Abstract
Educator sexual misconduct is a serious problem in the United States (U.S.), with a 2004 Department of Education report estimating that 9.6% of K-12 students in the U.S. had experienced either verbal, visual, or physical educator misconduct at some point during their school career. However, since that report almost 20 years ago, there have been few large-scale studies examining the extent of the problem. As such, the current study, which uses a large sample from recent high school graduates in four U.S. states, offers updated data on the nature and scope of sexual misconduct in educational settings. Overall, 11.7% of the 6632 participants reported having experienced at least one form of educator sexual misconduct during Grades K-12, with 11% reporting sexual comments and less than 1% reporting other forms of sexual misconduct (e.g., receiving sexual photos/messages, being kissed, touched sexually, or engaging in sexual intercourse/oral sex). Those who reported misconduct showed significantly more difficulties in current psychosocial functioning than those who did not report educator misconduct. Academic teachers most often perpetrated the abuse (63%), followed by coaches and gym teachers (20%). Educators who engaged in sexual misconduct were primarily male (85%), whereas students who reported experiencing educator misconduct were primarily female (72%). Rates of disclosure to authorities were very low (4%) and some sexual grooming behaviors like gift giving (12%) and showing special attention (29%) were reported. These findings will be discussed as they pertain to the prevention of sexual misconduct within educational settings.
Educational institutions were designed to promote growth and development in children, with teachers being some of our most trusted and respected community members. However, in recent years, there has been an uptick in public media revelations of educator sexual misconduct (e.g., Seelye, 2016; Zack et al., 2018). Educator sexual misconduct can encompass a wide range of inappropriate sexual behaviors including verbal, visual, or physical behavior that occurs between an educator and student (Clark, 2011; Shakeshaft, 2004). In the literature the term educator has broadly included various types of school employees such as classroom teachers, school administrators, support staff, bus drivers, coaches, and school counselors. Verbal sexual behaviors can include sexual talk, jokes of a sexual nature, sexual taunts, or questions directed at students that have a sexual component. Visual sexual misconduct may include showing the student sexually explicit pictures, using sexual gestures, and acts of exhibitionism (i.e., showing of breasts or genitals). Physical sexual misconduct can include kissing, fondling, touching of genitalia, penetration, or other physical contact (Abboud et al., 2020; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1994). In her seminal report conducted for the U.S. Department of Education, Shakeshaft (2004) defined educator sexual misconduct as “behavior by an educator that is directed at a student and intended to sexually arouse or titillate the educator or the child” (p. 1).
Much of our knowledge about educator sexual misconduct comes from anecdotal level newspaper reports (Barlow & Lynes, 2015; Cortoni et al., 2009; Darling et al., 2018; Shakeshaft, 2003), as there is little national level empirical data. In many instances, these media reports are sensationalized, with television, movies, and popular songs sometimes even romanticizing child sexual abuse perpetrated by educators (Abboud et al., 2020; Knoll, 2010; Zack et al., 2018). Consequently, the breadth and scope of educator misconduct remains understudied. In 2004, the Department of Education released an extensive report by Charol Shakeshaft (known as the Shakeshaft Report) which detailed sexual misconduct in school settings (Shakeshaft, 2004). In her report, Shakeshaft reviewed over 900 citations in the literature describing educator misconduct. This review resulted in the identification of only 19 empirical studies (14 U.S. based studies and five studies conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom [U.K.]) and five practice-based reports that met criteria for her review. However, Shakeshaft (2004) cautioned that none of the sources she reviewed provided adequately reliable or valid information. Despite these limitations, what was clear from the existing research was that educator sexual misconduct at the time was a regular occurrence within the U.S. (Shakeshaft, 2004). Although the Shakeshaft Report shed light on the pervasiveness of educator sexual misconduct, since then the topic has not garnered adequate research attention. As such, the current study sought to provide updated findings on the nature and scope of sexual misconduct perpetrated by educators in Grades K-12 by examining the characteristics of those who experienced and perpetrated educator sexual misconduct, rates and type of disclosure, impact to the student, and potential grooming behaviors used by educators.
Prevalence
Despite frequent media attention to incidents of sexual abuse by a teacher, the exact magnitude of the problem remains largely unknown (Abboud et al., 2020). Estimating the prevalence of the problem has proven to be difficult given discrepant reporting standards (e.g., districts or communities having different definitions or reporting standards for what constitutes abuse), incomplete or inaccessible documentation (e.g., those who experience and perpetrate the abuse are not easily identifiable by researchers), and difficulties in collating information given the differences in reporting systems and standards by states and school districts. However, existing data do suggest that educator sexual misconduct within the U.S. is not a rare occurrence (Abboud et al., 2020; Shakeshaft, 2003).
