THE BELIEFS AND EXTENT OF TRAINING OF MICHIGAN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS REGARDING EDUCATOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

Jeffrey John Thoenes

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

Department of Educational Leadership

Central Michigan University Mount Pleasant, Michigan December, 2009

UMI Number: 3388508

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMT
Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3388508 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Accepted by the Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies, Central Michigan University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctoral degree

Dissertation Committee: Committee Chair Faculty Member

-J- Lp^l^l
Date: /p/S/O?

Faculty Member

Dean College of Graduate Studies

Committee: Betty Kirby, Ed.D., Chair Daniel Kaczynski, Ph.D. Larry Corbett, Ph.D.

11

Copyright by Jeffrey John Thoenes 2009

111

I dedicate this dissertation to my dear wife, Isabel Barbara O'Hagin, who has enriched my life in so many ways and made this dissertation possible. I could not have completed this doctoral program or this dissertation without your unconditional love and support. You inspired me with your exuberant pursuit of excellence and fine editing. When I was down and discouraged these past five and a half years, you pushed me through the tough times. I will be forever grateful to you. In addition, I dedicate this dissertation to my loving parents, Henry Carter and Linda Ann Thoenes. Your constant encouragement and unflagging support during this project were especially helpful. Mom and Dad, your love of learning was the genesis of my life-long pursuit of knowledge that now culminates in the completion of this doctorate. Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to my son, Benjamin Michael. You bring so much love and joy to my life and your willingness to support my doctoral studies made this achievement possible.

IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to those individuals who provided me with the support and expertise necessary to complete this dissertation: My dissertation advisor and mentor Dr. Betty Kirby, who provided invaluable support and guidance during this learning process and to Dr. Larry Corbett and Dr. Daniel Kaczynski who served as committee members. Jerry DiMaria, methodologist consultant, who selflessly converted my questionnaire data into a format usable by SPSS. Ghada Ibrahim, methodologist consultant, who analyzed the questionnaire data and provided me with direction regarding how to properly report the results. My colleagues Linda Boyd, Linda Dinan, Roger Gilbert, Terry Hutchins, Jeff Platte, Mike Pung, Susan Renaud, Luke Stefanovsky, Marcy Stout, Jennifer Verleger, and Kevin Wiltshire for supporting my research by piloting the survey and to the secondary school principals throughout Michigan who responded to the electronic questionnaire. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the support of Central Michigan University in producing this work.

ABSTRACT THE BELIEFS AND EXTENT OF TRAINING OF MICHIGAN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS REGARDING EDUCATOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT by Jeffrey John Thoenes The purpose of this study was to investigate the beliefs and extent of training of Michigan secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct. A crosssectional, online survey was sent electronically to Michigan secondary school principals. Descriptive statistics showed differences in the beliefs of respondents (n=245) regarding educator sexual misconduct including the prevalence of incidents, the frequency of false accusations, and the characteristics of offenders and targets. Results showed that respondents lacked knowledge regarding the topic and generally received little or no related training about it prior to or during their careers. Findings include that respondents did not believe that the extent of their training had been sufficient as to prepare them to understand the legalities of educator sexual misconduct; and indicated that they were not adequately trained to handle a case in their buildings. Furthermore, respondents felt insufficiently prepared by any educational or training source including university coursework, professional development offered by or outside their districts, or other sources. Results revealed that the predominant ethical lens of respondents was the Ethic of Justice. Chi-square analyses (p<.05) showed no significant differences in the responses vi

of secondary school principals by gender or years of experience. There was a significant difference in the responses of secondary school principals, by ethical lens, regarding their beliefs about targets as often being the most emotionally vulnerable, immature, and needy students in the school. The findings of this study have important implications for school leaders. Secondary school principals need to accept the magnitude of the problem and be sufficiently trained regarding recognizing the warning signs and symptoms of targets and offenders. Secondary school principals also need to have a working knowledge of the relevant policies, laws, and legal standards governing educator sexual misconduct and should understand their duties and responsibilities during an investigation. Finally, secondary school principals must protect the rights of targets and see to their educational needs after an allegation has been made. Recommendations include that school districts throughout Michigan consider extensive training courses regarding educator sexual misconduct for all secondary school principals and include in-service programs for administrators, teachers, and school personnel accompanied by informational sessions for all students.

vn

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Problem Statement Significance of Study Research Questions Null Hypotheses Definition of Terms Assumptions Delimitations and Limitations Population Review of Literature Electronic Format of Survey Scope of Sexual Abuse Overview of the Complete Document Overview of Chapter 1 Overview of Chapter II Overview of Chapter III Overview of Chapters IV and V REVIEW OF LITERTURE Introduction Related Studies Investigating Educator Sexual Misconduct Federal Laws Governing Sexual Harassment Applicable to Educator Sexual Misconduct Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 Title DC of the Educational Amendment of 1972 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Office of Civil Rights United States Supreme Court Rulings Dealing with Educator Sexual Misconduct Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998) Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009) Ethical Decision Making and School Leadership
Vlll

xi

1 2 8 10 11 11 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 ...18 20 20 20 35 35 36 37 38 38 39 39 41

II.

The Ethic of Justice The Ethic of Critique The Ethic of Care The Influence of Gender on the Behavior of Secondary School Principals The Influence of Years of Experience on the Behavior of Secondary School Principals Summary III. METHODOLOGY Introduction Research Questions Research Design Population and Sample Instrumentation Writing Multiple Drafts Conducting Cognitive Interviews Field Testing Procedures for Collecting Data Consideration of Human Subjects Procedures for Analyzing Data PRESENTATION OF DATA Introduction Demographics Response Rate Gender Years of Experience Current Position as an Administrator Highest Degree Obtained Data Analyses Research Question One Research Question Two Research Question Three Research Questions Four Research Question Five Research Question Six Research Question Seven Research Question Eight Summary SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Introduction Discussion
IX

44 44 44 45 47 48 51 51 51 52 54 54 55 55 56 58 60 61 63 63 63 63 64 65 65 66 67 67 75 80 87 92 93 94 95 96 98 98 98

IV.

V.

Research Question One Research Question Two Research Question Three Research Question Four Research Question Five Research Question Six Research Question Seven Research Question Eight Summary Implications for the Profession Recommendations for Future Research Conclusions APPENDICES

98 102 105 109 Ill Ill 112 112 113 114 116 118 120

LIST OF TABLES TABLE

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Demographics Frequency Distributions for Question 22 Frequency Distributions for Question 23 Frequency Distributions for Question 24 Frequency Distributions for Question 25 Frequency Distributions for Question 26 Frequency Distributions for Question 27 Frequency Distributions for Question 28 Frequency Distributions for Question 29 Frequency Distributions for Question 33 Frequency Distributions for Question 37 Frequency Distributions for Question 38 Frequency Distributions for Question 30 Frequency Distributions for Question 31 Frequency Distributions for Question 32 Frequency Distributions for Question 34 Frequency Distributions for Question 35 Frequency Distributions for Question 36
xi

PAGE
66 68 69 69 70 71 71 72 73 73 74 75 76 77 77 78 79 79

TABLE 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Frequency Distributions for Question 12 Frequency Distributions for Question 13 Frequency Distributions for Question 14 Frequency Distributions for Question 15 Frequency Distributions for Question 16 Frequency Distributions for Question 17 Frequency Distributions for Question 18 Frequency Distributions for Question 19 Frequency Distributions for Question 20.. Frequency Distributions for Question 5 Frequency Distributions for Question 6 Frequency Distributions for Question 7 Frequency Distributions for Question 8 Frequency Distributions for Question 9 Frequency Distributions for Question 11 Frequency Distributions for Question 21 Chi-Square Scores regarding Beliefs about Educator Sexual Misconduct by Gender Chi-Square Scores regarding Beliefs about Educator Sexual Misconduct by Years of Experience Chi-Square Scores regarding Beliefs about Educator Sexual Misconduct by Ethical Lens

PAGE 81 81 82 83 ...83 84 85 85 .86 88 88 89 90 91 91 92

94

36.

95

37.

96

xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION As professionals, educators have fundamental ethical obligations that parallel other respected occupations such as medical doctors and lawyers. For medical doctors, the moral imperative is the Hippocratic Oath, First, Do no harm. For lawyers, the moral imperative is Zealous representation of the client. For educators, the moral imperative is Serve the best interests of the student. Similar to medical doctors, educators also have the ethical obligation not to harm the children they serve (Beckner, 2004; Colgan, 2004; Furman, 2003; Lane, 2006; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2005). Despite these high moral standards as well as promulgated state laws and local district policies, the literature shows that an increasing number of educators nationwide disregard their professional ethics and instead use children placed in their charge to gratify their own sexual needs and desires (Hendrie, 1998a; Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Kent, 2006; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft, 2004; Tanner, 2007; Tanner, 2008; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003a). As mandated by Section 5414 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) directed an unprecedented and sweeping examination of the literature and research regarding educator sexual misconduct. The DOE commissioned Charol Shakeshaft, a leading researcher in the field, to accomplish this important compilation effort. According to Shakeshaft, educator sexual misconduct is defined as "any behavior of a sexual nature which may constitute professional misconduct" (2004, p. 2) and her review of literature reveals that no state, community, or school is immune to this serious and harmful social phenomenon. 1

Reporting her findings in a groundbreaking document titled, Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature, Shakeshaft (2004) found that the issue is prevalent yet underreported, provocative yet understudied, and recognized yet underappreciated. According to her findings, Shakeshaft estimated that 4.5 million students (approximately 9.6 percent of all students) in the United States, in grades K-12, are subject to educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career. Reports of educator sexual abuse are increasing nationwide (Hendrie, 1998a; Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Tanner, 2008). However, it is not understood if this change is due solely to an increase in the number of instances of educator sexual misconduct, an increase in reporting the behavior when it occurs, or a combination of both (Schultz, 2005a). Problem Statement Educator sexual misconduct is a serious issue facing our nation's schools. Under the federal system of government forged by the U.S. Constitution, each state has the right to establish its own laws including those governing sexual crimes (Shakeshaft, 2003). As a result, states have taken independent approaches toward addressing educator sexual misconduct and this has resulted in "great unevenness among states in a range of policy areas, including whether consensual sex between educators and older teenagers is a crime, and under what circumstances" (Hendrie, 2003b, p. 6). Michigan is no exception but in a number of key areas, Michigan can be considered one of the most aggressive states in combating educator sexual misconduct. First, Michigan requires a criminal background check for any full- or part-time school employee through both the state police and Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2

Michigan also revokes employment of school district applicants or employees if they falsify documents regarding their criminal background and permanently revokes teaching certificates for any felony as well as certain misdemeanor convictions (Michigan Legislature, 2008). Next, and as a result of a local case of educator sexual misconduct that gained national attention and notoriety, Michigan passed a law in 1996 that "expressly forbids any deal to suppress information about unprofessional conduct by employees or expunge it from personnel records" (Hendrie, 1998f, p. 3). Only 16 other states have similar laws (Hendrie, 2003b). Finally, even though the legal age of sexual consent in Michigan is 16, Michigan has passed legislation that explicitly prohibits sexual contact between students, aged 17 and under, and school personnel. The law specifies school personnel as any adult who is in a position of authority over the student (such as bus drivers, teacher aides, or coaches), or is a teacher, substitute teacher, or administrator of a public or nonpublic school in which the student is enrolled (Hendrie, 2003b; Michigan Legislature, 2008; Schultz, 2005a). In contrast, in 23 other states, an educator is not even committing a crime when he or she has sexual relations with a student as long as the student is of the legal age of sexual consent. Of those 23 states, twelve have the legal age of sexual consent set at 16, four at age 17 and seven at age 18. Only five states (Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wyoming) completely prohibit sexual contact between students and school personnel regardless of the legal age of sexual consent (Hendrie, 2003b). Despite Michigan's progressive laws aimed at both preventing and penalizing acts of educator sexual misconduct, educators continue to target children in the state. In 2005, 3

the Detroit News reported that at least 35 Michigan school employees or recent employees had been charged with or convicted of sexual misconduct involving minors during a 15-month period (Schultz, 2005b). Additionally, during the five-year period from 2001 through 2005, of the 86 teacher misconduct cases in Michigan wherein action was taken against a teacher's license, 30 involved sexual misconduct (WILX.com, 2007). As a whole, experts have noted that administrators need to learn more about educator sexual misconduct. An examination of the literature reveals that the moral competency of potential school employees is rarely assessed within teacher educator programs (Berson, Berson, Karges-Bone & Parker, 1999) and educators receive little or no training in professional ethics during their careers. This lack of training in ethical decision making potentially leaves educators vulnerable to educator sexual misconduct (Hendrie, 1998e; Hendrie, 2003c; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003c). School personnel and administrators also need training regarding how to address sexism and sexual harassment (Brandenburg, 1997; Shoop, 2004). Once hired, districts rarely provide their employees with any type of training or professional development covering educator sexual misconduct (Cornish, 1999; Fibkins, 2006; Grayson, 2006; Shoop, 2004; Sutton, 2006; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003e). This lack of professional training and preparation limits preventative measures, reduces the effectiveness of responses, and compounds the concerns and difficulties in handling cases of alleged educator sexual misconduct. Hendrie (2003c) states that, "Responding to suspected sexual wrongdoing by staff members can present school administrators with some of the most agonizing dilemmas of their careers. Because few school leaders have planned for the possibility in advance, they usually end up improvising" (p. 7). Experts propose that 4

training regarding educator sexual misconduct is needed in both administrator and teacher professional development (Berson et al., 1999; Eckes, 2006; Hardy, 2002; Hendrie, 1998a; Hendrie, 1998e; Hendrie, 1998h; Hendrie, 1998i; Hendrie, 2003c; Lowenthal, 1996; McNeal, 2006; Nowesnick, 1993; Shakeshaft, 1994; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Smith, Morrow, & Gray, 1999; Spirito, 1994; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003e). Next, there is a need to examine the extent of training that school leaders receive regarding their moral and legal responsibility to protect students from educator sexual misconduct (Cooper, 1998; Graves, 1994; Hendrie, 1998e; McGrath, 1994; Nowesnick, 1993; Shoop, 2000; Smith, Morrow & Gray, 1999). Administrators should be able to recognize the signs and symptoms of educator sexual misconduct and act accordingly to protect the child. Moreover, these leaders need to know their respective district's policies and procedures for handling and documenting both formal and informal complaints to comply with federal and state laws and regulations (Essex, 1998; Hendrie, 1998e; Lindemann & Kadue, 1992; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003d). The literature also demonstrates a need to research the extent of training that school officials have regarding best practices for investigating allegations of educator sexual misconduct. Once a student, parent, or educator makes an accusation of educator sexual misconduct, the administration is obligated to conduct a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation (Bludworth, 1996; Cooper, 1998; Essex, 1998; Kent, 2006; Lindemann & Kadue, 1992; McGrath, 1994; Shoop, 2000; Shoop, 2008; Stover, 2000; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003a). Administrators need to ensure proper due process for the employee and take steps to protect or assist the target. At the same time, these 5

administrators should safeguard privacy and confidentiality regulations and keep the school community focused on a fair and impartial process for all concerned (Essex, 1998; Hendrie, 1998e; Lindemann & Kadue, 1992; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003d). An examination of the literature reveals that few administrators have training or experience in conducting investigations of educator sexual misconduct (Cooper, 1998; Hendrie, 1998e; Hendrie, 19981; Kent, 2006; Shakeshaft, 1994; Spirito, 1994; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003c). Along with best practices for investigating, district administrators have a responsibility to understand their legal and ethical duties during the entire investigative process (Essex, 2000; Hendrie, 1998e; Kent, 2006; Lindemann & Kadue, 1992; Shoop, 2008). Complications may occur if the administrator handling a case of educator sexual misconduct lacks training in, is ignorant of, or does not understand the applicable laws or policies, or fails to adequately or properly respond (Austin, 2000; Hendrie, 1998a; Hendrie, 1998e; Kent, 2006; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003c). As a consequence, investigative results vary. The literature indicates that administrators sometimes ignore, disregard, snub, or even suppress allegations and, as a result, a number of cases go unsubstantiated or undocumented. Notably, Hendrie (2003c) states that, "in case after case, school officials have been faulted in civil lawsuits, and occasionally in criminal complaints, for failing to recognize, report, and properly act on misconduct in their midst" (p. 7). In numerous cases, students, community members, and teachers as well as administrators attempt to retaliate against, discredit, or pressure targets to withdraw their charges (Bludworth, 1996; Graves, 1994; Hendrie, 1998e; Irving & Tanner, 2007; Kent, 2006; McGrath, 1994; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shoop, 2000). 6

