.

25.

Irvine

Tanner

. (2007, October 21). Sex abuse: A shadow over U.S. schools. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/10/24/09ap-abuse.h27.html

26.

Jennings

Tharp

(2003, May 4). Betrayal of trust: The extent of misconduct. The Dallas Morning News, p. B1.

27.

Keefe

(2017). Right of Action Under Title IX of Education Amendments Act of 1972 (20 U.S.C.A. § 1681) Against school or school district for sexual harassment of student by student’s teacher or other school district employee. 197 A.L.R. Fed. 289.

28.

Kendall-Tackett

(2002). The health effects of childhood abuse: Four pathways by which abuse can influence health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 6, 715-730.

29.

La Fond

. (2005). Preventing sexual violence: How society should cope with sex offenders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

30.

Lichty

Torres

Valenti

Buchanan

(2008). Sexual harassment policies in K-12 schools: Examining accessibility to students and content. Journal of School Health, 78, 607-614.

31.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

32.

Macmillan

(2001). Violence and the life course: The consequences of victimization for personal and social development. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 1-22.

33.

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1991). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. In Odden

A. R.

(Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 185-196). Albany: State University of New York Press.

34.

Monnat

Chandler

(2015). Long term physical health consequences of adverse childhood experiences. Sociology Quarterly, 56, 723-752.

35.

Morse

(1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 147-149.

36.

Moulden

H. M.

Firestone

Kingston

D. A.

Wexler

A. F.

(2010). A description of sexual offending committed by Canadian teachers. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 403-418.

37.

Pak-Harvey

DeLaney

(2017). Sex misconduct in CCSD is a system-wide crisis of broken trust. Retrieved from https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/education/sex-misconduct-in-ccsd-is-a-system-wide-crisis-of-broken-trust/

38.

Payne

(2017). Proof of public school district liability for injuries or damages to student resulting from harassment of student by teacher or other district staff member (108 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 87). Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters.

39.

Robins

(2000). Protecting our students. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General.

40.

Salter

(2003). Predators, pedophiles, rapists, and other sex offenders. New York, NY: Basic Books.

41.

Schneider

R.G.

(2016). Education law: First amendment, due process and discrimination litigation. Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters.

42.

Shakeshaft

(2004). Educator sexual misconduct: A synthesis of existing literature (U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Programs Studies Service, #2004-09). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf

43.

Shakeshaft

Cohan

(1994). In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools. What administrators should know. Retrieved from https://works.bepress.com/audrey-cohan/24/

44.

Shattuck

Finkelhor

Turner

Hamby

(2016). Children exposed to abuse in youth-serving organizations: Results from national sample surveys. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(2), e154493. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4493

45.

Shoop

R. J.

(2004). Sexual exploitation in schools: How to spot it and stop it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

46.

Smith

M. L.

Miller-Kahn

Heinecke

Jarvis

(2004). Political spectacle and the fate of American schools. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

47.

Spillane

J. P.

Reiser

B. J.

Reimer

(2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431. doi:10.3102/00346543072003387

48.

Spillane

J. P.

Zeuli

J. S.

(1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1-27. doi:10.3102/01623737021001001

49.

Stein

(1999). Classrooms and courtrooms: Facing sexual harassment in K-12 schools. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

50.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2001). Revised sexual harassment guidance: Harassment of students by school employees, other students or third parties. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OCR/archives/pdf/shguide.pdf

51.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2008). Sexual harassment: It’s not academic. Washington, DC: Author.

52.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2011). Dear colleague letter: Sexual violence. Washington, DC: Author.

53.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Questions and answers on Title IX and sexual violence. Washington, DC: Author.

54.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2016). Securing equal educational opportunity: Report to the president and secretary of education. Washington, DC: Author.

55.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2017). Dear colleague letter. Washington, DC: Author.

56.

van Dam

. (2001). Identifying child molesters: Preventing child sexual abuse by recognizing the patterns of offenders. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

57.

Willmsen

O’Hagan

(2003, December 14). Coaches who prey. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://old.seattletimes.com/news/local/coaches/news/dayone.html

58.

Yanow

(1990). Tackling the implementation problem: Epistemological issues in implementation research. In Palumbo

D. J.

Calista

D. J.

(Eds.), Implementation and the policy process: Opening up the black box (pp. 213-227). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

59.

Yin

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

60.

Yin

(2004). Case study methods. In Jaeger

R. M.

(Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (3rd ed., pp. 167-173). Washington DC: American Education Research Association.