In one of the earliest studies, Wishnietsky (1991) surveyed 65 school superintendents and 148 recent high school graduates in North Carolina and found that 14% of the high school students surveyed reported having engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher, while 43% reported sexual harassment and 4% reported sexual touching by an educator (Wishnietsky, 1991). Another study by Harris Interactive (2001) for the American Association of University Women (AAUW) utilized a nationally representative sample of over 2000 students in Grades 8 through 11. They found that 38% of the students they surveyed reported that they were harassed by teachers or other school employees, with harassment including sexual comments, jokes, gestures, or looks; sexual rumors; sharing of sexual pictures, illustrations, or messages; and comments about sexual orientation (Burgess et al., 2010). In her 2004 report to the Department of Education, Shakeshaft found that prevalence rates of educator misconduct varied widely ranging anywhere from 3.75 to 50.3%. However, Shakeshaft concluded that due to “its carefully drawn sample and survey methodology” (p. 20), her secondary analysis of the AAUW report estimating the prevalence of educator sexual misconduct to be 9.6% (6.7% contact and 8.7% noncontact) represented the most accurate data at the time (Shakeshaft, 2003, 2004). Later Wondra (2010) extrapolated Shakeshaft’s (2003) secondary analyses of the AAUW data (i.e., 9.6%) to the entire U.S. student population, estimating that approximately 4–5 million students had experienced educator sexual misconduct at the time of the AAUW study.
More recent studies have examined educator misconduct through a review of official reports. In 2019, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc. (CCCP) gathered data from media reports, disciplinary decisions of educator misconduct, and published case law on student sexual abuse from 1997 to 2017 involving any person formerly or currently employed at a Canadian K-12 school. Broadly, this study found 750 cases that included at least 1272 students who experienced abuse and 714 individuals who perpetrated sexual abuse (Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc, 2019). In 2020, the Office of Civil Rights, part of the U.S. Department of Education, reviewed certified data on allegations of sexual assault and rape from 17,604 school districts representing 50.9 million students from 2017–2018. Overall, they found 14,152 allegations of sexual assault (0.02%; defined as threatened rape, fondling, indecent liberties, or child molestation), and 786 allegations of rape or attempted rape (less than 0.001%; defined as forced sexual intercourse-vaginal, anal, or oral). While these rates of alleged sexual abuse were significantly higher than those obtained from the last Office of Civil Rights data collection in 2015–2016 (53% increase for sexual assault and 99% increase for rape/attempted rape), they likely represent an underestimate of the true prevalence of the problem as the data are based only upon official reports. Further, Abboud et al. (2020) suggests that educator sexual misconduct may be greatly underestimated in general due to measurement difficulties and an abundance of cases that go unreported or unrecorded.
Characteristics of Those Who Experienced and Perpetrated Educator Sexual Misconduct
Existing data suggest that school children of any age can be subject to educator sexual misconduct. Shakeshaft (2003) found 38% of educators targeted elementary school students, while 56% targeted middle or high school students, and 6% abused children across Grades K-12. Moreover, several studies have shown that students of color are overrepresented among those experiencing educator misconduct with Latino, Black, and Indigenous children accounting for 44% of those reporting sexual abuse by teachers, but representing only 33.2% of the student body (American Association of University Women, 2001; Shakeshaft, 2003, 2004; Solis & Benedek, 2012). Although study estimates vary, female students appear to be targeted more often than male students (CCCP, 2019; Shakeshaft, 2004; Wishnietsky, 1991).
The majority of those engaging in sexual misconduct in educational settings are academic teachers (range 18%–86%), followed by coaches, other educators, support staff, custodians, school bus drivers, security guards, principals, and counselors (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 2004, Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc, 2019; Gallagher, 2000; Solis & Benedek, 2012). Of note, Moulden et al. (2010) found that a significant proportion of the teachers who had perpetrated sexual abuse were members of the clergy working within Catholic schools (17%). Educators who abuse students tend to be male (57–96%; CCCP, 2019; Jaffe et al., 2013; Mototsune, 2015; Moulden et al., 2010). Although the reports of female perpetrated misconduct range from 4 to 43% (Shakeshaft, 2004), more conservative estimates suggest that between 5 and 10% of all educator misconduct is perpetrated by women (Bunting, 2005; Darling & Antonopoulos, 2013; Gannon & Cortoni, 2010). The most reported abuse dynamic within educational institutions is a male educator and a female victim (Darling et al., 2018; Jaffe et al., 2013; Mototsune, 2015; Shakeshaft, 2004), and some males who commit sex crimes may pursue employment within school settings specifically to access children for sexual abuse purposes (Leclerc et al., 2015; Sullivan & Beech, 2002). Female educators have been found to target older students (typically 13 years of age or older), whereas male educators have more of a tendency to target younger children (12 years of age or younger; Abboud et al., 2020; Ratliff & Watson, 2014).
Educators who engage in sexual misconduct in elementary schools are often liked by students and trusted by parents and tend to be high achieving (McGrath, 1994; Shakeshaft, 2003). These educators held a disproportionate number of accolades and recognitions for their teaching, and many were acknowledged for their service at the community, state, or even national level (Shakeshaft, 2003). This respect and recognition may protect the educator as the public assumes an outstanding teacher would not engage in child sexual abuse (Abboud et al., 2020).
Impact of Educator Misconduct
Just as teachers can have a lasting impact on their students, so too can educator sexual misconduct (Christensen & Darling, 2020). Students who experience abuse within the educational system may be negatively impacted academically, developmentally, physically, and emotionally in both the short- and long-term (Abboud et al., 2020; Jaffe et al., 2013; Knoll, 2010). Research has found that at least one third of students who experienced educator sexual misconduct reported behaviors that would negatively impact their academic achievement (e.g., avoidance of the educator, avoidance of school, concentration difficulties, and lack of participation in class). Moreover, approximately one fourth of students reported academic or disciplinary actions, such as earning a lower grade than anticipated on an assignment or in a class, trouble with school authorities, or changing to a different school because of the educator misconduct (Shakeshaft, 2004). Reported emotional sequalae of educator misconduct include depressive symptoms, fear, shame, self-doubt, decreased confidence and embarrassment, while other students have reported a sense of betrayal and decreased trust in authority figures (Finkelhor & Hashima, 2001; Shakeshaft, 2003). Shakeshaft (2003) found that in adulthood, individuals who were victimized by an educator in childhood were more likely to abuse substances and have difficulty forming intimate relationships compared to those who were not abused.