Furthermore, when school leaders do suspect or substantiate incidents of educator sexual misconduct, the literature indicates that some offenders threaten lawsuits against the district, or negotiate nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements that allow them to resign quietly. Theses tactics often permit offenders to move on to other districts where they are able to seek new targets. So prevalent is this practice that it has become known as passing the trash (Berson, Berson, Karges-Bone & Parker, 2000; Bludworth, 1996; Hendrie, 1998f; Irving & Tanner, 2007; Michigan Education Report, 2008; Nowesnick, 1993; Schemo, 2002; Shakeshaft, 1994; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 1999; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003c; Yaffe, 1995; Zemel & Twedt, 1999). A factor in sustaining this practice is that it is often costly and time consuming for a district to take employees through dismissal processes or court hearings. High degrees of proof are required and targets are often too reluctant, fearful, or embarrassed to testify. As a result, cases often end with no action or seldom make it to the courtroom (Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Schultz, 2005a). More study is needed regarding the beliefs of administrators and the use of nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements (Chaika, 1999; Graves, 1994; Hendrie, 1998f; Irving & Tanner, 2007; Schultz, 2005a; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003a; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003c). The literature also shows a lack of research regarding the response of educators to the needs of targets. Experts agree that the social, emotional, physical, and psychological damage to children who suffer through sexual abuse and educator sexual misconduct varies with the particulars of each incident (Austin, 2000; Bludworth, 1996; Braveman, 2008; Chaika, 1999; Cohan et al., 1996; Graves, 1994, Hendrie, 1998d; Irving & Tanner, 2007; Lowenthal, 1996; McGrath, 1994; Nowesnick, 1993; Reyome & Gaeddert, 1998; 7

Shakeshaft, 1994; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Tanner, 2007; Woodhull, 1996; Yaffe, 1995). However, important variables mitigating or exacerbating the trauma experienced by targets are influenced by the attitudes and beliefs of district administrators, teachers, fellow students, and community members. Too often, children and teenagers who suffer through educator sexual misconduct are targeted anew once they make their accusations public. According to the research literature, this is due to members of the school community being reluctant to accept or refusing to believe that the accused educator is capable of the behavior, or that the statement of the student is reliable (Bludworth, 1996; Graves, 1994; Hardy, 2002; Hendrie, 1998e; McGrath, 1994; Nowesnick, 1993; Shakeshaft, 1994; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 1999; Tanner, 2007; Yaffe, 1995; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003c). Therefore, the rationale for this study is that educator sexual misconduct is a serious problem facing schools throughout the nation and across Michigan. The impetus for this research study is founded on several premises emerging from the literature: (a) the number of incidents of educator sexual misconduct is substantial and appears to be increasing, (b) there is a lack of research regarding educator sexual misconduct, and (c) administrators may receive inadequate training regarding educator sexual misconduct. Hence, the need for more research in this area is acute.

Significance of Study A review of literature reveals a paucity of research and empirical studies at both national and state levels regarding educator sexual misconduct (Berson et al., 1999; Grayson, 2006; Hendrie, 2003a; Hendrie, 2004; Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Shakeshaft,

2003; Shakeshaft, 2004; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Stamler & Stone, 1998). Likewise, no federally funded study exists that examines the prevalence of educator sexual misconduct at the national level (Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft, 2004). Additionally, while there is a plethora of data regarding child sexual abuse at the local, state, and national levels, this information usually is derived from governmental agencies such as law enforcement or child protective services (Shakeshaft, 2004). These organizations examine the issue of sexual misconduct and abuse in broad terms and do not focus particularly on educators as sexual offenders. As a result, these agencies use broad and ambiguous terms such as acquaintance or nonfamily caretaker to describe a number of offenders including, but not limited to, educators engaging in sexual abuse. According to Shakeshaft (2004), these choices of labels effectively and inadvertently conceal important data from educational researchers. Moreover, there are scant data and no empirical research findings regarding any aspect of educator sexual misconduct in Michigan. When an incident of educator sexual misconduct comes to light in Michigan, the public sometimes learns of it through news accounts as reported by local, regional, or state news and media organizations. After a two-day expose of educator sexual misconduct by the Detroit News in April 2005, the Auditor General of Michigan responded by announcing new regulations clarifying state reporting procedures for educator sexual misconduct and Governor Jennifer Granholm pledged to prioritize the issue (Shultz, 2005a). Regardless, this researcher found no studies in Michigan examining the beliefs or the extent of training of secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct. For these reasons, this study contributes to the existing body of literature. 9

Research Questions The purpose of this study was to investigate the beliefs and extent of training of Michigan secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct as examined by gender, years of experience, and ethical lens. The research questions for this study were as follows: 1. What are the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct? 2. What are the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding to what extent their training has prepared them to understand the legalities of a case of educator sexual misconduct? 3. What are the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding to what extent their training has prepared them to handle a case of educator sexual misconduct? 4. What is the extent of the training that secondary school principals have received regarding educator sexual misconduct? 5. What is the predominant ethical lens used by secondary school principals when responding to a case of educator sexual misconduct? 6. What are the differences between secondary school principals, by gender, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct? 7. What are the differences between secondary school principals, by years of experience, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct? 8. What are the differences between secondary school principals, by ethical lens, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct?

10

Null Hypotheses The null hypotheses for this study were as follows: 1. There are no differences in secondary school principals, by gender, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct. 2. There are no differences in secondary school principals, by years of experience, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct. 3. There are no differences in secondary school principals, by ethical lens, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct.

Definition of Terms To best understand the terms that were used in this study, definitions were necessary. Given the diverse historical, legal, legislative, journalistic, and educational complexities of adult-to-student educator sexual misconduct in schools, many terms have been used in recent years to describe this issue. In this study, the following definitions were used: Belief: an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof (Webster's, 2009). Educator. Any person 18 years or older who works with or for a school or other educational or learning organization. This service may be paid or unpaid; professional, classified or volunteer; and includes teachers, counselors, administrators, secretaries, bus drivers, coaches, parent/guardian volunteers, lunchroom and classroom aides, tutors or any other adult in a school-related relationship with a student (Shakeshaft, 2004). Educator Sexual Misconduct: Any behavior of a sexual nature by an educator that 11

constitutes professional misconduct. Included in this broad definition are both overt and covert actions including: 1. Any conduct that would amount to sexual harassment under Title DC of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972. 2. Any conduct that would amount to sexual abuse of a minor person under state criminal codes. 3. Any sexual relationship by an educator with a student, regardless of the student's age; with a former student under 18; with a former student (regardless of age) who suffers from a disability that would prevent consent in a relationship. All students enrolled in the school and in any organization in which the educator holds a position of trust and responsibility are included. 4. Any activity directed toward establishing a sexual relationship such as sending intimate letters; engaging in sexualized dialogue in person, via the Internet, in writing or by phone; making suggestive comments; dating a student (Shakeshaft, 2004). Ethic of Care: The ethic of care prioritizes concern for others by focusing on collaborative relationships and promoting mutually, beneficial connections between the administration, faculty, staff, and students (Starratt, 1991). Ethic of Critique: The ethic of critique sees conflict, tension, and inequalities between individual rights, laws, and the basic principles of democracy. Philosophically, this ethic is based on critical theory and seeks answers that redefine key concepts such as privilege, power, culture, and justice (Starratt, 1991). Ethic of Justice: The ethic of justice advocates that a leader focus decisions on 12

relationships within a community in which members are expected to give up certain rights for the good of the whole or for social justice. Philosophically, society is the focal point of this lens and seeks to teach individuals how to behave (Starratt, 1991). Legal age of sexual consent: The age at which a person is held to have the capacity to voluntarily agree to sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent may lead to criminal charges of statutory rape or sexual assault. It is important to note that a lack of knowledge of the person's age, even if based upon a reasonable mistaken belief about the person being the age of consent, is not a defense. Age of consent in Michigan is 16 and varies from state to state (USLegalDefinitions.com, 2008). Offender. An educator who engages in educator sexual misconduct. This term is preferred to pedophile, hebephile, molester, or abuser because these terms are either medical diagnoses or criminal labels and so do not properly describe all behaviors exhibited by adults engaging in educator sexual misconduct (Shakeshaft, 2004). Quid pro quo: A Latin phrase meaning "this for that." Arguably the easiest type of sexual harassment to recognize, quid pro quo occurs when sexual demands are made upon a student in exchange for educational participation, advancement, or other benefits (Brandenburg, 1997; Lindemann & Kadue, 1992; Shoop & Edwards, 1994; Shoop & Hayhow, 1994; Woodhull, 1996). Respondeat superior: The legal doctrine based on the Latin term for "Let the master answer" under which an employer is vicariously subject to liability for the wrongful acts of employees committed while acting within the scope of their employment and in furtherance of the employer's business (Fossey & Demitchell, 1996; Lindemann & 13

Kadue, 1992; Marczely, 1999; Shoop & Hayhow, 1994). Secondary School Principal: An administrator (including principals, assistant principals, and career and technical center directors, as well as principals and assistant principals combined with athletic director positions) in charge of students enrolled in grades 7-12. The levels of experience for secondary school principals shall be defined as follows: (a) beginner (0-3 years of experience), (b) intermediate (4-9 years of experience), and (c) veteran (10+ years of experience). Sexual abuse: Unwelcome and sexually-oriented contact behaviors including genital fondling, intercourse, oral or anal sex, and object intrusion; and unwelcome and sexually-oriented non-contact behaviors including coercing a child to watch pornographic films or view pornographic pictures, observing sexual intercourse, performing sexual activities, and witnessing sexual exhibitionism. It is generally accepted that this behavior is initiated by someone with power over the victim (Bludworth, 1996; Cohan et al., 1996; Lowenthal, 1996). Sexual harassment: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature may constitute sexual harassment when: 1. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment. 2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals. 3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or 14

offensive environment (Brandenburg, 1997; Essex, 1998; Essex, 2000; Kelley, 2000; Lindemann & Cadue, 1992; Shoop & Hayhow, 1994; USLegalDefinitions.com, 2008; Woodhull, 1996; Woods, 2002; Yaffe, 1995). Sexual molestation: Contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or another person when the perpetrator or another person is in a position of power or control over the victim (USLegalDefinitions.com). Student: Any person of any age who attends an educational institution generally up through 12th grade. In Michigan, certain special education students may attend public school up to and including age 25 (Shakeshaft, 2004). Survey Monkey: An online survey tool located at www.surveymonkey.com that provides researchers with electronic resources for the design, distribution, and data analysis of web-based questionnaires and surveys. Target: A student who is sexually abused, exploited, harassed, or molested by an educator. This term is a reminder that someone other than the student is responsible for the act (Shakeshaft, 2004).

Assumptions The researcher assumed that secondary school principals misunderstand educator sexual misconduct and are not adequately trained regarding the phenomenon. Furthermore, the researcher assumed that the lack of training among secondary school principals detrimentally impacts the implementation of effective prevention strategies, hampers the recognition of profiles and warning signs in both targets and offenders, and 15

inhibits the proper investigation of allegations of educator sexual misconduct. The researcher also assumed that most secondary school principals misjudge the seriousness of both the short- and long-term harmful impacts of educator sexual misconduct on targets and are not adequately aware of the legalities of educator sexual misconduct including federal and state laws and U.S. Supreme Court rulings governing the topic. This researcher also assumed that educator sexual misconduct is prevalent in our nation's public schools and that the vast majority of the cases of educator sexual misconduct are unreported. Finally, the researcher assumed that the secondary school principals answering the survey did so accurately and honestly and to the best of their ability and experience.

Delimitations and Limitations Population This study was limited to secondary school principals, assistant principals, career and technical center administrators and directors, and combined administrator/athletic directors. Other administrators including elementary principals, athletic directors, and central office administrators as well as superintendents and assistant superintendents were not included in this study. Therefore, the study is not reflective of all school administrators serving grades K-12 in Michigan and generalizations are to be made with caution.

Review of Literature The review of literature focused on related studies investigating educator sexual misconduct. However, given the population and location of the present study, the review 16

of literature did not investigate the following types of studies: (a) those based in countries other than the United States, (b) those examining sexual misconduct at the university or collegiate levels, or (c) those using biased populations. Electronic Format of Survey Due to the electronic format of the survey, participants in the study were limited to those secondary school principals who actively used email accounts. Secondary school principals who do not use email accounts were not able to take part.

Scope of Sexual Abuse Sexual harassment, sexual abuse, sexual molestation, and neglect are major issues facing our nation's schools. However, the researcher limited this study to adult-tostudent educator sexual misconduct within Michigan schools and did not examine the beliefs or the extent of training of secondary school administrators relating to other sexual misconduct including, but not limited to, peer-to-peer sexual harassment, peer or familial sexual abuse or molestation discovered in the schools, or neglect originating from the home.

Overview of the Complete Document Overview of Chapter I Chapter I presents the following sections: (a) introduction, (b) statement of the research problem and rationale, (c) significance of the study and its contribution to knowledge, (d) research questions, (e) null hypotheses, (f) definition of terms, (g) assumptions, (h) delimitations and limitations, and (i) overview of the complete

17

document.

Overview of Chapter II Chapter II reviews recent research and theoretical treatises regarding the historical development and conceptual evolution of educator sexual misconduct. This review focused on several key areas including a summation of related studies investigating educator sexual misconduct as well as the legal foundations for educator sexual misconduct and how those foundations were derived from federal legislation, case law, and court precedents. Finally, Chapter II discusses three theoretical frameworks for ethical decision making by school administrators.

Overview of Chapter III Chapter III presents a detailed description of the research methodology as well as the procedures for conducting the study. The research design was a quantitative approach using an electronic survey and the participants for this study were secondary school principals in Michigan. The survey instrument was developed by the researcher and piloted prior to the study to address validity and reliability. The data from the survey were collected using Survey Monkey and were analyzed using descriptive methods and chi-square tests.

Overview of Chapters IV and V Chapter IV consists of the results of the study including data analysis and emergent themes. Chapter V contains the study's findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future study. Finally, this dissertation concludes with 18

appendices, consisting of forms used in this study and any related documents.

19

CHAPTER H REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction This review of literature examines the topic of educator sexual misconduct related to the present inquiry. The material cited in this review was culled from research studies, educational journals, books, reports from governmental agencies, newspaper articles, and online resources as well as Michigan state law. Moreover, the review relied on information from experts on educator sexual misconduct and, wherever possible, used primary rather than secondary sources. This review of literature focuses on pertinent information organized into six categories: (a) related studies investigating educator sexual misconduct, (b) federal laws governing sexual harassment applicable to educator sexual misconduct, (c) United States Supreme Court rulings dealing with educator sexual misconduct, (d) theoretical frameworks for ethical decision making by school administrators, (e) the influence of gender on the behavior of secondary school principals, and (f) the influence of years of experience on the behavior of secondary school principals.

Related Studies Investigating Educator Sexual Misconduct The review of literature revealed a paucity of research and empirical studies at both national and state levels regarding educator sexual misconduct (Berson, et al., 1999; Hendrie, 2004; Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft, 2004; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Stamler & Stone, 1998). In describing her efforts to compile the literature regarding educator sexual misconduct as mandated by No Child Left Behind, 20

Shakeshaft (2004) stated that, Unfortunately, there are few empirical studies on educator sexual misconduct. As a result, there are insufficient studies to undertake even the simple synthesis method of counting the votes, let alone to merit the more formal and rigorous methods of synthesis such as meta-analysis, (p. 3) Despite locating over 900 citations in the literature, Shakeshaft identified only 19 empirical studies relating to educator sexual misconduct. Some of the empirical studies located by Shakeshaft primarily investigated some form of sexual harassment or abuse and obtained their data regarding educator sexual misconduct as a corollary or tangent, while others examined populations unrelated to this study, or studied nonscientific populations. Therefore, this review of literature did not investigate the following types of studies: (a) those based in countries other than the United States, (b) those examining sexual misconduct at the university or collegiate level, or (c) those using biased populations. One of the earliest studies on educator sexual misconduct was by Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995). These researchers interviewed 225 superintendents, 184 from New York State and 41 from other parts of the country, who had been identified as having dealt with an incident of educator sexual misconduct. Shakeshaft and Cohan interviewed the sample either in person or by phone and then chose 10 case studies for further examination. It took four years to complete the research project. The researchers found that there was a great deal of confusion among superintendents regarding what constituted educator sexual misconduct and that varying definitions clouded a cogent discussion of the topic. As emergent categories drawn from the narratives, Shakeshaft 21

and Cohan classified the sexual behaviors described to them as either noncontact or contact sexual abuse. Superintendents described visual noncontact sexual abuse such as showing pornographic material or exposing oneself to students as more harmful than verbal noncontact sexual abuse such as making suggestive comments or talking about sexual issues. Likewise, superintendents described contact sexual abuse such as touching, caressing, or sexual activity as more harmful than noncontact sexual abuse. Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) found that "89% of all the cases they examined (92% of the cases reported by males and 88% of the cases reported by females) involved allegations of contact abuse" leading the researchers to conclude that superintendents tended to report the behaviors they believed to be more serious (p. 3). The study also found that 7.5% of superintendents purportedly had dealt with allegations that were false or were not serious enough to be considered sexual abuse. Upon further examination, Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) found that, "according to our current understanding of what constitutes sexual abuse, many of these incidents were, in fact, against the law" (p. 3). The researchers concluded that it was much more likely that students would not report the harassment they experienced rather than make a false allegation. Analysis by Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) also showed that, across all grades, 96% of the offenders were males and 4% females. Of the students the male offenders targeted, 76% were female, and 24% male. Of the students female offenders targeted, 86% were female, and 14% male. Shakeshaft and Cohan found that a disproportionate number of offenders were popular or respected teachers who frequently worked with 22

students in extracurricular activities or who had one-on-one contact with students in drama, art, music, or physical education, including athletic coaches or club advisors. The researchers classified the offenders as either pedophiles or romantic/bad judgment abusers. Shakeshaft and Cohan also reported that, of the students who made allegations, 78% were female and 22% were male. The superintendents often described these students as the most vulnerable and needy students in the school. Superintendents often learned of the alleged misconduct from a number of sources and were not usually prepared with policies or procedures for dealing with the allegations. In many of the cases examined by Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995), superintendents developed these policies and procedures during the ongoing investigation. The researchers concluded that superintendents did a poor job of investigating, rarely contacted legal authorities, usually did not seek confirming testimony or evidence, and gave deference to the accused offender while sometimes intimidating the target. Superintendents also took accusations against female teachers more seriously than against male teachers and considered misconduct against male targets as more serious than against female targets despite the data showing that females were more often targets. Additionally, superintendents tended to believe the reports of male targets and rarely suspected them of lying which was not often the case with female targets. Moreover, "Homosexual acts were seen as more serious than heterosexual acts. Thus students who reported same-sex abuse were more likely to be believed and to be judged as harmed more severely than students who reported opposite-sex abuse" (Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995, p. 6). 23

Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) reported that most of the superintendents had mixed feelings, emotions, and attitudes while discussing the cases especially with regard to their duty or loyalty. These district leaders often did not initially believe the students and were reluctant to investigate. If the superintendents eventually believed the charges to be true, they attempted to close the case by removing, disciplining, or informally speaking to the offender. Superintendents tried to remove teachers by forcing them to resign, encouraging them to retire, or terminating them. Shakeshaft and Cohan, . . . uncovered a number of cases in which a teacher facing allegations of sexual abuse of a student turned up teaching in another district, without the hiring district knowing about the allegations. The practice is common enough that the superintendents referred to it as 'passing the trash.'" (p. 8) In contrast, superintendents focused little attention on helping targets deal with the experience, or protecting them from backlash or ostracism. These leaders tended to believe that once the abuse had been stopped, the case was closed. Cairns (2006) interviewed 10 secondary and elementary principals (four elementary, three middle, and three high school principals) from the same public school district in Florida regarding their readiness to handle a case of educator sexual misconduct in their schools. Cairns reported that six themes emerged from the data with principals indicating the following: (a) they felt constrained or restricted by their district's policies or lack of policies regarding educator sexual misconduct, (b) they preferred the term educator sexual misconduct to sexual harassment, (c) they felt that school leaders should be able to define educator sexual misconduct and recognize its signs in both targets and offenders, (d) they indicated that they followed their district's anti-misconduct 24

policy, (e) they claimed they would immediately contact the district's professional standards office as well as promptly investigate if presented with an accusation, and (f) they overwhelmingly agreed that their university classes did not adequately prepare them to deal with educator sexual misconduct and recommended the need for increased awareness and prevention efforts as a result. Just (1996) sampled 40 practicing administrators from five school districts in Oregon to see if specially designed training would significantly improve their ability to prevent cases of educator sexual misconduct. Pretests confirmed that the administrators lacked knowledge regarding how to properly comply with state sexual abuse reporting laws and that they could not effectively recognize indicators of sexual abuse in targets as well as the characteristics of offenders. Just also found that administrators did not understand how to apply professional ethics and district policies to employees who were alleged offenders and did not know what steps to follow in investigating an allegation of educator sexual misconduct. Posttest scores after three hours of training showed significant gains in all training areas. No significant differences were found in the administrators by gender, age, experience level, and longevity. The research did not distinguish the respondents by elementary or secondary levels. Just concluded that school administrators may not be properly prepared regarding educator sexual misconduct and that specially designed training would increase reporting of cases of educator sexual misconduct while correspondingly reducing the number of cases occurring in schools. Freeman (2003) interviewed eight superintendents from Texas to ascertain if they referred to a professional code of ethics for guidance in resolving cases of educator 25

sexual misconduct. The researcher also sought to identify factors that superintendents considered while handling cases of educator sexual misconduct and if these factors contributed to the phenomenon known as passing the trash. Freeman found instances of educators who chose not to report allegations of educator sexual misconduct and superintendents who neither valued nor referred to their code of ethics for guidance when faced with decisions involving an allegation of educator sexual misconduct. Snyder (2001) examined responses of five North Dakota school districts to alleged cases of educator sexual misconduct originating in their schools. The researcher focused on the decision-making processes of district administrators regarding the allegations as well as the aftermath of those decisions. Based on interviews with school administrators, board members, counselors, targets, family members, friends, and offenders, Snyder found that districts typically adhered to a four-step model that included the following: (a) initial reporting or recognition of the allegation, (b) decision to accept or reject the allegation, (c) determination of the type of action to be taken by the district, and (d) ramification of the type of action taken by the district on the district as well as those involved in the allegation. Snyder (2001) further concluded that school administrators she interviewed did not react well to the reported allegations and typically denied the misconduct or blamed the targets in violation of state law. The researcher also found that certain traits of the target (shy, vulnerable, naive, or family dysfunction) in combination with the perceived high status or prestige of offenders led school officials to discredit the allegations or blame the targets for the misconduct. Additionally, Snyder observed that tactics used by the offenders such as breaching the targets' trust, or accusing the targets of lying or 26

making false reports were effective in deterring school administrators from investigating allegations. In three of the five cases, the districts took no action. Furthermore, the researcher found that knowledge by the target that school personnel knew of the misconduct and chose to be silent instead of reporting it, deterred targets from coming forth with reports of allegations. Snyder also observed differences in the treatment of targets by gender. Females were less frequently believed than males and this perceived lack of reliability contributed to more negative reactions and treatment of female targets from friends, teachers, administrators, and community members. Finally, Snyder found that, in cases of homosexual misconduct, male victims were immediately believed and received support from administrators who reported the cases to the authorities. In one of the earliest studies examining educator sexual misconduct, Wishnietsky (1991) surveyed 65 North Carolina school superintendents and over 100 recently graduated high school seniors with the purpose of discovering the extent of any inappropriate sexual relationships between high school students and teachers. Though not statistically comparable, the results from the superintendents and the students revealed a discrepancy in the number of school employees disciplined for sexual harassment of a student as compared to the number of students reporting that they had experienced sexual harassment. Moreover, of the 65 superintendents, 18 (27.7%) noted the need to discipline a school employee within the past three years due to sexual harassment of a student. Finally, the study also revealed that 29 of the 65 superintendents (44.6%) reported that their districts had no written guidelines to prevent sexual harassment between students and employees. Gupta (1998) surveyed over 500 students regarding the type and extent of 27

educator sexual misconduct in a Florida school district. The researcher also examined the school system's procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct including student awareness of and willingness to follow the procedures. Gupta found that educator sexual misconduct was widespread in the district. Sixty-eight percent of the sample population indicated that they had been targets while only four percent had reported the incident to a school official. Students indicated that they had received little training on how to report such allegations, few were aware of the district's policies, and few were comfortable with the existing reporting procedures. Fromuth and Holt (2008) surveyed 300 undergraduate students, 150 men and 150 women, to explore whether student age influenced perceptions of teacher misconduct. Of the sample, 95% were 18-21 years old. Participants read scenarios describing an incident of a teacher engaged in an act of sexual misconduct with a student in which the students' ages varied (9, 12, and 15). After reading the scenarios, participants responded to a questionnaire. According to the researchers, the findings in this study were consistent with similar child sexual abuse research and suggested that the age of the target greatly influenced the reaction to educator sexual misconduct. Fromuth and Holt (2008) found that the participants viewed the scenarios of the nine-year-old child as the most abusive and the scenarios of the 15-year-old teenager as the least. The data also indicated gender differences; women perceived the scenarios more negatively than men. In addition, situations involving male teachers and female students were seen more negatively than those involving female teachers and male students. Gender emerged as a key factor in reactions to the scenarios. Male participants 28

were more likely than female participants to attribute the teacher's misconduct to being sexually attracted to younger people while female participants were more likely than male participants to attribute the misconduct to psychological problems. Gender differences also were found regarding recommended length of prison sentences for offenders involved with 15-year-old students. Male subjects assigned shorter sentences than female subjects. The American Association of University Women (AAUW) conducted two well known studies primarily investigating student-to-student sexual harassment. The 1993 study examined the responses of 1,632 field surveys of public school students, grades 8 to 11, from across the United States. The 2001 study was a replication of the 1993 study and consisted of 2,063 field surveys. As in 1993, the 2001 study examined public school students, grades 8 to 11, from across the United States. Despite the focus on student-to-student sexual harassment, the AAUW studies (1993, 2001) provided corollary data regarding educator sexual misconduct and from this tangential information the following themes emerged: (a) despite a decrease from 1993 to 2001, a substantial number of students experienced sexual harassment from school employees (in 2001, 38 percent of respondents indicated that school employees were harassers compared to 44 percent in 1993); (b) more harassment by school employees occurred than was reported; (c) data regarding adult-to-student, nonphysical and physical sexual harassment revealed that seven percent of both boys and girls experienced nonphysical harassment by teachers; and (d) eight percent of boys and six percent of girls experienced physical sexual harassment by teachers. After the publication of the 2001 AAUW replication, Shakeshaft (2003) 29

conducted a secondary reanalysis of the 1993 and 2001 AAUW studies with the expressed purpose of focusing on the data relating to educator sexual misconduct. The reanalysis of the combined AAUW data revealed that 9.6 percent of all students in grades 8-11 reported educator sexual misconduct. Shakeshaft reported that offenders at the elementary level tended to be popular and well regarded educators who had commonly won awards for excellence in teaching. At the secondary level, Shakeshaft found that offenders tended to commit the misconduct more spontaneously or from a sense of privilege. Moreover, the data showed that about one third of all offenders were classroom teachers and coaches but other educators such as substitute teachers, bus drivers, teacher's aides, other school employees, security guards, principals, and counselors also engaged in the behavior. The reanalysis indicated that targets often suffered a variety of emotional, educational, and health repercussions as a result of the abuse. Despite this suffering, Shakeshaft (2003) found that only about six percent of students who experienced sexual abuse by an educator reported it and when students did come forth with allegations, they were ignored or disbelieved. Of the few cases where districts responded to the allegations, fewer still resulted in students, parents, or district officials contacting law enforcement authorities. Hendrie (1998a) published a nationwide review and expose of active cases of educator sexual misconduct. Data compiled from the cases revealed general characteristics of both offenders and targets including age, gender, and grade level. Hendrie reported offenders of all ages and professions and while most were male, around 20 percent were women. In some cases, educators were suspected and rumored to be 30

offenders while in other cases the offenders came from the "top ranks of their profession, with reputations for dedication to their students built up over long and distinguished careers" (p. 4). Moreover, Hendrie found that offenders tended to have roles that brought them close to students outside of the regular classroom such as coaches, music and drama directors, and club advisors. Hendrie (1998a) found targets from all ages and grades but in more than two thirds of the cases, targets were in high school and aged 14 years and older; about twothirds of the cases involved female targets and about a third male. The findings showed that many of the targets often did not come forward immediately with their allegations but often waited weeks or months to do so. When targets did report an allegation, they tended to be met with resistance from other school employees and administrators who were naturally reluctant or even hostile about believing that a colleague was capable of the alleged behavior. This reaction occurred despite Hendrie's findings that in only two of the 244 cases she examined did students falsely accuse educators of sexual misconduct. Once a student made an allegation, Hendrie (1998a) reported that it was often the case that victims were ridiculed, ostracized, or branded as liars by other students and even adults including teachers, counselors, and administrators. These groups tended to blame the student for the sexual contact effectively revictimizing the target. According to Hendrie, targets and their supporters said this treatment could be severe and exacerbated the damage already done to targets by the initial abuse. In response, parents of targets "motivated by a desire to shield their children from publicity and emotional distress, may urge authorities not to press charges" (p. 6). At other times, it was school officials and 31

administrators who attempted to suppress cases in the hopes of avoiding, "further trauma for victims or legal liability and damaging publicity for their schools" (p. 7). Important to the current research project, Hendrie (1998a) noted that "Missteps by unprepared or ill-trained officials at the school or district level can impede justice, invite years of litigation, spark a community uproar, and prevent victims from receiving the counseling and support they need" (p. 4). Moreover, Hendrie reported that cases involving older students who acquiesced or even willingly agreed to the sexual contact were the most confusing for fellow students, educators, administrators, community members, and law-enforcement authorities. Hendrie (2003) updated her special report on educator sexual misconduct released in 1998 by publishing a two-part series on the subject five years later. In the 2003 study, Hendrie contacted all 50 state departments of education to ascertain each state's policies relating to sexual misconduct between educators and students. Her research revealed that, although states across the nation were slowly paying more attention to the phenomenon and were taking steps to address it, there were wide disparities regarding how the states defined and codified educator sexual misconduct into law "including whether consensual sex between educators and older teenagers is a crime, and under what circumstances" (p. 6). Results of the study indicated a number of trends including the following: (a) more than half the states had laws governing educator sexual misconduct, (b) although many states did not prohibit educators from having sex with teenager students who were past the legal age of sexual consent, more states were moving to outlaw the behavior, and (c) forty-two states required applicants for teacher certification to pass criminal-background screenings including Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 32

or state police fingerprint checks. According to Hendrie, this was a substantial increase over the few states requiring these checks just 15 years earlier. Additionally, 17 states revealed they were addressing the phenomenon known as passing the trash by requiring school district officials to inform the state when educators resigned or left their positions due to suspicions of sexual misconduct. Finally, Hendrie reported that 17 states had laws protecting district officials from defamation suits regarding job references provided for current or past employees. Zemel and Twedt (1999), reporters for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, wrote a threepart series examining 727 cases from across the United States in which educators lost their licenses for sexual offenses during the previous five years. Results indicated a number of trends including the following: (a) an increase in the number of teachers who lost their licenses because of sex offenses during the years examined, (b) a number of molestations that lasted for years, (c) a practice referred to as passing the trash wherein offenders sometimes received assistance obtaining new employment from their former employers, (d) a wide disparity in state laws regarding educator sexual misconduct, and (e) a tendency for offenders to use appeals to retain their teaching certificates long enough to move to another state. Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003), reporters for The Seattle Times, wrote a three-part series regarding public school and private club coaches in the state of Washington who had sexually abused their student athletes. The results of the year-long analysis of school district records revealed that, from 1993-2003, 159 coaches in the state had been fired or reprimanded for sexual misconduct. The reporters found that of the 159 coaches, at least 98 had continued to coach or teach. 33

As a result of their investigation, Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003) reported three major findings. First, the number of offending coaches was much greater than the records showed. The reporters found that school officials often failed to investigate complaints against coaches or report suspected offenders to law-enforcement authorities. Sometimes, school officials even failed to comply with a state law that required them to report sexual misconduct to the state education office. Second, negligence allowed a number of offenders to continue coaching. The reporters discovered that school administrators made deals with offending coaches that included promises to keep disciplinary records secret or provide cash buyouts for tens of thousands of dollars if the coaches would agree to resign or leave. Other districts subsequently hired these coaches without knowing their backgrounds; in a few instances, districts knowingly hired offenders despite their past sexual transgressions. Third, the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) failed in its duty to ensure the safety of students. The reporters estimated that OSPI took an average of two years to investigate allegations, sometimes did not interview a single person involved in a case, dropped investigations, or dismissed cases without cause. These practices left accused offenders with unblemished records and valid teaching credentials. Additionally, Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003) exposed a number of specific concerns about the role of school administrators when dealing with allegations of teachercoaches engaging in sexual misconduct. The reporters found that administrators: (a) often lacked clear guidelines regarding educator sexual misconduct, (b) were not trained to investigate educator sexual misconduct, ignored complaints, or did not recognize warning signs of the behavior, and (c) needed better training in identifying and 34

responding to signs of misconduct as well as reporting any allegations. Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003) also examined why some districts sought to make deals with offenders. The researchers found that, even when there was sufficient proof of sexual misconduct, firing a teacher-coach could be a lengthy and expensive process. In Washington, a teacher-coach has the right to a state-level hearing. This process often took months to complete, and during this time, the alleged offender was usually on paid leave. If the district were to lose the case at the state level, it would have to pay court and lawyer's fees. Consequently, districts "...weigh the costs and often decide an easier course is getting the coach to resign with a cash settlement. A typical discharge case costs about $100,000, including paid leave, attorney fees and other costs" (Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003c, p. 4).