Disclosure
Of the students who disclose educator sexual misconduct, only a small proportion disclose the abuse to someone in a position of authority (e.g., 6% of students reported the abuse to a teacher or staff member; Shakeshaft, 2003). While the effect of educator misconduct on the victim is long-lasting, until the past decade, educators who perpetrated child sexual misconduct faced relatively minimal consequences (e.g., spoken to informally, not rehired, formal suspension or reprimand; Shakeshaft, 2003).
Sexual Grooming Behaviors
It is estimated that a significant portion of all cases of child sexual abuse involve sexual grooming behaviors (Canter et al., 1998; Winters & Jeglic, 2021). The sexual grooming of children has been defined most clearly as: The deceptive process by which a would-be abuser, prior to the commission of the child sexual abuse, selects a victim, gains access to and isolates the minor, develops trust with the minor and often other adults in the minor’s life, and desensitizes the minor to sexual content and physical contact. Post-abuse, the offender may use maintenance strategies on the victim following the sexual contact in order to facilitate future sexual abuse and/or to prevent disclosure (Winters et al., 2021, p. 7).
Importantly, sexual grooming behaviors typically resemble normal adult/child interactions; however, the underlying motivation is sexually deviant (Knoll, 2010; McAlinden, 2013). It is believed that many sexually abusive educators use sexual grooming tactics and behaviors in the perpetration of the abuse. For example, educators may target children who are vulnerable, marginalized, or prone to troublemaking behavior as they are easier to access, often have less supervision, and may be less likely to disclose the abuse or to be believed if they do report (West et al., 2010). Due to the nature of their position, educators often have unsupervised access to children, and time spent alone with teachers or school personnel generally does not arouse suspicion (Darling et al., 2018; Moulden et al., 2010). To further isolate students from their peers, educators may offer to serve as individual mentors or tutors (Darling et al., 2018). To gain the trust of the student, educators can make them feel special by giving them extra attention, praise, or affection, which may be particularly powerful for children if this is lacking at home (Darling et al., 2018; Knoll, 2010; Moulden et al., 2010). Social media or texting may be used to engage in sexual talk or share sexually explicit images (Henschel & Grant, 2019; Solis & Benedek, 2012). Sexual talk or jokes may desensitize the student to sexual content (West et al., 2010). Once the abuse has taken place, educators may use the threat of poor grades, the lack of student credibility or the loss of the special attention/relationship to prevent disclosure (Herbert, 1985; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1994). Also, some teens may come to believe that their sexual relationship with the educator was consensual, and thus may be less likely to make a report (Burgess et al., 2010; Deering & Mellor, 2011; Mellor & Deering, 2010).
In the CCCP study, sexual grooming was found to be a common technique used by male and female educators (CCCP, 2019). Further, Darling and colleagues (2018) found that over three-quarters (77%, n = 55) of their sample of women who had abused children while working in organizational contexts (including schools) used grooming behaviors.
Current Study
Existing studies and media reports suggest that educator misconduct is a widespread problem in the U.S. Indeed, data suggest that most sexual abuse that happens in organizations occurs in schools—rather than church or other caretaking settings (Falkenbach et al., 2017). In 2004, the Department of Education released an extensive report detailing sexual misconduct in school settings (Shakeshaft, 2004). However, since that report almost 20 years ago there has been little reliable and systematic research examining the prevalence of sexual misconduct by educators. Further, much of what is currently known about educator sexual misconduct is either based upon media reports, officially documented allegations, or self-report surveys of students who were still attending their K-12 institutions at the time they took the surveys and therefore they may have not recognized what occurred as abuse or feared reprisals should they have disclosed the abuse. As such the current estimates likely underrepresent the true scope of the problem. Thus, the aim of the current study was to provide an updated large-scale, multistate survey about the nature and scope of educator sexual misconduct in Grades K-12 focused on the characteristics of those who experience sexual abuse and educators who engage in sexual misconduct, rates and nature of disclosure, impact to the student, and potential sexual grooming behaviors used by the abusive educator.
Methods
Participants
To ensure multistate representation, participants were recruited from four geographic locations across the U.S. Overall, 7135 participants completed the consent form. Of those, 283 cases were deleted due to missing data, another 220 were removed because they did not meet inclusionary criteria for age (159 students were above the age of 30 and thus represented a different cohort, and 61 students were under the age of 18). The final sample included in this study included 6632 racially and ethnically diverse undergraduate students from four state universities in New York (n = 1650; 24.9%), New Jersey (n = 1401; 21.1%), Texas (n = 1917; 28.9%), and California (n = 1663; 25.1%). On average, participants were 19.9 years (SD = 2.3; range 18–30) and predominantly female (n = 4778; 72.2%), followed by male (n = 1826; 27.6%) and non-binary/transgender (n = 16; 0.2%). The sample was ethnically/racially diverse and participants self-identified as: Hispanic/Latinx (n = 2519; 38.0%), Non-Hispanic White (n = 1946; 29.9%), Non-Hispanic Black (n = 888; 13.4%), Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 780; 11.8%), mixed race (n = 366; 5.5%), American Indian or Alaskan Native (n = 26; 0.4%), and other (n = 82; 1.2%). Most students attended public primary (n = 5427; 84.2%), middle (n = 5780; 88.1%), and high school (n = 5909; 89.9%). Other (non-educator) sexual abuse was reported by 17.2% (n = 1112) of the sample.
Measures
Educator Sexual Misconduct Questionnaire
A self-report survey was specifically created for the purposes of this study based upon a review of the existing literature, specifically the work of Shakeshaft (2003, 2004) and was modeled after the content in the Department of Education Report (Shakeshaft, 2004). The survey was reviewed for content validity by two experts in the field. Participants were asked whether they experienced sexual comments, whether they were shown sexual pictures, were touched, or kissed; or whether they engaged in oral sex or intercourse with an educator while they were in Grades K-12. If they responded yes to any of the misconduct questions they were asked follow-up questions about the job title of the educator who engaged in sexual misconduct, the gender of the educator, what school level they were in when the misconduct occurred (primary, middle, or high school), whether they disclosed the misconduct and to whom, the perceived impact of the misconduct (rated on a 1 [very negative] to 10 [very positive] scale), and whether the educator engaged in any sexual grooming behaviors such as texting, meeting them outside of school, gift giving, and receiving special attention.
Psychological Flourishing Scale
All participants completed the Psychological Flourishing Scale (PFS; Diener et al., 2010), which is a brief 8-item summary measure of one’s self-perceived success in the domains of self-esteem, relationships, purpose, and optimism. The PFS provides a single psychological well-being score. Items such as “I lead a purposeful and meaningful life” and “people respect me” are scored on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) response scale with a possible total scale score ranging from 8 to 56, where higher scores represent a higher level of reported psychological well-being, resources, and strengths. This measure has good psychometric properties and is strongly associated with other psychological well-being scales (Hone et al., 2013). Cronbach’s alpha in this sample was .89.
Participant Characteristics
Participants were asked to provide demographic information including their current age, gender identity, and racial/ethnic identity. They were also asked to indicate the nature of their school (i.e., public or private) and questions about their overall wellbeing (e.g., alcohol and drug use, suicide attempt history, sexual relationship history). Participants were also asked about non-educator sexual abuse or other coercive sexual experiences.
Procedure
Ethics approval was obtained by the institutional review board at each university where the data were collected. As part of their college’s research experience program, undergraduate students completed the survey in exchange for course credit. Data were collected over a 2-year period. Students were presented with a description of the study and then, if they consented to participate, they were directed to a digital link where they could access the survey which was administered through an internet-based survey website. As this study was one of several studies that students could participate in to receive research credit and the number of potential surveys varied by semester and by university, and the total participant pool is unknown (students could also elect to complete alternate activities in lieu of research participation for course credit), and as such we were unable to calculate a response rate which has been addressed in the limitations section. The surveys began with informed consent and the collection of demographic information and questions about their sexual experiences, substance use and suicide-related behaviors. Participants then completed questions related to their experiences with educator sexual misconduct. If a behavior was endorsed, follow up questions were provided and included questions pertaining to: the role and gender of the educator who engaged in sexual misconduct, the student’s reaction to and perception of the incident(s), whether they disclosed the behavior and to whom, and an assessment of any potential sexual grooming behaviors. Participants then completed the PFS. At the completion of the study, participants were provided with a debriefing statement where the purpose of the study was explained and they were given the contact information for the site PI, links to their college counseling center, and a phone number for a national crisis line should they have experienced distress or wanted to speak with someone following the completion of the survey. The surveys took approximately 15–25 minutes to complete.
Results
Characteristics of those who Experienced Misconduct.
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01
Lasting Impact of Misconduct
Those who reported educator misconduct scored significantly lower on the PFS than those who did not (t = 5.42, p < .001). Further, those who reported educator misconduct were more likely to be currently drinking alcohol (χ2 = 52.86, df = 1; p < .001), using drugs (χ2 = 93.35, df = 1, p < .001), and reported having their first consensual sexual experience at a younger age (t = 4.69, p < .001). Those who reported educator misconduct were also significantly more likely to have experienced coercive sexual intercourse (χ2 = 150.29, df = 1, p < .001), to have experienced non-educator sexual abuse (χ2 = 74.69, df = 1, p < .001), and more likely to report having made a suicide attempt (χ2 = 48.22, df = 1, p < .001; see Table 1).
Characteristics of Misconduct
Frequency of Misconduct by Type.
Characteristics of those who experienced and perpetrated educator misconduct by Type of Misconduct. 1
1Percentages are based upon the number of individuals who responded to the question (valid percent).
Disclosure of Educator Misconduct. 1
1N’s and percentages are based upon those who responded (valid percent).
Impact of Educator Misconduct. 1
1N’s and percentages are based upon those who responded (valid percent).
Reported Potential Grooming Behaviors. 1
1N’s and percentages are based upon those who responded (valid percent).