Federal Laws Governing Sexual Harassment Applicable to Educator Sexual Misconduct Federal laws governing both sexual harassment and educator sexual misconduct are contained in Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Title DC of the Educational Amendment of 1972 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 is the federal statute that permits individuals to sue state officials for denying or depriving the individual of a constitutional right (Tanner, 2005). It is important to note that the federal courts have ruled that, under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, there exists the right to bodily integrity. In the school setting, the right to bodily integrity has been interpreted to mean that students have the constitutionally protected right to be free from sexual abuse which is an extreme 35

form of educator sexual misconduct (Tanner, 2005). However, despite the fact that Section 1983 provides no monetary limitation for compensatory damages, permits punitive damages, and allows for plaintiffs to hold an administrator personally liable, Section 1983 requires higher standards of proof of discrimination. Specifically, the plaintiffs "must prove the existence of a custom, pattern, or policy of administrative failure to act to prevent the sexual abuse. This is a very high standard which must be fact driven" (Kent, 2006, p. 3). While still available to plaintiffs seeking damages for allegations of sexual harassment, Section 1983 is used less frequently now in deference to or in combination with Title IX (Kent, 2006; Lindemann & Kadue, 1992; McGrath, 1994).

Title IX of the Educational Amendment of 1972 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title DC requires that "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance" (Bludworth, 1996; Kent, 2006; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2000). The intent of Title DC is to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities receiving federal funding (Essex, 1998; Kelley, 2000; Sutton, 2004). Additionally, Title DC requires that schools have both: policies and grievance procedures through which students can complain of alleged sex discrimination, including sexual harassment. These policies and procedures must be adopted and published and provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of sex discrimination complaints, including complaints of sexual

36

harassment. (Mann & Hughes, 1998, p. 2) It is important to note that individuals may sue schools to force compliance with Title DC standards (Essex, 1998). Furthermore, in the case of Franklin vs. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that employee-on-student sexual harassment violates Title DC (Essex, 1998; Marczely, 1999; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2000). Title DC includes two types of sexual harassment for which schools are liable, quid pro quo and hostile environment. Quid pro quo harassment in a school setting occurs when sexual favors are provided in exchange for educational benefits (Essex, 1998; Woods, 2002). Liability for a hostile environment occurs when a school official knows or should have known of a case of sexual harassment and fails to take quick and effective corrective action. On the other hand, if the school official learns of a hostile environment and takes quick and effective corrective action, there is no liability under Title DC even if the harassment has already occurred (Mann & Hughes, 1998).

The Office of Civil Rights The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in the Department of Education is the agency of the federal government responsible for executing Title DC. If it were to find that school districts were noncompliant with Title DC, the OCR could levy sanctions including discontinuation of federal funds (Kent, 2006). In 1981, the OCR issued directives regarding Title DC. These federal mandates required schools and other public agencies to produce policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment. The OCR stipulated that policies must include a defined grievance process for handling complaints and allegations

37

as well as specific assurances that the process would provide fair and timely resolutions to disputes (Bludworth, 1996). United States Supreme Court Rulings Dealing with Educator Sexual Misconduct Over the past twenty-five years and beginning in the mid-1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court made a number of key decisions that shaped and defined the legal terrain regarding both sexual harassment and educator sexual misconduct. From these many cases, the following three judgments emerge from the literature as landmark decisions: (a) Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992), (b) Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998), and (c) Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009).

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) In this landmark decision, the justices allowed individual students to sue for damages under Title EX if they suffered sexual harassment in schools viewing the harassment as a form of discrimination. Moreover, the Supreme Court decided that a precedent ruling originating from the private sector governing the sexually harassing behaviors of a bank supervisor towards a subordinate (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson [1986]) were parallel with and applicable to a public school teacher sexually harassing or abusing a student. As a result of Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, school districts could no longer afford to ignore allegations that employees were sexually harassing students and could lose federal funding or be ordered to pay compensatory financial restitution to the targets if they did (Bludworth, 1996; Essex, 1998; Marczely, 1999; Shoop & Edwards, 1994; Stein, 1996; Sutton, 2006; Yaffe, 1995). 38

Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998) The next landmark Supreme Court ruling dealing with the sexual harassment of students by adults in schools was the 1998 case of Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that "school districts cannot be sued for money damages under Title DC if a teacher sexually harasses a student unless a school official knows of the abuse and fails to take the necessary actions to stop the abuse" (Mann & Hughes, 1998, p. 1). The Supreme Court used the Gebser case to clarify voluntary compliance and liability under Title DC and created a two-part test that had to be affirmed before a plaintiff could successfully win a financial settlement under Title DC. The first part was actual knowledge and the second was deliberate indifference. To establish actual knowledge, the justices ruled that plaintiffs must minimally inform a school official with the authority to take corrective action regarding the alleged sexual harassment. Additionally, deliberate indifference was established if that school official's response or lack of response were clearly unreasonable given the circumstances in question (Kent, 2006; Mann & Hughes, 1998; Marczely, 1999). As a result of Gebser, "Title DC does not make a school responsible for the actions of harassing students or teachers, but rather for its own discrimination in failing to remedy it once the school has notice" (Mann & Hughes, 1998, p. 2).

Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009) In January, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a 9-0 ruling in the case of Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee that Title DC does not prohibit plaintiffs alleging sex

39

discrimination in schools from also seeking remedies under Section 1983. Prior to this decision, seven Federal Courts of Appeal heard cases involving this issue. Four of the courts ruled for preemption while three others held that plaintiffs could assert dual claims. It is expected that this decision will . .. have significant implications for school districts and school personnel across the country. The rule of law set forth by the Supreme Court in the case makes it possible for students.... who have suffered any form of gender discrimination to sue all potentially liable parties for a full range of damages. (Green, 2009, p. 20) Title DC provides limited relief. Under the law, plaintiffs may sue only institutions and it does not permit legal action against institutional employees acting in their individual capacities as administrators, teachers, and coaches. Additionally, the statute allows only three remedies: (a) withdrawal of federal funding, (b) injunction to force corrective action, and (c) compensatory but not punitive financial damages. In contrast, Section 1983 provides no monetary limitation for compensatory damages, permits punitive damages, and allows for plaintiffs to hold both governmental institutions as well as public officials liable for their collective and individual actions (Taylor, 2009). However, the crux of the Court's decision was based on the differences between the standards for culpability found in the laws. In the Court's decision, Justice Samuel Alito stated, Even where particular activities and particular defendants are subject to both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, the standards for establishing liability may not be wholly congruent. For example, a Title IX plaintiff can establish school 40

district liability by showing that a single school administrator with authority to take corrective action responded to harassment with deliberate indifference. A plaintiff stating a similar claim via Section 1983 for violation of the Equal Protection Clause by a school district must show that the harassment was the result of policy or practice. (Green, 2009, p. 21) As a result of this landmark ruling, the ability of targets of educator sexual misconduct to seek legal redress has been affirmed, unified, and expanded. Ethical Decision Making and School Leadership School leadership provides a rich and complex context in which secondary school principals make numerous decisions regarding the educational communities they serve. The issues faced by principals within these multifaceted educational settings and the moral obligations of principals to the various constituencies within these communities often lead to ethical dilemmas in which there are opposing needs, competing interests, differing points of view, or contrasting beliefs regarding right or wrong (Hardy, 2002; Kidder & Born, 1999; Lashaway, 1996). By their very nature, "schools are moral institutions, designed to promote social norms, and principals are moral agents who must often make decisions that favor one moral value over another" (Lashaway, 1996, p. 1). For the proper functioning, fair treatment, and long-term success of the institution as well as its individual members, it is critical that secondary school principals have a clear understanding of their moral obligation as ethical decision makers. However, few principals have the preparation to face these ethical dilemmas, or are trained in ethical decision making or professional codes of conduct only after "something goes horribly

41

wrong" (Colgan, 2004, p. 15). Professional ethics codes do exist for educators and educational leaders at both the national and state levels and, according to Brown and Townsend (1997), "an educational administrator's professional behavior must conform to an ethical code" (p. 3). Under these codes, secondary school principals are responsible for providing moral leadership for the school community and must exemplify the highest standards of professional conduct. These standards clearly cover a secondary school principal's decision making and behavior involving a case of educator sexual misconduct. Both the Statement of Ethics of the American Association of School Administrators at the national level and, the Michigan Professional Educator's Code of Ethics at the state level apply to educational leaders faced with a case of educator sexual misconduct. As summarized below, the Statement of Ethics of the American Association of School Administrators requires that the educational administrator: (a) Makes the wellbeing of students the fundamental value of all decision making and actions; (b) Fulfills professional responsibilities with honesty and integrity; (c) Supports the principle of due process and protects the civil and human rights of all individuals; (d) Obeys local, state, and national laws; (e) Implements the governing board of education's policies and administrative rules and regulations; and (f) Avoids using positions for personal gain through political, social, religious, economic or other influences (Brown & Townsend, 1997). Moreover, as approved by the Michigan State Board of Education (2003), the Michigan Professional Educator's Code of Ethics commits Michigan educators to the following general ethical principles: (a) Service to all learners toward the common good, 42

(b) Mutual respect and dignity, (c) Equitable treatment for all, (d) Cross-cultural awareness and respect for diversity, and (e) Truth and honesty as well as adherence to acceptable social practices and current state law. Brown and Townsend (1997) stated that principals must confront any and all allegations of violations of the profession's code of ethics, district policy, and/or state and federal law. These authors emphasized that the school community would mirror the behavior exhibited by its leaders. For the purposes of this dissertation, educator sexual misconduct is considered a serious transgression of the profession's code of conduct and a negation of an educator's duty and obligation to help students. Moreover, educator sexual misconduct is a violation of trust regardless of the educator's intention or motivation and an example of an inappropriate dual relationship wherein the educator has crossed professional boundaries. Due to the power differential in the relationship between student and educator, it is impossible for the contact to be consensual. It is therefore the duty of the educator, who is in the more powerful role, to monitor and maintain the professional boundary of the relationship (Lane, 2006; McGrath, 1994; Plaut, 1993; Skinner, 2001). With regard to ethical decision making in an educational setting, Starratt (1991) introduced three ethical paradigms, the Ethic of Justice, the Ethic of Critique, and the Ethic of Care for school administrators. Starratt advocated that these leaders view school-related decisions and their potential ramifications through these lenses as a guide or reference point for decisions.

43

The Ethic of Justice The Ethic of Justice advocates that a leader focus decisions on relationships within a community. The freedoms and rights of any individual, while respected by the whole, are considered in the context of the common good. Under this ethic, members are part of a social contract and are expected to give up certain rights for the good of the whole or for social justice. Philosophically, society is the focal point of this lens and seeks to teach individuals how to behave. Within the context of educator sexual misconduct, secondary school principals using the Ethic of Justice would look to laws, legal principles and district policies for ethical guidance and direction (Starratt, 1991).

The Ethic of Critique In contrast to the Ethic of Justice, the Ethic of Critique sees conflict, tension, and inequalities between individual rights, laws, and the basic principles of democracy. School leaders should focus their attention on challenging the status quo and its inconsistencies, and see schools as a means of addressing those inequalities. Philosophically, the Ethic of Critique is based on critical theory and seeks answers that redefine key concepts such as privilege, power, culture, and justice. Within the context of educator sexual misconduct, secondary school administrators using the Ethic of Critique would view the issue as a manifestation of societal inequalities such as power, social class, race, and gender, and would seek to intervene to address the suffering and exploitation (Starratt, 1991).

The Ethic of Care The Ethic of Care prioritizes concern for others by focusing on collaborative 44

relationships and promoting mutually, beneficial connections between the administration, faculty, staff, and students. Under this ethic, school officials seek to care for children by deemphasizing competition, facilitating a sense of belonging, and fostering positive interpersonal interactions. Within the context of educator sexual misconduct, secondary school administrators using the Ethic of Care would view decision making as a means of showing concern for others by asking individuals to consider the consequences of their decisions. Questions raised in this ethic include who will benefit from the decision and who will be hurt by it (Starratt, 1991). The Influence of Gender on the Behavior of Secondary School Principals There have been many studies examining the relationship between gender and leaders and the influence of gender on leadership style. Eagly and Johnson (1990) conducted a meta-analysis of 161 research studies completed between 1961 and 1987 regarding gender and leadership styles. Based on their findings, they concluded that women tended to be more democratic and participatory and less autocratic than men across all three of the research settings examined (laboratory, assessment, and organizational). Eagly and Johnson pointed out that their analysis did not reveal the cause or causes of this difference nor did the researchers conclude that one gender was more effective at leadership than the other. Instead, they stated that, "No doubt a relatively democratic style enhances a leader's effectiveness under some circumstances, and a relatively autocratic style enhances it under other circumstances" (p. 249). Two years after the publication of Eagly and Johnson's (1990) meta-analysis, Eagly, Karau, and Johnson (1992) completed a meta-analysis of a subset of studies from

45

the 1990 meta-analysis. While still comparing the leadership styles of men and women, this smaller meta-analysis of 50 studies focused strictly on school principals as subjects. The results were similar to the 1990 meta-analysis. Eagly, Karau, and Johnson found that "the most substantial sex difference was the tendency for female principals to lead in a more democratic and less autocratic style than did male principals" (p. 91). The researchers further concluded that women were more likely than men to treat faculty and staff as colleagues and equals rather than as subordinates and include others in decision making. In a similar vein as Eagly and Johnson (1990), Eagly, Karau, and Johnson did not examine whether or not the leadership differences attributed to gender were an advantage or disadvantage to either gender. As a result of these earlier studies, later researchers examined leader effectiveness in relation to gender. Eagly, Karau, and Makhijani (1995) found that, when rated by others, leadership effectiveness did not differ by gender. Likewise, Daughtry and Finch (1997) concluded that there were no perceived differences in the effectiveness of male and female leaders and that "gender was not a consistent predictor of leadership effectiveness" (p. 183). Moreover, Daughtry and Finch deduced that an androgynous approach to leadership wherein leaders displayed behaviors generally associated with both male and female leaders was the most effective style. Kabacoff (1998) examined leadership effectiveness from the perception of the supervisor of male and female leaders and found that from this perception, "the genders were equal with respect to overall effectiveness" (p. 6). Finally, Robinson and Lipman-Blumen (2003) reinforced the notion that gender was an ineffective predictor of leadership behavior and that "gender should not be used as a major predictor of narrowly defined leadership behaviors" (p. 6). 46

The Influence of Years of Experience on the Behavior of Secondary School Principals Unlike the large amount of research pertaining to the influence of gender on leadership style and secondary school principals, this researcher found only one study examining the influence of years of experience on secondary school principals related to educator sexual misconduct. In that study, Just (1996) sampled 40 school administrators who first took a pretest regarding various topics relating to educators sexual misconduct or sexual abuse in schools. The administrators then attended a three-hour training session and subsequently took a posttest. Just found no significant differences in the respondents by years of experience and concluded that years of experience did not influence training sessions for administrators regarding educator sexual misconduct. It seems that years of experience without the benefit of continuous professional development through university coursework, district training sessions, or professional opportunities results in little professional growth or added competencies. Nevertheless, there are nationally accepted competencies for educational leaders. In 1996, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), an educational group representing various states, national associations, colleges, and universities, developed a set of standards for the education and preparation of school principals (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Hammond, 2005; Hale & Moorman, 2003). The ISLLC Standards serve as a set of commonly agreed national frameworks for administrative preparation, certification, and licensure programs and their publication was a turning point in the training of educational leaders. As of 2005, "more than forty states have adopted the ISLLC standards (or a slight variation) into their administrative certification program requirements" (Davis et al., 2005, p. 7). 47

Although the ISLLC Standards do not differentiate between levels of competence such as beginning, intermediate, and advanced, they do establish a minimal baseline for administrative knowledge that all duly prepared educational leaders should exhibit. Standard Five describes ethical decision making and is the standard most related to the present study. This standard establishes that, "An education leader promotes the success of every student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner" (CCSSO, 2008, p. 4). Within the subtext of this heading, educational leaders are charged to exhibit ethical behavior, safeguard equity and diversity, promote moral and legally sound decision making, and ensure social justice.