Sexual Comments
The most common form of educator sexual misconduct reported was inappropriate sexual comments (n = 711, 10.9%). As seen in Table 3, those who reported experiencing sexual comments were primarily female (n = 513; 72.1%) and most (n = 513; 85.2%) were in high school when the comments were made. Most reports included sexual jokes or comments pertaining to the student’s body parts, perceived sexual attractiveness, or comments about sexual acts the educator would like to perform with the student. Educators who made sexual comments towards students were most often academic teachers (n = 436, 61.6%) or coaches/gym teachers (n = 151; 21.3%) and male (n = 587, 86.3%).
As seen in Table 4, a few participants (n = 29; 4.6%) reported that the educator did or said something to prevent them from disclosing the sexual comment such as verbal threats, offers of gifts or bribes, or saying that if the student reported they would lose their job. While some reported the sexual comments to friends and family (n = 173; 28.1%), few reported to school personnel or police and in only 4.0% of cases (n = 24) was any disciplinary action taken against the educator.
On average, the students reported a slight negative impact of the comments and some reported difficulty paying attention, staying home or missing classes, altering their schedule, or feeling fearful of the educator. Almost one quarter (n = 156, 24.1%) of the students viewed the comments as consensual in nature (i.e., like flirting; see Table 5).
In terms of potential sexual grooming behaviors, relatively few students reported engaging in phone calls, texts, or e-mails, meeting in person outside of the school setting, or receiving gifts, while more than one quarter reported that they received special attention and one fifth shared personal information with the educator most often related to personal/family difficulties they were experiencing (see Table 6).
Sexual Images/Photographs/Messages
Only 39 (0.6%) participants reported that they were shown or given sexual pictures or photos or were sent sexual messages by an educator. As seen in Table 3, two thirds of those who reported being sent sexual material were female (n = 27; 69.2%) and most students were in high school (n = 27, 64.3%), with no one in primary school. Those who sent/showed the sexual material were mostly male (n = 34; 87.2%) and academic teachers (n = 30; 76.9%) or gym teachers/coaches (n = 6; 15.4%) were the occupational categories most frequently reported.
As seen in Table 4, 25.0% of educators (n = 9) did or said something to prevent the student from disclosing the sharing of the images. Relatively few participants disclosed the sexual images to anyone, with informal reports to a family member or friend being most common (n = 6, 16.2%). There were no reports of disciplinary action taken against the educator for their misconduct.
While more than half of the students reported that they engaged in the viewing of images willingly (n = 21; 58.3%), students also reported an overall somewhat negative impact of the sexual misconduct. Almost one third (n = 11; 30.6%) of the sample reported difficulty paying attention in class, with a minority reporting other more serious negative consequences (see Table 5).
As seen in Table 6, students who were shown sexual images or texts reported some potential sexual grooming behaviors such as engaging in non-school related digital communication with the educator, meeting with the educator in person outside of school, getting special attention, sharing personal information, and/or receiving gifts such as food, trinkets, and jewelry.
Touching
Fifty-seven (0.9%) participants reported having been touched in a sexual manner, the majority of whom were female (n = 45; 78.9%) and in high school (n = 34; 59.6%), although 14% (n = 8) were in primary school at the time the touching occurred (see Table 3). The majority of those who touched the students were male (n = 48; 84.2%), and academic teachers (n = 44; 77.2%) or gym teacher/coaches (n = 6; 10.5%).
A small percentage of educators did or said something to prevent the student from disclosing the sexual touching (n = 9, 16.1%) including verbal threats and bribes (see Table 4). Many participants disclosed the sexual touching, with the highest percentage telling a family member or friend. In eight of the cases students reported that there was a disciplinary action.
As seen in Table 5, sexual touching was perceived by students to result in the most negative impact of all the types of sexual misconduct. Between 18 and 32% of students endorsed negative educational side effects such as difficulties paying attention in school, altering their schedule to avoid the educator, feeling fearfulness towards the educator, no longer attending specific school-related activities, and staying home from school or missing class to avoid the educator.
Table 6 shows the potential sexual grooming behaviors endorsed by between 19 and 42% such as engaging in phone calls, texts, or e-mails outside of an educational context, meeting outside of school, getting gifts or presents such as food, money, or trinkets, sharing personal information related to family difficulties, and receiving special attention.
Kissing
Twenty-nine (0.4%) participants reported they were kissed by an educator. As seen in Table 3, the students were mostly female (n = 20; 69.0%) and in high school (n = 20; 74.1%) at the time of the misconduct. Academic teachers were reported to be those who kissed the students in 18 cases (62.1%), followed by gym teachers/coaches (n = 4; 13.8%). The gender of the educator who kissed the student was almost equally distributed between male (n = 14; 51.9%) and female (n = 13; 48.1%).
As shown in Table 4, only two (7.4%) of the educators reportedly told the students not to talk about the kissing. One quarter (25.9%) disclosed the kissing to a friend or family member, but no one disclosed to the school or police and consequently there was no disciplinary action taken.
More than half of the participants reported that they engaged in the kissing willingly (n = 16, 59.3%) and on average the students viewed the experience more positively than negatively. Only a few students reported negative outcomes such as staying home or missing classes, difficulty paying attention in school, stopping a certain activity, or changing their schedule. No one reported feeling fearful of the educator (see Table 5). Table 6 shows that between 19 and 30% reported that the educator may have used some behaviors that are in line with sexual grooming.
Sexual Intercourse/Oral Sex
Nine (0.1%) participants reported other sexual activity with an educator which included either sexual intercourse or oral sex. Most of those who engaged in sexual intercourse or oral sex with students were academic teachers (n = 4, 44%) and male (n = 7, 77.8%) and the students were predominantly female (n = 7, 77.8%) and all were in high school at the time of the misconduct (see Table 3).
As seen in Table 4, only two students reported that the educators did or said something to prevent the student from disclosing the sexual activity. Four students (66.7%) told a family member or friend about the sexual contact while no one told school personnel or the police and there were no reported consequences to the educator.
At the time of the sexual behavior, five (out of seven; 71.4%) participants reported that they engaged in the sexual activity willingly and on average the students viewed the sexual contact as equally negative and positive. No one reported missing classes, staying home, or feeling fearful nor did they report that they stopped attending activities or altered their schedule to avoid the educator (see Table 5).
Given the nature of the reported behavior, more grooming behaviors were observed with most students endorsing communicating via text/phone/email and meeting the educator off school premises (see Table 6). Half reported receiving gifts or presents from the educator including one student who reportedly received a car.
Discussion
The current study offers updated data on the nature and scope of sexual misconduct and sexual abuse in educational settings. Almost 12% of the approximately 6632 participants in our large scale, multistate retrospective study reported having experienced at least one form of educator sexual misconduct during Grades K-12, and those who reported victimization showed significantly more difficulties in current psychosocial functioning than those who did not report victimization.
Prevalence
While the overall rates of educator misconduct found in this study are slightly higher than those reported by Shakeshaft (2003) in her secondary analysis of the AAUW data (11.7% vs. 9.6%), the reported rates of the more serious contact offenses (e.g., kissing, touching and intercourse/oral sex) were significantly lower at 1.4% (combining the reports of kissing, touching and intercourse/oral sex) compared to the 6.7% prevalence for contact offenses reported by Shakeshaft (2003, 2004). In our sample inappropriate sexual comments were the most frequently reported educator sexual misconduct, with almost 11% of the sample indicating that an adult working in the school setting had made sexual jokes or comments pertaining to the student’s body or their sexuality at some point during their school career. Other forms of educator sexual misconduct were far less common with fewer than 1% of the students reporting that they were shown sexual images or messages or that they had experienced sexual misconduct involving physical contact such as sexual touching or kissing. Notably, nine participants (0.1%) in our sample reported sexual intercourse and/or oral sex, most of whom (71%) reported that they perceived themselves to have engaged in the sexual activities willingly.
While the overall rates of misconduct remain relatively consistent from those reported by Shakeshaft (2003), the findings from this study suggest a major drop in rates of serious incidents of sexual misconduct in school settings. While the 0.1% of our sample that reported sexual intercourse or oral sex with an educator are more closely in line with the recent Office for Civil Rights data collection (2020), they are a far cry from Wishnietsky’s (1991) now 30-year-old study that found 14% of high school students reporting sexual intercourse with a teacher. There are several factors that may help to explain the lower rates of contact sexual misconduct found in this study. Although historically teaching has been predominately a female occupation, the teaching force in the U.S. has become even more female in recent decades (Ingersoll et al., 2018). In addition to becoming more female, the teaching force has also grown larger (meaning more teachers per student) and “greyer” (meaning a larger proportion of older teachers than in past decades) (Ingersoll et al., 2018). Because males commit more sexual offenses than women, most offenses are perpetrated by younger individuals, and a larger teaching force means more watchful guardians to intervene, these trends in the teaching workforce may have contributed to lower rates of abuse and misconduct. Policy changes and increased awareness of abuse may also have led to shifts in rates of sexual abuse in schools. Most states consider teachers and other school employees to be mandatory reporters of child abuse and some states (e.g., New Jersey, Indiana, and Wyoming) do not enumerate specific professional groups but require everyone to report suspected child abuse (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2019). These mandated reporter laws, which came into existence in the 1980s and typically extend to other professionals as well—such as social workers, nurses, police officers, and childcare providers—mean both increased awareness of abuse that likely impacts prevention. Federal and/or state background checks for school personnel have also become more common, which might screen out high risk individuals (Kelly, 2017). Some schools or licensing agencies routinely report misconduct data through the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC, 2021) educator identification clearinghouse, so that jurisdictions can more easily share and access information across state lines. Lastly, in 2007 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a set of guidelines for youth serving organizations aimed at preventing child sexual abuse in schools and child-dense places by addressing hiring, supervision, and environmental protections to prevent child sexual abuse (Saul & Audage, 2007). These policy level changes, heightened awareness of sexual abuse, enhanced prevention practices, in combination with changing demographics in the teaching force may have contributed to the decreased reports of incidents of contact educator abuse and misconduct observed in this study.
Characteristics of Those who Experienced and Perpetrated Educator Sexual Misconduct
In line with the general child sexual abuse literature and previous studies of educator sexual misconduct (CCCP, 2019; Shakeshaft, 2004; Wishnietsky, 1991), most of those who reported having experienced sexual misconduct in our sample were female. Interestingly, most of the students in this sample reported that the educator misconduct took place when they were in high school as opposed to middle or elementary school. In her report, Shakeshaft (2004) found that 38% of educators targeted elementary school students and only slightly more than half (56%) targeted middle or high school students. In our sample, most of the misconduct was directed toward high school students. Only 26% of those who reported being touched by an educator were in middle school and 14% were in primary school. Being touched by an educator was also the behavior that students reported most negatively impacted them, where the most sexual grooming behaviors were observed (such as giving gifts and receiving special attention), and was least frequently reported to be perceived as being consensual. It may be that sexual touching is a precursor to even more invasive forms of sexual abuse.