Summary The review of literature discussed in this chapter examined related studies in six categories: (a) related studies investigating educator sexual misconduct, (b) federal laws governing sexual harassment applicable to educator sexual misconduct, (c) United States Supreme Court rulings dealing with educator sexual misconduct, (d) theoretical frameworks for ethical decision making by school administrators, (e) the influence of gender on the behavior of secondary school principals, and (f) the influence of experience on the behavior of secondary school principals. Based on this review, a theoretical and practical framework emerged from which the present study was designed. Although educator sexual misconduct is a serious issue facing secondary school principals, the current research literature is sparse. Further investigation therefore is warranted and necessary. First, there were few studies exploring educator sexual misconduct, even fewer

48

examining the topic from the perspective of the school administrator, and none could be found exclusively investigating secondary school principals. Of the few studies exploring educator sexual misconduct, some gained their data as a result of examining the broader topic of sexual harassment in schools. As a result, while valuable, the knowledge gained from this research had limited direct value to this study. Other studies researched educator sexual misconduct by reviewing a large number of reported cases. While this method provided much data on the subject, these projects did not include educational leaders as a part of the study. The current study addressed the need for examining educator sexual misconduct in relation to secondary school principals by focusing solely on that aspect. Second, earlier studies investigating educator sexual misconduct focused little on the extent of training or preparation received by school administrators with regard to educator sexual misconduct. The current research addressed that need by examining the beliefs of secondary school administrators as to the extent of their training to adequately understand the legalities of a case of educator sexual misconduct as well as their preparation to handle a case in their building. Next, only two earlier studies could be located that examined educator sexual misconduct and ethics. As a result, to date there has been little evidence or data regarding the use of ethics by educational leaders when dealing with educator sexual misconduct. As such, there was a need for more information about this relationship and this study aimed to contribute to the body of knowledge in this area. Furthermore, no existing literature could be found that examined the differences between groups of secondary school principals, by gender, regarding their beliefs about 49

educator sexual misconduct. Consequently, more information was needed about how the gender of school leaders potentially impacted responses to cases of educator sexual misconduct and the current investigation contributes to the literature in this regard. Finally, no studies were located that examined the differences between groups of secondary school principals, by years of experience, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct. As a result, more research was necessary about how the level of administrative experience possibly influenced responses to cases of educator sexual misconduct and this research study was designed to contribute to the body of knowledge regarding this topic.

50

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the beliefs and extent of training of Michigan secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct as examined by gender, years of experience, and ethical lens. A quantitative research design was used to administer an online questionnaire with Michigan secondary school principals. Chapter III reviews the methodological approach used in this study and begins with an introduction reviewing the research questions. Following this is the rationale for the use of a quantitative design and a description of the population that was used in the study. The remainder of Chapter III explains the data procedures, data collection, instrumentation, managing and recording of data, and data analysis.

Research Questions The research questions for this study were as follows: 1. What are the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct? 2. What are the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding to what extent their training has prepared them to understand the legalities of a case of educator sexual misconduct? 3. What are the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding to what extent their training has prepared them to handle a case of educator sexual misconduct? 4. What is the extent of the training that secondary school principals have received 51

regarding educator sexual misconduct? 5. What is the predominant ethical lens used by secondary school principals when responding to a case of educator sexual misconduct? 6. What are the differences between secondary school principals, by gender, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct? 7. What are the differences between secondary school principals, by years of experience, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct? 8. What are the differences between secondary school principals, by ethical lens, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct? Research Design This section reviews the methodology that was used in this study and provides a rationale for its use. Among all forms of research within the social sciences, survey research is the most common and seeks responses to specific questions (McNabb, 2004; Singleton & Straits, 1999; Wiersma, 1995). These responses can generate a large amount of data regarding beliefs, attitudes, opinions, motivations, knowledge, traits, attributes, and demographics as well as other categories of data such as the frequency of past behaviors or the prediction of future actions (Babbie, 1990; McNabb, 2004). The value and validity of questionnaires as a research instrument is clear in the literature. According to Singleton and Straits (1999), "among all approaches to social research, in fact, surveys offer the most effective means of social description; they can provide extraordinarily detailed and precise information about large heterogeneous populations" (p. 245-246). McNabb (2004) states that questionnaires "are particularly

52

appropriate when the research problem calls for a descriptive design" (p. 149). Moreover, questionnaires offer great flexibility; the subjects addressed and the questions posed can be wide ranging as well as custom designed and tailored to the needs of the researcher (Babbie, 1990; McNabb, 2004; Singleton & Straits, 1999). There are several common types of survey designs. However, for the purposes of this research project, a cross-sectional survey was used. It is important to note that, of all of the types of survey designs, the cross-sectional design is by far the most frequently used by researchers (Singleton & Straits, 1999). This type of survey collects data from a specific population at a single point in time (Babbie, 1990; Reis & Judd, 2000; Singleton & Straits, 1999; Wiersma, 1995). According to Reis and Judd (2000), "this design (cross-sectional) is most often used to document the prevalence of particular characteristics in a population . . . or the number of people who hold particular attitudes or beliefs" (p. 225). Babbie (1990) further explains that a cross-sectional survey allows researchers to determine relationships between variables at the time of the study and address interests regarding the description of sample subsets. A quantitative cross-sectional survey was deemed the best design for the purpose of collecting a wide variety of data regarding educator sexual misconduct. The data collected focused on the beliefs of training of secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct. Moreover, the cross-sectional survey design was directly applicable to examining the extent of training of secondary school principals and allowed for description of sample subsets by gender, years of experience, and ethical lens.

53

Population and Sample The target population for this study was Michigan public secondary school principals. The researcher located the email addresses of these particular administrators by referencing a state-wide directory of school districts in combination with viewing school district websites and online directories. Participation was strictly voluntary, anonymous, and confidential, and no attempts were made to identify individuals taking part in the study. Instrumentation The questionnaire used in this study (Appendix D) was designed to elicit information regarding a secondary school principal's beliefs and the extent of his or her training regarding educator sexual misconduct. Given the paucity of quantitative research regarding educator sexual misconduct, the questionnaire was developed by the researcher and revised based on input and feedback from a pilot study. The most critical step in ensuring the highest levels of reliability and validity for a researcher-developed questionnaire is the systematic testing and revising of the instrument (Babbie, 1990; Mangione, 1995; Reis & Judd, 2000; Singleton & Strait, 1999). In fact, pilot studies are so important that "failure to conduct adequate pretesting [of a questionnaire] can result in a meaningless study" (Singleton & Strait, 1999, p. 310). Babbie (1990) describes the arguments for pretesting as "compelling" (p. 220). Pilot studies should consist of the following cyclical processes: (a) writing multiple drafts, (b) conducting cognitive interviews, and (c) field testing. Consequently, the researcher piloted the questionnaire for this research project in the following manner: (a) drafted and

54

revised the questionnaire multiple times based on input from the dissertation advisor and committee members, (b) employed cognitive interviewing techniques with two high school assistant principals and used the feedback and input from these interviews to further revise the questionnaire, and (c) field tested the questionnaire two times. Writing Multiple Drafts The initial process for the creation of the instrument for this research project consisted of writing and revising a number of drafts of sample questions. These early drafts were scrutinized by the dissertation advisor, other committee members, and professional colleagues. Considerations during this process included item form, content, flow, clarity, and length. Specifically, researchers developing their own survey questions and responses should avoid items that are unclear, ambiguous, wordy, leading, biased, or overlapping; items with multiple or negatively worded components; items that include jargon or overly technical language; and items that are unbalanced or mismatched. When a set of questions has been proofed a number of times, cognitive interviewing is the next step (Babbie, 1990; Creswell, 2005; Mangione, 1995; Reis & Judd, 2000; Singleton & Straits, 1999).

Conducting Cognitive Interviews According to Singleton & Straits (1999), "the goal of cognitive interviewing is to understand the thought processes involved in answering survey questions" (p. 310). Cognitive interviews consist of the researcher sitting with an individual respondent as the respondent takes the questionnaire. Instead of taking the questionnaire and remaining silent, the respondent instead speaks aloud and conveys thoughts and reactions to the 55

questions. The researcher may also probe the respondent for more information and explanation during this time including asking the respondent to summarize or restate the question. Afterward, the researcher uses this input to identify problems and revise questions within the questionnaire (Reis & Judd, 2000; Singleton & Straits, 1999). In this study, the researcher used the strategy of cognitive interviews with two secondary school principals and then revised the questionnaire prior to field testing.

Field Testing Field testing consists of administering the questionnaire to "a small sample of persons having characteristics similar to those of the target group of respondents" (Singleton & Straits, 1999, p. 312). This group should be as close as possible to the characteristics of the target population but does not have to be a probability sample. Upon completion of the field test, it is recommended that the researcher debrief with the respondents to gain additional insight into the instrument. Additionally, the researcher should conduct a response analysis for each question field tested to identify and analyze items with low response rates, multiple answers, nearly unanimous identical responses, or other similar anomalies. Some researchers recommend field testing the instrument two times (Babbie, 1990; Mangione, 1995; McNabb, 2004; Singleton & Straits, 1999). The field testing followed a focus group format and the first testing used elementary school principals from a local school district. These administrators simultaneously took the questionnaire in a computer lab at a local high school and then debriefed as a group. The researcher gained information regarding the time needed to complete the questionnaire, the level of readability of the questionnaire, and the clarity of

56

instructions, definitions, and questions. Since the questionnaire was not designed for elementary principals, these administrators did not critique the content of the survey. The second field testing used secondary school principals from the same local school district and followed the same format as the first field testing. Furthermore, since the questionnaire was designed for secondary principals, these administrators evaluated and critiqued the content of the questionnaire as well as the other aforementioned characteristics. After the completion of the field testing, a four-part research instrument was finalized for use with this study (Appendix D). The first section of the research instrument elicited personal demographic data including gender, years of administrative experience, current administrative position, and highest degree obtained. The respondents were not identified by name in the demographic section of the survey. The second section of the research instrument contained definitions of key words relating to educator sexual misconduct. This section was intended to ensure that respondents had a common understanding of the basic terms and issues involved in the survey. The third section of the research instrument was divided into four subsections. The first subsection addressed the extent of training respondents had received from university coursework and programs concerning educator sexual misconduct. The second subsection addressed the extent of training respondents had received in relation to responding to an allegation of educator sexual misconduct. Responses for the first two subsections were indicated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (No Training) to 5 (Extensive Training). The third subsection addressed the beliefs of respondents regarding 57

educator sexual misconduct. The final subsection addressed the beliefs of respondents regarding the legalities concerning educator sexual misconduct. Responses for these final two subsections were indicated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Inserted after the first subsection regarding the extent of training were additional dichotomous and multichotomous questions. These questions were designed to ascertain the following information: (a) if a respondent had received any training, and if so, from what sources; (b) if a respondent wanted more training regarding educator sexual misconduct, and if so, what areas were preferred; and (c) if a respondent had ever been directly involved in investigating a case of educator sexual misconduct. Additionally, there was a question between subsections two and three that ascertained the predominant ethical lens of the respondents if confronted with an allegation of educator sexual misconduct in their building. All portions of the survey were cross-referenced for their applicability to the research questions according to the crosswalk table (Appendix E). Particular care was used in the construction and design of the survey instrument to help ensure the highest levels of reliability, validity, and response. The literature on the creation of questionnaires focused on a number of factors regarding the questions including types, response formats, and wording as well as the location of key or potentially sensitive questions.

Procedures for Collecting Data To ensure the highest response rate possible, this researcher adhered to a number 58

of key recommendations from the literature. According to Mangione (1995), "Probably the single most important technique to use to produce high response rates is to send out reminders" (p. 66). When reminding respondents, researchers must pay particular attention to the number of reminders and their timing (Babbie, 1990). Babbie and Mangione recommend that researchers send an initial message and three reminders. Given the importance of reminders and their timing, this researcher sent the following sequence of messages: (a) Week 1 - an initial email contact; (b) Week 2 - an introductory email; and (c) reminder emails arriving on Weeks 3,4, and 5. Consequently, the total time for gathering data for the research project was approximately one month from the initial email contact. In the first week of June, 2009, Michigan secondary school principals were sent an initial message (Appendix A) via electronic mail introducing the researcher, telling them of the project and its importance, and inviting them to take part in the study. One week later, the principals were sent an introductory message (Appendix B). This second message included an introduction of the researcher and provided more details regarding the purpose of the study. Importantly, the message also contained an electronic link to the questionnaire (Appendix D) located at Survey Monkey with assurances that all responses would be completely anonymous and confidential. Recipients were encouraged to respond at their convenience by the end of the month. To gain the highest number of recipients possible and following the second message, the researcher sent a reminder message (Appendix C) to the principals during the third and fourth weeks and at the end of the month. All three messages were succinct and began with an introduction that addressed 59

the importance of the research project and the subject's participation. Since recipients are more likely to respond to a survey in which they feel their answers are kept confidential, the messages assured the subjects of the complete anonymous and confidential nature of their answers. This assurance was of particular importance given the sensitive nature of the topic of educator sexual misconduct. Additionally, the message invited the subjects to take part and made it clear that participation was completely voluntary. Finally, the layout of the message was attractive, and easy to read and understand (Mangione, 1995; Singleton & Straits, 1999). Data from respondents were collected using the online services provided by Survey Monkey. Consideration of Human Subjects Before the researcher began data collection, an Application for the Review of Research Involving Human Subjects was submitted to the Institutional Review Board of Central Michigan University. Only when the application for the use of human subjects was approved did the research begin. As mentioned previously, given the sensitive nature of the topic of educator sexual misconduct, all responses were kept strictly confidential and anonymous. This confidentiality and anonymity were protected by the researcher who was the only person who had access to the Survey Monkey administrative account that was the source of the questionnaire. Moreover, this account was password protected as an additional precaution requiring both a login and password known only to the researcher. Furthermore, due to the nature of the online collection process, the researcher could view only tallies and responses but not the email addresses that provided the data. As a final precaution, the data was stored and maintained online and not printed

60

until the collection period had expired. Procedures for Analyzing Data Data were coded and analyzed using the capacities of both Survey Monkey and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 17 (SPSS 17). Frequency counts and percentages were used to analyze the demographic data. With Research Questions 1-5, descriptive statistical analyses were used. With Research Question 6, a chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. A chi-square test is an inferential statistical procedure by which a researcher can compare differences between two group means (Wiersma, 1995). This question pertained to gender (male and female) which was the categorical independent variable and how that independent variable was associated with the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct which was the dependent variable. With Research Question 7, a chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. Research Question 7 pertained to the years of experience of secondary school principals (beginner, intermediate, or veteran) which was the categorical independent variable and how that independent variable was associated with the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct which was the dependent variable. Finally, with Research Question 8, a chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. This question pertained to a predominant ethical lens (Ethic of Justice, Ethic of Critique, or Ethic of Care) which was the categorical independent variable and how that independent variable was associated with the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct which was the dependent variable.

61

For purposes of this study, the level of significance was set at .05, p=.05.

62

CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF DATA Introduction This chapter reports the data collected for this study. A quantitative research design was used to administer an online questionnaire with Michigan secondary school principals. Data were collected using Survey Monkey and were analyzed using descriptive and statistical analyses. In this chapter, the data are presented in two sections. The first section, Demographics, presents the tabulations of the demographic variables selected for the study using descriptive statistics. The second section, Data Analyses, summarizes the analyses of the eight research questions. For Research Questions 1-5, descriptive statistics were used. For Research Questions 6-8, chi-square analyses derived from SPSS were used. The level of significance was set at .05, p=.05.

Demographics The following is a summary of the demographic data collected in the study.

Response Rate The questionnaire was sent in early June, 2009 to the electronic mail addresses of 1199 Michigan secondary school principals. Of the 1199 addresses, 451 (37.6%) were returned as undeliverable or user unknown. However, due to the use of electronic mail, it is indeterminate how many of the remaining messages (n=748) were received. The researcher then proceeded to visit numerous school district websites to locate updated or more current electronic addresses. Of the 451 rejected electronic addresses, 384 revised 63

electronic addresses were located. Subsequently, the researcher sent the questionnaire to these newly obtained electronic addresses. Of these 384,48 (12.5%) were returned as undeliverable or user unknown. Of this targeted population (n=1084), 245 responded for a return rate of 22.6%. This was deemed an acceptable return rate for an online electronic questionnaire (M. Orsuwan, personal communication, June 29, 2009). Moreover, Sheehan and Hoy (1999) state that "it is difficult to compare web page-based survey methods to traditional survey data collection methods such as postal mail and telephone surveys" (p. 4). Additionally, Truell, Bartlett, and Alexander (2002) reported that "in nearly all cases, e-mail distributed surveys have produced considerably lower rates of return than have mail distributed surveys" (p.48). Electronic mail was selected as the method for collecting data since most secondary school principals use electronic communication on a daily basis.

Gender There were more males than females in the study sample. Of the 245 respondents, 177 were males (72.2%) and 68 were females (27.8%) (Table 1). These demographics closely reflect the gender ratio of the membership of the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals (MASSP). During the 2007-08 school year when this study began, the MASSP had 1,854 members of whom 1,297 were men (70.0%) and 557 were women (30.0%) (J. Ballard, personal communication, October 7, 2008). Consequently, the rate of response by gender in this study is a valid reflection of the statewide population of secondary school principals.

64

Years of Experience Demographic data revealed that nearly one half (47.3%) of the respondents were veteran secondary school principals having 10 or more years of administrative experience. Slightly more than one third (35.9%) of the respondents were intermediate secondary school principals with 4-9 years of administrative experience. The smallest group of respondents composing approximately one-sixth (16.7%) of the sample population were beginning secondary school principals with 0-3 years of administrative experience. In terms of experience, 116 of the respondents were veteran secondary school principals (47.4%), 88 were intermediate (35.9%), and 41 were beginners (16.7%) (Table 1). Current Position as an Administrator As defined in Chapter I, the term, secondary school principal, encompassed a specific group of school administrators and included secondary school principals, assistant principals, career and technical center administrators and directors, and combined administrator/athletic directors. More principals and assistant principals composed the sample population as compared to career and technical center administrators and directors, or combined administrator/athletic directors. Of the respondents (n=245), 164 were principals (66.9%); 58 were assistant principals (23.7%); 4 were technical center administrators or directors (1.6%); 9 were principals or assistant principals combined with athletic directors (3.7%); and 10 were Other (4.1%) comprised of 4 superintendents, 2 assistant superintendents, 2 central office administrators, 1 director of instruction, and 1 community education/transportation director (Table 1).

65

Highest Degree Obtained Demographic data indicated that more respondents had earned a master's degree than all of the other categories combined. Of the respondents, 2 had earned a bachelor's degree (.08%), 161 had earned a master's degree (66.5%), 26 had earned multiple master's degrees (10.7%), 38 had earned an educational specialist degree (15.7%), and 15 had earned a doctoral degree (6.3%) (Table 1). Table 1. Demographics Demographic Gender Male Female Experience Beginner Intermediate Veteran Position Principal Assistant Principal Technical Center Director Principal/AP combined with AD Other Highest Degree Bachelor Master Multiple Masters Educational Specialist Doctorate 66

Percent 72.2 27.8 16.7 35.9 47.4 66.9 23.7 1.6 3.7 4.1 0.8 66.5 10.7 15.7 6.3

Count 177 68 41 88 116 164 58 4 9 10 2 161 26 38 15

Data Analyses The data analyses for the eight research questions are discussed in this section. Tables of frequency distributions for Research Questions 1-5 are presented followed by tables of chi-square scores for Research Questions 6-8. In analyzing frequency distributions for the survey questions relating to beliefs, responses for strongly agree and agree were combined and considered to be in agreement {agree) with the issue. Similarly, responses for strongly disagree and disagree were combined and considered in disagreement {disagree) with the issue. Frequency distributions for neither agree nor disagree were considered neutral and were not combined with either the agree or disagree responses. In analyzing frequency distributions for the survey questions relating to extent of training, responses for little or no training were combined. Similarly, responses for adequate or extensive training were also combined. Frequency distributions for some training were considered neutral and were not combined with either the little or no training, or adequate or extensive training responses.

Research Question One Per the crosswalk table (Appendix E), 11 survey questions (22-29, 33, 37, and 38) pertained to Research Question One (What are the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct?). Question 22: Educator sexual misconduct is a serious problem in my school district. Of the 233 respondents, 108 strongly disagreed (46.4%), 80 disagreed (34.3%), 33 neither agreed nor disagreed (14.2%), 8 agreed (3.4%) and 4 strongly agreed (1.7%). It is

67

important to note that many respondents disagreed (80.7%) that educator sexual misconduct was a serious problem in their districts (Table 2). Table 2. Frequency Distributions for Question 22 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree 46.4 Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 34.3 14.2 3.4 1.7

Response Count 108 80 33 8 4 233

Question 23: Educator sexual misconduct is a serious problem within the education profession. Of the 234 respondents, 21 strongly disagreed (9.0%), 71 disagreed (30.3%), 77 neither agreed nor disagreed (32.9%), 58 agreed (24.8%) and 7 strongly agreed (3.0%) (Table 3). Respondents appeared nearly equally divided regarding this issue with similar percentages disagreeing (39.3%), uncertain (32.9%), and agreeing (27.8%).

68

Table 3. Frequency Distributions for Question 23 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 9.0 30.3 32.9 24.8 3.0

Response Count 21 71 77 58 7 234

Question 24: Educator sexual misconduct most often occurs between male offenders and female targets. Of the 232 respondents, 6 strongly disagreed (2.6%), 48 disagreed (20.7%), 108 neither agreed nor disagreed (46.6%), 67 agreed (28.9%) and 3 strongly agreed (1.3%) (Table 4). Data showed that respondents were divided on this issue. Almost half of the respondents were uncertain (46.6%), while many disagreed (23.3%), or agreed (30.2%).

Table 4. Frequency Distributions for Question 24 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 2.6 20.7 46.6 28.9 1.3

Response Count 6 48 108 67 3 232

69

Question 25: Educator sexual misconduct occurs only when physical touching is involved. Of the 234 respondents, 108 strongly disagreed (46.2%), 119 disagreed (50.9%), 2 neither agreed nor disagreed (0.9%), 5 agreed (2.1%), and 0 strongly agreed (0.0%) (Table 5). Notably, nearly all of the respondents disagreed (97.1%) that educator sexual misconduct occurred only when physical touching was involved. Table 5. Frequency Distributions for Question 25 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree 46.2 Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 50.9 0.9 2.1 0.0

Response Count 108 119 2 5 0 234

Question 26: Targets are likely to report their offenders. Of the 234 respondents, 57 strongly disagreed (24.4%), 149 disagreed (63.7%), 22 neither agreed nor disagreed (9.4%), 6 agreed (2.6%) and 0 strongly agreed (0.0%) (Table 6). A substantial percentage of respondents disagreed (88.1%) that targets were likely to report their offenders.

70

Table 6. Frequency Distributions for Question 26 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree 24.4 Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 63.7 9.4 2.6 G.O

Response Count 57 149 22 6 0 234

Question 27: False accusations of educator sexual misconduct are rare. Of the 232 respondents, 7 strongly disagreed (3.0%), 87 disagreed (37.5%), 100 neither agreed nor disagreed (43.1%), 38 agreed (16.4%) and 0 strongly agreed (0.0%) (Table 7). Nearly equal percentages of respondents agreed (40.5%) or were uncertain (43.1%) regarding this issue.

Table 7. Frequency Distributions for Question 27 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree 3.0 Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 37.5 43.1 16.4 0.0

Response Count
_

87 100 38 0 232

71

Question 28: Targets are often the most emotionally vulnerable, immature, and needy students in the school. Of the 234 respondents, 8 strongly disagreed (3.4%), 70 disagreed (29.9%), 85 neither agreed nor disagreed (36.3%), 66 agreed (28.2%) and 5 strongly agreed (2.1%) (Table 8). Data showed that respondents were divided on this issue. While most of the respondents were uncertain (36.3%), nearly equal percentages disagreed (33.3%) or agreed (30.3%). Table 8. Frequency Distributions for Question 28 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree 3.4 Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 29.9 36.3 28.2 2.1

Response Count 8 70 85 66 5 234

Question 29: Offenders at the secondary level are often popular and respected school employees. Of the 234 respondents, 2 strongly disagreed (0.9%), 16 disagreed (6.8%), 122 neither agreed nor disagreed (52.1%), 91 agreed (38.9%) and 3 strongly agreed (1.3%) (Table 9). While a majority of the respondents were uncertain (52.1%) regarding this issue, a substantial percentage agreed (40.2%).

72

Table 9. Frequency Distributions for Question 29 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 0.9 6.8 52.1 38.9 1.3

Response Count 2 16 122 91 3 234

Question 33: Nearly 10% of public school students in Kindergarten to 12' grade will be targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school years. Of the 229 respondents, 2 strongly disagreed (0.9%), 37 disagreed (16.2%), 125 neither agreed nor disagreed (54.6%), 59 agreed (25.8%) and 6 strongly agreed (2.6%) (Table 10). A clear majority of the respondents were uncertain (54.6%) regarding this issue.

Table 10. Frequency Distributions for Question 33 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 0.9 16.2 54.6 25.8 2.6

Response Count 2 37 125 59 6 229

73

Question 37: Cases involving female offenders and 16-18 year-old male targets are NOT as harmful as cases involving male offenders and 16-18 year-old female targets. Of the 229 respondents, 119 strongly disagreed (52.0%), 93 disagreed (40.6%), 13 neither agreed nor disagreed (5.7%), 3 agreed (1.3%) and 1 strongly agreed (0.4%) (Table 11). A substantial majority of respondents disagreed (92.6%) that cases involving female offenders were not as harmful as cases involving male offenders. Table 11. Frequency Distributions for Question 37 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree 52^0 Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 40.6 5.7 1.3 0.4

Response Count 119 93 13 3 1 229

Question 38: The principal's ethical obligation to the target ends when the harassing behavior is stopped. Of the 229 respondents, 83 strongly disagreed (36.2%), 128 disagreed (55.9%), 12 neither agreed nor disagreed (5.2%), 5 agreed (2.2%) and 1 strongly agreed (0.4%) (Table 12). Importantly, a majority of the respondents disagreed (92.1%) that the principal's ethical obligation to the target ended when the harassing behavior was stopped.

74

Table 12. Frequency Distributions for Question 38 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 36.2 55.9 5.2 2.2 0.4

Response Count 83 128 12 5 1 229

Analyses of the descriptive statistics showed differences in the beliefs of respondents concerning Research Question One. Respondents disagreed about the following issues: (a) If educator sexual misconduct were a serious problem with the education profession, (b) If educator sexual misconduct most often occurred between male offenders and female targets, (c) If false accusations of educator sexual misconduct were rare, (d) If targets were often the most emotionally vulnerable, immature, and needy students in the school, and (e) If offenders at the secondary level were often popular and respected school employees.

Research Question Two Per the crosswalk table (Appendix E), six survey questions (30-32 and 34-36) pertained to Research Question Two (What are the beliefs of secondary school principals 75

regarding to what extent their training has prepared them to understand the legalities of a case of educator sexual misconduct?). Question 30: School district administrators can be held liable for the sexual misconduct of school employees (adult-to-student) under their charge even when they are NOT aware of the harassment. Of the 229 respondents, 16 strongly disagreed (7.0%), 56 disagreed (24.5%), 46 neither agreed nor disagreed (20.1%), 103 agreed (45.0%) and 8 strongly agreed (3.5%) (Table 13). Almost half of the respondents agreed (48.5%) that school district administrators could be held liable. Table 13. Frequency Distributions for Question 30 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 7.0 24.5 20.1 45.0 3.5

Response Count 16 56 46 103 8 229

Question 31: Educator sexual misconduct is a form of sexual harassment. Of the 229 respondents, 2 strongly disagreed (0.9%), 2 disagreed (0.9%), 7 neither agreed nor disagreed (3.1%), 158 agreed (69.0%) and 60 strongly agreed (26.2%) (see Table 14). A substantial majority of respondents agreed (95.2%) that educator sexual misconduct was a form of sexual harassment.

76

Table 14. Frequency Distributions for Question 31 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree 0.9 Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 0.9 3.1 69.0 26.2

Response Count 2 2 7 158 60 229

Question 32: Educator sexual misconduct includes verbal behaviors such as sexual innuendo, inappropriate jokes, and comments of a sexual nature. Of the 229 respondents, 0 strongly disagreed (0.0%), 2 disagreed (0.9%), 7 neither agreed nor disagreed (3.1%), 148 agreed (64.6%) and 72 strongly agreed (31.4%) (Table 15). Importantly, nearly all of the respondents agreed (96.0%) that educator sexual misconduct included verbal behaviors.

Table 15. Frequency Distributions for Question 32 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree 0.0 Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 0.9 3.1 64.6 31.4

Response Count 0 2 7 148 72 229

77

Question 34: Behaviors viewed as "welcomed" by the target may still constitute educator sexual misconduct. Of the 230 respondents, 2 strongly disagreed (0.9%), 1 disagreed (0.4%), 12 neither agreed nor disagreed (5.2%), 147 agreed (63.9%) and 68 strongly agreed (29.6%) (Table 16). Notably, a large majority of respondents agreed (93.5%) that behaviors viewed as welcomed by the target could still constitute educator sexual misconduct. Table 16. Frequency Distributions for Question 34 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree 0.9 Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 0.4 5.2 63.9 29.6

Response Count 2 1 12 147 68 230

Question 35: Even though educator sexual misconduct existed previously, it became a federal issue for schools only in the early 1990s. Of the 229 respondents, 0 strongly disagreed (0.0%), 33 disagreed (14.4%), 148 neither agreed nor disagreed (64.6%), 44 agreed (19.2%) and 4 strongly agreed (1.7%) (Table 17). A clear majority of the respondents were uncertain (64.6%) regarding this issue.