Similar to other studies (CCCP, 2019; Jaffe et al., 2013; Mototsune, 2015; Moulden et al., 2010), the majority of the educators who engaged in sexual misconduct (85%) in our sample were male. Notably, however, female educators made up a sizeable portion (nearly 15%) of those who engaged in educator sexual misconduct in our sample, slightly higher than prior estimates suggesting that 5–10% of all educator abuse to be perpetrated by females (Bunting, 2005; Darling & Antonopoulos, 2013; Gannon & Cortoni, 2010). These findings may be more consistent with a recent meta-analysis based upon self-report data suggesting that approximately 11.6% of all sexual abuse is perpetrated by a woman, with 40% of men reporting childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by a woman (Cortoni et al., 2017). Also, Kaylor et al. (2021) recently described how the teacher-lover type of female that perpetrates sexual abuse may use sexual grooming tactics within educational settings. According to their model, both the female who perpetrates the abuse and the teenage male often view the abuse as a consensual relationship, which was in accordance with what was reported in our study (Kaylor et al., 2021). These findings suggest that there may be an increase in female educators who are engaging in misconduct with adolescent males under the guise of a consensual relationship.
Academic teachers were most commonly identified as having perpetrated the abuse (63% of entire sample), followed by coaches and gym teachers (20% of entire sample). This percentage of teachers is somewhat lower than that found by the CCCP in 2019 (86%), though higher than the 42% (combining teachers, substitute teachers, and teacher’s aides) reported in the Shakeshaft (2004) report. However, it should be considered that the CCCP data was based upon documented reports and most students in our sample did not disclose the educator misconduct to school personnel or authorities. Given that academic teachers make up the largest portion of employees within educational institutions (49.4% of all school employees in 2015; National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES]), and likely see the students on a regular basis, it is not surprising that they also are the most frequent perpetrators of misconduct. Like Shakeshaft (2004), our findings also suggest that gym teachers and coaches may be disproportionately represented among those who perpetrate educator misconduct. According to NCES, 4.6% of teachers have their main assignment as health (a class most frequently taught by the physical education teacher) and 5.8% of teachers have a degree in physical education and health, while in this study 19.7% of participants reported that the individual who perpetrated the abuse was a gym teacher or coach. One reason that misconduct may be disproportionately perpetrated by gym teachers and coaches may be that coaches have the opportunity to spend more time alone or in small groups with students outside the classroom setting, they may encounter students in a disrobed state in locker rooms, and sometimes coaches even take students on overnight trips for competitions. Further, given the nature of the relationship between coaches and the students they coach, there may be increased opportunities for communication (e.g., texting/e-mails) and touching (e.g., spotting/demonstration of skills) that may fall under the pretext of their professional duties and may go unsuspected or undetected.
Impact of Educator Misconduct
Apart from kissing, which respondents perceived somewhat more positively, participants perceived the sexual misconduct as being only slightly negative on a scaled survey item. Despite this mixed perception of the overall impact of the abuse, many students did report negative consequences of the misconduct around the time of the incident such as feeling fearful, problems paying attention, altering their schedule, staying home from school, or avoiding contact with the educator. Further, those who reported educator sexual misconduct were also significantly more likely to endorse currently using drugs and alcohol, having made a suicide attempt, and having experienced a history of abuse and coercive sex perpetrated by non-educators, while reporting significantly lower scores on the PFS. These findings are in accordance with previous research suggesting both short- and long-term negative impact to students who experience educator sexual misconduct (Abboud et al., 2020; Jaffe et al., 2013; Knoll, 2010; Shakeshaft, 2003, 2004). So, while students may not perceive the abuse to have had much of an impact, the consequences of the abuse or misconduct were more notable when measured indirectly through other indicators—both indicators at the time of the incident (e.g., fear, attendance, concentration difficulties) and over the lifespan (e.g., more current psychosocial impairment). It is also possible that educators may have targeted students who were already more vulnerable, and thus potentially less likely to be believed or disclose the abuse (Winters et al., 2020).
Disclosure
Similar to Shakeshaft (6%; 2003), few participants in our sample reported the misconduct to a teacher or staff member. In our study, rates of disclosure to school personnel ranged from 0% (no reported disclosure of kissing or sexual intercourse/oral sex) to 35% (touching). Informal disclosure to friends or family was more common, with 67% of those reporting sexual intercourse/oral sex in our sample to someone they knew and 49% of those who reported touching stating that they disclosed to a friend or family member. Disclosure to the police was far less common with 0% of our sample reporting that they disclosed kissing or intercourse/oral sex, 2% disclosing that an educator showed them sexual images/messages, and 9% disclosing they were sexually touched. Participants in our sample sometimes reported that the educator did something to prevent them from disclosing the sexual activity. For example, 16% of those who reported sexual touching said that the educator used verbal threats, bribes, or some other strategy to prevent the student from telling others. Notably, participants generally reported higher rates of consent with more serious types of educator misconduct. For example, over 70% of those reporting sexual penetration and oral sex considered it consensual in nature while just over half of those who were kissed by an educator or viewed sexual material considered it consensual in nature. These findings suggest that educator misconduct is likely far more prevalent than what is reported in official records, such as the Office of Civil Rights data collection which mirrors Abboud et al.’s (2020) assertion that educator misconduct is a grossly unreported phenomenon.
Sexual Grooming
Sexual grooming behaviors were seen throughout the results in various forms (e.g., gifts, food, money, jewelry, special attention) including measures taken to prevent disclosure (Winters et al., 2020). Educators may have used verbal comments with students to see if they would be willing to engage in further sexual conversations or behaviors. The generally low rates of disclosure in our study are consistent with that of other research and, in fact, with younger children accidental detection is more likely to occur than purposeful telling of abuse (Alaggia et al., 2017). As is highlighted in the sexual grooming literature (see Winters et al., 2020 for a review), many of those who engage in child sexual grooming use their likability and position to gain the trust not only of the child, but also of the family, community, and institution so that when and if the abuse is disclosed, it is often overlooked or not believed. Participants in our sample reported that the educator perpetrating the misconduct was generally well liked in the school (range of 50–71%, depending on nature of the misconduct) and sexual grooming behaviors were relatively common, which may help to explain low rates of disclosure and lack of disciplinary action. While more research is needed, these findings do suggest that more awareness and education about the nature of sexual grooming and how the behaviors and tactics may present within educational institutions may be warranted for both staff and students.
Limitations
While the large sample size and multistate nature of our study are among this study’s strengths, there may be something unique to our retrospective survey methodology that limited the extent to which participants were willing to disclose educator abuse. Alternatively, it may be something about the participants themselves that limited rates of disclosure in this study, such as memory decay over time. Given, however, that a full 17% of our sample reported other (i.e., non-educator) sexual abuse, the low rates of misconduct found in this study do not appear to be an artifact of study methodology or participant attributes. In fact, it seems more likely that participants would be reluctant to report childhood sexual abuse—typically perpetrated by family or those in close social circles with the victim—than they would acquaintance type abuse that happens in school settings. Indeed, family sexual abuse tends to be the most under-reported form of abuse (Finkelhor et al., 2008). Although it is impossible to get a complete and clear account of all educator misconduct suffered, there is little reason to think that participants would be more willing to report non-educator sexual misconduct than they would be willing to report educator sexual misconduct or, for that matter, have more memory decay for educator sexual misconduct than for other sexual abuse. It is also notable that this study relied on retrospective self-report. As such, data is limited to the extent that respondents were willing to reveal private details about their past that they may be reluctant to report on. Moreover, human memory is fallible. Respondents may have some difficulty in recalling information from their school-age years and these memories are subject to unconscious influences and biases that may have modified the content of the memory over time (Wells et al., 2014). We must also consider sample bias in so much as those who experienced educator misconduct may have been more or less likely to have completed the survey, and we were also not able to calculate a response rate which further limits the generalizability of the findings. We were also sampling from a college student body and only 62.7% of high school graduates in 2020 were enrolled in colleges and universities (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021) and it is possible that those who experienced the most negative impact from educator misconduct were not able to continue with postsecondary education and thus were not represented in our survey findings. Insofar as those who go to college tend to have more privilege (e.g., financial resources, good grades, supportive families) and abuse tends to be perpetrated against those who are more marginalized (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 2004; Shakeshaft, 2003, 2004; Solis & Benedek, 2012), these results may underestimate the true level of abuse perpetrated in school settings.
Implications
While the prevalence rates from this study reflect a decreasing trend of sexual misconduct and abuse in schools, rates of sexual misconduct are still too high. Although those who reported sexual misconduct were least likely to make a report to police and generally unlikely to make a report to school personnel, disclosure to a friend or family was much more common. Indeed, findings from our study show relatively high rates of informal disclosure to a friend or family. This study underscores the importance of bystander awareness and intervention, given that there are individuals who were aware of the misconduct in many of these cases. Empowering other student bystanders to identify high risk situations and use their voice to speak out about inappropriate sexual behavior or intervene in some manner may help to further lower rates of sexual misconduct and abuse.
These findings provide an important snapshot into what may be changing patterns of sexual misconduct in educational settings. While these findings seem encouraging to that degree that they show declining rates of more serious forms of sexual misconduct, rates of sexual harassment and boundary violations remain high and may be impacting students long term. However, much research is still needed to assess the generalizability of our results. In particular, studies might survey non-college students in less urban areas. Moreover, future studies might examine how differences in school policies impact rates of abuse. Bystander engagement approaches like Green Dot (Coker et al., 2015) and Bringing in the Bystander (Banyard et al., 2007), though developed for college students, aim to provide participants with the skills to speak out and intervene in situations where someone is at risk. Given promising evidence about the positive impact of these programs (CDC, 2014) this approach may work to chip away at attitudes supportive of sexual misconduct and empower students to speak out or intervene if they have been victimized or know someone who has been victimized. Schools with these sorts of prevention policies and reporting structures in place would be expected to have lower rates of educator misconduct. Given the importance of providing safe environments that facilitate learning, we hope that these results prompt awareness about a very important problem in educational settings and further research that can help to prevent educator sexual misconduct.
Footnotes
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