78

Table 17. Frequency Distributions for Question 35 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree 0.0 Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 14.4 64.6 19.2 1.7

Response Count 0 33 148 44 4 229

Question 36: Given that the age of consent in Michigan is 16, students in Michigan of that age can legally consent to sexual relations with school employees. Of the 229 respondents, 140 strongly disagreed (61.1%), 68 disagreed (29.7%), 14 neither agreed nor disagreed (6.1%), 4 agreed (1.7%) and 3 strongly agreed (1.3%) (Table 18). More than nine out of ten respondents disagreed (90.8%) with this issue.

Table 18. Frequency Distributions for Question 36 Response Option Response Percent Strongly Disagree 61.1 Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Response 29.7 6.1 1.7 1.3

Response Count 140 68 14 4 3 229

Analyses of the descriptive statistics showed differences in the beliefs of respondents regarding to what extent their training had prepared them to understand the 79

legalities of a case of educator sexual misconduct. Respondents did not understand the legalities about the following issues: (a) If school district administrators could be held liable for the sexual misconduct of school employees under their charge even when they were not aware of the harassment. (b) If educator sexual misconduct became a federal issue for schools in the early 1990s. Research Question Three Per the crosswalk table (Appendix E), nine survey questions (12-20) pertained to Research Question Three (What are the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding to what extent their training has prepared them to handle a case of educator sexual misconduct?). Question 12: The extent of training I have received to recognize the warning signs and symptoms of offenders. Of the 234 respondents, 112 answered no training (47.9%), 86 answered little training (36.8%), 26 answered some training (11.1%), 8 answered adequate training (3.4%) and 2 answered extensive training (0.9%) (Table 19). A substantial portion of respondents (84.7%) answered that they had received little or no training regarding this issue.

80

Table 19. Frequency Distributions for Question 12 Response Option Response Percent No Training Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 4X9 36.8 11.1 3.4 0.9

Response Count 112 86 26 8 2 234

Question 13: The extent of training I have received to recognize the warning signs and symptoms of targets. Of the 234 respondents, 113 answered no training (48.3%), 82 answered little training (35.0%), 32 answered some training (13.7%), 6 answered adequate training (2.6%) and 1 answered extensive training (0.4%) (Table 20). Importantly, many respondents (83.3%) indicated that they had received little or no training regarding this issue.

Table 20. Frequency Distributions for Question 13 Response Option Response Percent No Training Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 81 483 35.0 13.7 2.6 0.4

Response Count 113 82 32 6 1 234

Question 14: The extent of training I have received to follow my district's policies and procedures for reporting and documenting allegations of educator sexual misconduct. Of the 234 respondents, 70 answered no training (29.9%), 89 answered little training (38.0%), 48 answered some training (20.5%), 23 answered adequate training (9.8%) and 4 answered extensive training (1.7%) (Table 21). More than two thirds of respondents (67.9%) indicated that they had received little or no training regarding this issue.

Table 21. Frequency Distributions for Question 14 Response Option Response Percent No Training Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 193 38.0 20.5 9.8 1.7

Response Count 70 89 48 23 4 234;

Question 15: The extent of training I have received to understand my roles and responsibilities during the investigative process. Of the 230 respondents, 79 answered no training (34.3%), 86 answered little training (37.4%), 38 answered some training (16.5%), 22 answered adequate training (9.6%) and 5 answered extensive training (2.2%) (Table 22). Notably, a large percentage of respondents (71.7%) indicated that they had received little or no training regarding this issue. 82

Table 22. Frequency Distributions for Question 15 Response Option Response Percent No Training Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 343 37.4 16.5 9.6 2.2

Response Count 79 86 38 22 5 230

Question 16: The extent of training I have received to ensure proper due process for the accused employee. Of the 229 respondents, 71 answered no training (31.0%), 79 answered little training (34.5%), 46 answered some training (20.1%), 27 answered adequate training (11.8%) and 6 answered extensive training (2.6%) (Table 23). Importantly, a substantial percentage of respondents (65.5%) indicated that they had received little or not training regarding this issue.

Table 23. Frequency Distributions for Question 16 Response Option Response Percent No Training 31.0 Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 34.5 20.1 11.8 2.6

Response Count 71 79 46 27 6 229

83

Question 17: The extent of training I have received to enforce disciplinary action, if necessary, under district policies regarding educator sexual misconduct. Of the 232 respondents, 85 answered no training (36.6%), 79 answered little training (34.1%), 38 answered some training (16.4%), 25 answered adequate training (10.8%) and 5 answered extensive training (2.2%) (Table 24). Many respondents (70.7%) answered that they had received little or no training regarding this issue.

Table 24. Frequency Distributions for Question 17 Response Option Response Percent No Training Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 36^6 34.1 16.4 10.8 2.2

Response Count 85 79 38 25 5 232

Question 18: The extent of training I have received to protect the rights of the target. Of the 228 respondents, 92 answered no training (40.4%), 70 answered little training (30.7%), 42 answered some training (18.4%), 21 answered adequate training (9.2%) and 3 answered extensive training (1.3%) (Table 25). Notably, a large majority of respondents (71.1%) indicated that they had received little or no training regarding this issue.

84

Table 25. Frequency Distributions for Question 18 Response Option Response Percent No Training Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 404 30.7 18.4 9.2 1.3

Response Count 92 70 42 21 3 228

Question 19: The extent of training I have received to attend to the educational needs of the target. Of the 232 respondents, 98 answered no training (42.2%), 66 answered little training (28.4%), 43 answered some training (18.5%), 23 answered adequate training (9.9%) and 2 answered extensive training (0.9%) (Table 26). Importantly, a large percentage of respondents (70.6%) answered that they had received little or no training regarding this issue.

Table 26. Frequency Distributions for Question 19 Response Option Response Percent No Training 42.2 Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 28.4 18.5 9.9 0.9

Response Count 98 66 43 23 2 232

85

Question 20: The extent of training I have received to maintain privacy and confidentiality regulations during the investigative process. Of the 231 respondents, 74 answered no training (32.0%), 60 answered little training (26.0%), 47 answered some training (20.3%), 43 answered adequate training (18.6%) and 7 answered extensive training (3.0%) (Table 27). A large percentage of respondents (58.0%) answered that they had received little or no training regarding this issue.

Table 27. Frequency Distributions for Question 20 Response Option Response Percent No Training Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 323 26.0 20.3 18.6 3.0

Response Count 74 60 47 43 7 231

Analyses of the descriptive statistics showed a difference in the beliefs of respondents regarding to what extent their training had prepared them to handle a case of educator sexual misconduct. Respondents felt they were not prepared adequately to do the following: (a) (b) (c) Recognize warning signs and symptoms of offenders, Recognize warning signs and symptoms of targets, Follow district policies and procedures for reporting and documenting allegations of educator sexual misconduct, 86

(d) (e) (f)

Understand the roles and responsibilities during the investigative process, Ensure proper due process for the accused employee, Enforce disciplinary action, if necessary, under district policies regarding educator sexual misconduct,

(g) (h) (i)

Protect the rights of the target, Attend to the educational needs of the target, and, Maintain privacy and confidentiality regulations during the investigative process.

Research Question Four Per the crosswalk table (Appendix E), six survey questions (5-9 and 11) pertained to Research Question Four (What is the extent of the training that secondary school principals have received regarding educator sexual misconduct?). Question 5: The extent of training I received from university coursework regarding educator sexual misconduct. Of the 239 respondents, 113 answered no training (47.3%), 91 answered little training (38.1%), 29 answered some training (12.1%), 6 answered adequate training (2.5%) and 0 answered extensive training (0.0%) (Table 28). A high percentage of respondents (85.4%) indicated that they had received little or no training from university coursework.

87

Table 28. Frequency Distributions for Question 5 Response Option Response Percent No Training 47.3 Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 38.1 12.1 2.5 0.0

Response Count 113 91 29 6 0 239

Question 6: The extent of training I received from professional development sources presented outside my school district regarding educator sexual misconduct. Of the 238 respondents, 95 answered no training (39.9%), 85 answered little training (35.7%), 42 answered some training (17.6%), 16 answered adequate training (6.7%) and 0 answered extensive training (0.0%) (Table 29). Again, a large percentage of respondents (75.6%) answered that they had received little or no professional development from outside their school districts.

Table 29. Frequency Distributions for Question 6 Response Option Response Percent No Training 39.9 Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 35.7 17.6 .6.7 0.0

Response Count 95 85 42 16 0 238

88

Question 7: The extent of training I received from professional development sources presented by my school district regarding educator sexual misconduct. Of the 239 respondents, 104 answered no training (43.5%), 91 answered little training (38.1%), 34 answered some training (14.2%), 9 answered adequate training (3.8%) and 1 answered extensive training (0.4%) (Table 30). Importantly, a large percentage of respondents (81.6%) indicated that they had received little or no training from professional development presented by their school districts. Table 30. Frequency Distributions for Question 7 Response Option Response Percent No Training Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 433 38.1 14.2 3.8 0.4

Response Count 104 91 34 9 1 239

Question 8: The extent of training I received from other sources regarding educator sexual misconduct. Of the 238 respondents, 91 answered no training (38.2%), 87 answered little training (36.6%), 46 answered some training (19.3%), 13 answered adequate training (5.5%) and 1 answered extensive training (0.4%) (Table 31). Notably, a high percentage of respondents (74.8%) answered that they had received little or no training from other sources.

89

Table 31. Frequency Distributions for Question 8 Response Option Response Percent No Training Little Training Some Training Adequate Training Extensive Training Total Response 38^2 36.6 19.3 5.5 0.4

Response Count 91 87 46 13 1 238

Question 9: From what source did you obtain most of your training regarding educator sexual misconduct? Of the 218 respondents, 39 answered university coursework (17.9%), 73 answered professional development presented outside the school district (33.5%), 46 answered professional development presented by his or her school district (21.1%), and 60 answered that they had never had any training (27.5%) (Table 32). These data indicated that respondents obtained their training regarding educator sexual misconduct from a wide variety of sources and the least of which was university coursework. However, it is important to note that more than one in four (27.5%) acknowledged never receiving any training at all.

90

Table 32. Frequency Distributions for Question 9 Response Option Response Percent University coursework Professional development presented outside my district Professional development presented by my district I've never had any training Total Response 21.1 27.5 33.5 17.9

Response Count 39

73

46 60 218

Question 11: Have you ever been directly involved in investigating a case of educator sexual misconduct? Of the 239 respondents, 95 answered yes (39.7%), and 144 answered no (60.3%) (Table 33). These data indicated that while most of the respondents had not been directly involved in investigating a case of educator sexual misconduct, nearly four in ten had.

Table 33. Frequency Distributions for Question 11 Response Option Response Percent Yes 39.7 No Total Response 60.3

Response Count 95 144 239

Analyses of the descriptive statistics showed a difference in the extent of the training that respondents had received regarding educator sexual misconduct. Respondents felt they received insufficient training from the following sources:

91

(a) (b)

University coursework, Professional development sources presented outside of their school district,

(c) (d)

Professional development sources presented by their school districts, and Other.

Research Question Five Per the crosswalk table (Appendix E), one survey question (21) pertained to Research Question Five (What is the predominant ethical lens used by secondary school principals when responding to a case of educator sexual misconduct?). Question 21 asked the respondent to select the description that best fit his or her approach if presented with an allegation of educator sexual misconduct in his or her building. Of the 234 respondents, 5 indicated the description of the Ethic of Critique (2.1%), 32 indicated the description of the Ethic of Care (13.7%), and 197 indicated the description of the Ethic of Justice (84.2%) (Table 34). A substantial majority of respondents (84.2%) indicated that the Ethic of Justice best fit their approach to an allegation of educator sexual misconduct.

Table 34. Frequency Distributions for Question 21 Response Option Response Percent Ethic of Critique 2.1 Ethic of Care Ethic of Justice Total Response 13.7 84.2

Response Count 5 32 197 234

92

Descriptive statistical analyses showed a large majority of respondents (84.2%) selected the Ethic of Justice as their predominant ethical lens when responding to a case of educator sexual misconduct.

Research Question Six Null Hypothesis One: There are no differences in secondary school principals, by gender, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct. Per the crosswalk table (Appendix E), 11 survey questions (22-29, 33, 37, and 38) pertained to Research Question Six (What are the differences between secondary school principals, by gender, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct?). Chisquare analyses were conducted and results showed no significant differences in secondary school principals, by gender, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct (Table 35). On the basis of this result, null hypothesis one failed to be rejected.

93

Table 35. Chi-Square Scores regarding Beliefs about Educator Sexual Misconduct by Gender Survey Questions Value df X2 7.181 4 .127 22-Serious problem in district 23-Serious problem in profession 24-Male offenders/female targets 25-ESM only physical touching 26-Targets likely to report 27-False accusations rare 28-Targets often vulnerable 29-Offenders popular/respected 33-10% of K-12 students targeted 37-Male targets harmed 38-Ethical obligation to target Research Question Seven Null Hypothesis Two: There are no differences in secondary school principals, by years of experience, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct. Per the crosswalk table (Appendix E), 11 survey questions (22-29, 33, 37, and 38) pertained to Research Question Six (What are the differences between secondary school principals, by years of experience, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct?). Chi-square analyses were conducted and results showed no significant differences in secondary school principals, by years of experience, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct (Table 36). On the basis of this result, null hypothesis two failed to be rejected. 94 3.714 2.759 5.464 1.793 .941 4.394 1.467 8.949 3.028 3.540 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 .446 .599 .141 .617 .816 .355 .833 .062 .553 .472

Table 36. Chi-Square Scores regarding Beliefs about Educator Sexual Misconduct by Years of Experience Survey Questions Value df X2 8.962 8 .346 22-Serious problem in district 23-Serious problem in profession 24-Male offenders/female targets 25-ESM only physical touching 26-Targets likely to report 27-False accusations rare 28-Targets often vulnerable 29-Offenders popular/respected 33-10% of K-12 students targeted 37-Male targets harmed 38-Ethical obligation to target Research Question Eight Null Hypothesis Three: There are no differences in secondary school principals, by ethical lens, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct. Per the crosswalk table (Appendix E), 11 survey questions (22-29, 33, 37, and 38) pertained to Research Question Six {What are the differences between secondary school principals, by ethical lens, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct?). Chi-square analyses were conducted and a difference was found significant at p<.05 concerning Question 28 (X2=.017). Therefore, there is a significant difference in secondary school principals, by ethical lens, regarding their beliefs about targets as often being the most emotionally vulnerable, immature, and needy students in the school 95 12.861 5.004 5.483 6.690 5.251 4.507 9.972 10.330 3.407 9.465 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 .117 .757 .484 .350 .512 .809 .267 .243 .906 .305

(Table 37). On the basis of this result, null hypothesis three was rejected.

Table 37. Chi-Square Scores regarding Beliefs about Educator Sexual Misconduct by Ethical Lens Survey Questions Value X2 df 3.091 8 .929 22-Serious problem in district 23-Serious problem in profession 24-Male offenders/female targets 25-ESM only physical touching 26-Targets likely to report 27-False accusations rare 28-Targets often vulnerable 29-Offenders popular/respected 33-10% of K-12 students targeted 37-Male targets harmed 38-Ethical obligation to target 4.760 10.249 3.115 6.235 1.983 18.700 10.196 11.451 2.347 7.611 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 .783 .248 .794 .397 .921 .017* .252 .177 .968 .472

Summary This chapter presented the results and analyses of the data collected for this study. The results showed that respondents had many and varied beliefs regarding educator sexual misconduct including differences concerning the prevalence of incidents, the frequency of false accusations, and the characteristics of both offenders and targets. Results also showed that the respondents did not believe that the extent of their training had been sufficient as to prepare them to understand the legalities of educator sexual misconduct. Respondents also indicated that they were not adequately trained to handle a 96

case in their buildings. Furthermore, respondents felt insufficiently trained from any educational or training source. Additionally, the results showed that a clear majority of the respondents operated from an ethical framework based on the Ethic of Justice. Finally, there were no differences between groups of secondary school principals, by gender or years of experience, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct. However, there was a significant difference, by ethical lens, regarding how targets were often viewed as the most emotionally vulnerable, immature, and needy students in the school.

97

CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the beliefs and extent of training of Michigan secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct as examined by gender, years of experience, and ethical lens. A review of literature informed the theoretical basis, design, and administration of a survey. This survey was sent electronically to a sample population of Michigan secondary school principals to ascertain their beliefs and extent of training regarding educator sexual misconduct. This chapter states summarizes and discusses the findings of this study.

Discussion Research Question One The first research question examined the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct. Eleven questions from the survey informed this research question. Importantly, 97.1% of respondents believed that educator sexual misconduct involved more than just physical touching. Their views were supported by national research conducted by the American Association of University Women (1993, 2001) that investigated sexual harassment in public schools. Examining the combined perceptions and experiences of over 3500 students, these studies revealed that secondary school students believed that sexual harassment included both physical and nonphysical behaviors. Additionally, Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) reported in their study of 225 superintendents that sexual abuse consisted of both contact and noncontact behaviors. 98

Gupta (1998) and Hendrie (1998a) also indicated that educator sexual misconduct had many manifestations including physical and verbal forms as well as contact and noncontact behaviors. Many respondents (88.1%) in this study also thought that targets were not likely to report their offenders. This finding was affirmed in research by Gupta (1998) whose investigation of over 500 seniors from 14 high schools in Dade County, Florida revealed that only four percent reported sexual harassment by a school employee. Similarly, Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) stated that only two to six percent of student sexual abuse by school staff members was reported to an official. Hendrie (1998a) and Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003a) also that found that targets seldom reported sexual misconduct by educators. Moreover, 92.6% of respondents acknowledged that cases involving female offenders and 16 to 18 year-old male targets were just as harmful as cases involving male offenders and 16 to 18 year-old female targets. This finding was consistent with literature by Hendrie (1998b) whose nationwide examination of 244 cases of educator sexual misconduct found that both the short- and long-term harm to male targets was similar to that of female targets. Braveman (2008), Irvine and Tanner (2007), and Shoop (2004) also stated that the harm done to male targets due to educator sexual misconduct was at least equal to and perhaps even greater than the harm done to female targets. However, these respondents believed in a number of issues generally not supported by current research. According to the American Association of American Women (1993, 2001), 7.0% percent of students nationwide experienced sexual harassment by an educator. Furthermore, Shakeshaft (2003) found that 9.6% of students 99

were the targets of educator sexual misconduct. Similarly, Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) reported that about one fourth of school districts have dealt with this issue (1995). Gupta (1998), Hendrie (1998a), Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003a), and Zemel and Twedt (1999), also reported that educator sexual misconduct is prevalent in public schools across the United States. Despite these data, only 5.1% of respondents in this study recognized educator sexual misconduct as a serious problem in their own district and only 27.8% within the education profession. Next, only 30.2% of respondents believed that educator sexual misconduct most often occurred between male offenders and female targets. This perception yielded conflicting results with Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) who reported that 96% of offenders were male and Hendrie (1998a) who found that 80% of offenders were males. While cases of educator sexual misconduct involving female offenders attract much media attention and are being reported in greater numbers (Hendrie, 1998b; Stennis, 2006; Tanner, 2007), the research shows male offenders still predominate. Also, few respondents (16.4%) agreed that false accusations of educator sexual misconduct were rare. This result is contrary to reports by Hendrie (1998a, 1998g) who found that, of the 244 cases of educator sexual misconduct from across the country that she examined, authorities ultimately concluded that students made false allegations in only two of the cases. Similarly, Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) concluded that false allegations only constituted a small percentage of all allegations. Furthermore, the survey data revealed that few respondents (30.3%) viewed targets as often being the most emotionally vulnerable, immature, and needy students in the school. These findings were in contrast to those of Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) 100

whose study of 225 superintendents reported that targets were often vulnerable and needy students who came from dysfunctional families. These researchers also discovered that many targets were academically and socially marginal. Snyder (2001), in her in-depth research of five case studies of educator sexual misconduct from North Dakota, concurred that targets often exhibited some degree of dysfunctional behavior. Hendrie (1998d) also found that students with greater-than-average vulnerability were more likely to be targeted by offenders. Additionally, only 40.2% of respondents perceived that offenders at the secondary level were often popular and respected school employees. In a study examining 727 cases of educator sexual misconduct from across the country, Zemel and Twedt (1999) reported that offenders tended to be well-liked by parents and students and were often popular teachers. Similarly, Hendrie (1998c) in her study of 244 cases of educator sexual misconduct found that offenders came from the top ranks of the profession with reputations resulting from long and distinguished careers. Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) and Snyder (2001) also found that offenders were often well known and respected persons within the school. Moreover, few of the respondents (28.4%) believed that nearly 10% of public school students in Kindergarten to 12th grade were targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school years. These data did not align with the findings of Shakeshaft (2003) whose reanalysis of the data from both the 1993 and 2001 AAUW studies revealed that 9.6% of students nationwide were the targets of educator sexual misconduct. Finally, survey results showed that a large majority of respondents (92.1%) 101

believed that a principal's ethical obligation to the target did not end when the offender's harassing behavior was stopped. This finding was inconsistent with research by Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) whose four-year project examining the perceptions of 225 superintendents revealed that 58.8% of the superintendents reported that their districts gave no help to the targets. In most cases, the superintendents believed that when the abuse stopped, the problem was over. In contrast, the respondents in this study indicated a stronger ethical stance and greater concern for the target's well being than documented by previous research. In summary, 11 survey questions were used to provide data regarding Research Question One. Of these 11 questions, responses from three questions revealed that the beliefs of the respondents aligned with current research findings regarding educator sexual misconduct. However, the remaining eight responses demonstrated notable gaps concerning key topics in relation to current research including, (a) the prevalence of incidents both locally and nationally, (b) the frequency of false accusations, and (c) the characteristics of both offenders and targets. It is clear that secondary school principals therefore need more preparation concerning the aforementioned issues and thus more training is indicated.

Research Question Two The second research question examined the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding to what extent their level of training had prepared them to understand the legalities of a case of educator sexual misconduct. Six questions from the survey informed this research question. Accordingly, a large majority of the secondary school 102

principals (95.2%) understood that educator sexual misconduct was a form of sexual harassment. This finding was consistent with Cairns (2006) who interviewed ten K-12 administrators from a large school district in Florida and reported that her participants felt that all school leaders should understand what constitutes inappropriate sexual behavior in a school. This finding was also aligned with U.S. Supreme Court standards set in Franklin v. Gwinnett Public Schools (1992) and current legal definitions (Shakeshaft, 2004) regarding sexual harassment and educator sexual misconduct. Additionally, nearly all of the respondents (96.0%) acknowledged that educator sexual misconduct included verbal behaviors such as sexual innuendo, inappropriate jokes, and comments of a sexual nature. This finding was consistent with research by Cairns (2006) who found that building principals should be able to recognize educator sexual misconduct. Also, this result was supported by U.S. Supreme Court standards set in Franklin v. Gwinnett Public Schools (1992) and current legal definitions (Shakeshaft, 2004) regarding sexual harassment and educator sexual misconduct. Moreover, many of the respondents (93.5%) realized that behaviors viewed as welcomed by the target could still constitute educator sexual misconduct. These results aligned with the findings of Cairns (2006) who reported that an individual's perceptions of and reactions to a situation involving alleged sexual misconduct may differ. A definition of educator sexual misconduct by Shakeshaft (2004) and legal standards established by the Michigan Legislature (2008) make it clear that other factors such as legal age of sexual consent and witness perception also play an important role in determining sexual misconduct and harassment. Another finding revealed that a large percentage of respondents (90.8%) knew 103

that even though the legal age of sexual consent in Michigan was 16, students in Michigan of that age could not legally consent to sexual relations with school employees. These results were congruent with state law (Michigan Legislature, 2008) that explicitly prohibits these types of relationships in Michigan schools until the student is considered an adult at age 18. However, the survey data revealed that only 20.9% of respondents knew that educator sexual misconduct became a federal issue for schools in the early 1990s. This finding did not reflect an awareness of the fact that the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding educator sexual misconduct was in 1992 with Franklin v. Gwinnett Public Schools and was followed by Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998), and Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009). Prior to 1992, the high court had not ruled on a case involving educator sexual misconduct. These data reveal a lack of historical perspective among the respondents regarding educator sexual misconduct as well as the standards set by key Supreme Court cases concerning the issue. Similarly, survey data reflected that only 31.5% of respondents realized that school district administrators could not be held liable for the sexual misconduct of school employees (adult-to-student) under their charge when administrators were not aware of the harassment. This finding showed a lack of awareness on the part of the respondents regarding the legal standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998) that clarified this exact issue. Given that this case established the current legal standard for liability regarding Title IX, secondary school principals should be expected to have a working knowledge of this precedent. To summarize, six survey questions were used to provide data regarding Research 104

Question Two. Of the responses to these questions, four data sets revealed that beliefs of respondents were aligned with current research findings regarding educator sexual misconduct. However, responses to two of the questions demonstrated important gaps in knowledge concerning awareness of when educator sexual misconduct became a federal issue for schools and that administrators could not be held liable for the sexual misconduct of school employees (adult-to-student) under their charge when the administrators were not aware of the harassment. Secondary school principals therefore need more preparation concerning the standards set in specific U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertaining to educator sexual misconduct and thus more training is indicated.

Research Question Three The third research question examined the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding to what extent their training had prepared them to handle a case of educator sexual misconduct. Nine questions from the survey informed this research question. Importantly, responses to all nine questions revealed that many respondents believed they were unprepared to adequately handle a case of educator sexual misconduct. First, 84.7% of respondents reported that they had little or no training to recognize the warning signs and symptoms of offenders, while only 4.3% believed they had adequate or extensive training in this regard. These data align with research by Just (1996) who investigated whether specially designed training sessions would significantly improve the performance of 40 administrators on child sexual abuse case simulations. In her study, Just reported that only 19% of administrators were able to correctly indicate the signs of potential offenders on a pretest prior to the training sessions. Similarly,

105

Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003b, 2003d) conducted a year-long investigation of school athletic coaches in Washington State that revealed that 159 coaches over a 10-year period had been fired or reprimanded for sexual misconduct ranging the gamut of behaviors from verbal harassment to rape. Willmsen and O'Hagan concluded that school administrators needed better training in identifying and responding to the signs of sexual misconduct and abuse. Many respondents (83.3%) acknowledged that they had little or no training with regard to recognizing the warning signs and symptoms of targets. These findings were similar to those reported by Just (1996) who found that of the 40 administrators in her study, only 27% were able to list correctly on a pretest more than one or two indicators of a victim of sexual abuse. These indicators included physical, behavioral, or emotional symptoms such as (a) pain or itching in the genital area; (b) difficulty in sitting or walking; (c) sexual touching of self or others in public; (d) withdrawal; (e) unusual interest in or knowledge of sexual matters; (f) expressing age-inappropriate affection; (g) sucking, biting, and rocking; (h) antisocial behaviors; or (i) emotional neediness. Just concluded that administrators lacked a great deal of knowledge regarding the warning signs and symptoms of sexual abuse. Hendrie (1998e) and Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003b) also reported that school personnel needed a better understanding of the characteristics of staff-on-student sexual abuse. The findings of this study further revealed that 67.9% of respondents had little or no training with regard to their districts' policies and procedures for reporting and documenting allegations of educator sexual misconduct. Additionally, 71.7% of the sample had little or no training to understand their roles and responsibilities during the 106

investigative process, and 65.5% of respondents indicated that they had little or no training with regard to ensuring proper due process for the accused employee. These findings were similar to data reported by Just (1996) who found that of the 40 administrators in her study only 18% were able to provide the requested information regarding educator sexual misconduct policies on a pretest. This information included such basic knowledge as documenting the complaint, staying current on district policies and procedures, turning the investigation over to proper legal authorities, and consulting legal counsel. Additionally, Freeman (2003) reported that none of the eight superintendents interviewed for her study received formal training regarding handling allegations of sexual misconduct. Furthermore, Hendrie (1998e), Shakeshaft (1994), Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995), Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003), and Wishnietsky (1991) also reported that school personnel lacked the basic preparation to adequately implement their districts' policies concerning educator sexual misconduct. The current study also showed that 70.7% of respondents lacked training with regard to enforcing disciplinary action, if necessary, under their districts' policies regarding educator sexual misconduct. Similarly, Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003) reported that administrators not only failed to take disciplinary action when clearly warranted under district policy but also disregarded a state law requiring them to report misconduct to the state education office. Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) reported that superintendents seldom contacted legal authorities including the police, prosecutors, or child abuse investigators. These researchers also found that a teacher's denial of the allegation or claims that the behavior in question had been misunderstood often ended the investigation. Other researchers including Cairns (2006), Freeman (2003), Hendrie 107

(1998e), Just (1996), Shakeshaft (1994), and Wishnietsky (1991) reported similar results. Many respondents (71.1%) also revealed that they had little or no training with regard to protecting the rights of the target and a similar percentage (70.6%) acknowledged that they had little or no training with regard to attending to the educational needs of the target. These findings were similar to Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) who reported that 58.8% of the 225 superintendents in their study reported that their districts gave no help to the target. These researchers stated that little was done to assist targets or protect them from attack. Shakeshaft and Cohan also found few efforts to counsel the educational community about the appropriate response to the accusers. Similarly, Just (1996) found that administrators were able to provide only 40 percent of the information on a pretest regarding how to properly report child abuse to the appropriate agency. Freeman (2003) and Hendrie (1998e) reported that school personnel lacked the training to assist targets and often did little or nothing to meet the continuing educational needs of targets once an allegation was made. Administrators often made decisions regarding allegations of educator sexual misconduct based on rumor, innuendo, emotion, or political or financial expediency (Freeman, 2003; Hendrie, 1998e; Shakeshaft, 1994; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003). Finally, in this study, 58.0% of respondents revealed that they lacked preparation regarding maintaining privacy and confidentiality regulations during the investigative process. Researchers including Cairns (2006), Hendrie (1998a), and Just (1996), reported similar findings. Given the provocative nature of educator sexual misconduct and the potential for media coverage, secondary school principals should know these regulations and be able to adhere to them. 108

Respondents indicated important gaps in the extent of their training regarding all areas of how to handle a case of educator sexual misconduct. Given the prevalence and frequency of educator sexual misconduct, it is paramount that secondary school principals be able to adequately handle a case occurring in their buildings. This study revealed that respondents therefore need much more preparation regarding the issues involved in handling a case of educator sexual misconduct and thus more training is indicated. Research Question Four The fourth research question examined the extent of training that secondary school principals had received regarding educator sexual misconduct. Four questions from the survey informed this research question. Notably, responses to all four questions revealed that many respondents believed that they had received little or no training regarding educator sexual misconduct. First, the findings revealed that 85.4% of respondents received little or no training regarding educator sexual misconduct from their university coursework. Similarly, Cairns (2006) reported that the overwhelming majority of the 10 Florida administrators she interviewed felt that their university classes did not adequately prepare them to deal with sexual misconduct. Just (1996) recommended that preparation programs add child sexual abuse prevention training to the coursework for both teachers and administrators. These results align with the research of Hendrie (1998e) and Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003) that showed that school leaders did not receive adequate training. Second, 75.6% of respondents acknowledged that they received little or no

109

training from professional development sources presented outside of their school districts. Willmsen and O'Hagan's research of sexual misconduct by 159 teacher/coaches in Washington State concluded that prevention training is crucial for teachers, coaches, and school leaders (2003e). Just (1996) revealed that few administrators received training or education concerning educator sexual misconduct through college courses or workshops. Shakeshaft (1994) and Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995) also found that few districts provided training opportunities for staff regarding educator sexual misconduct. Next, more than four out of five respondents (81.6%) reported that they received little or no training from professional development sources presented by their school districts. This finding was consistent with research by Shakeshaft (1994) who found that few districts had in-service opportunities for staff regarding educator sexual misconduct. These conclusions were also reflected by Hendrie (1998h) whose nationwide examination of 244 cases of educator sexual misconduct led her to conclude that districts should consider training for educators regarding how to adequately respond when sexual abuse is suspected, revealed, or substantiated. Just (1996), Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995), and Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003) similarly found that few school districts provided these types of opportunities for their employees. Finally, many respondents (74.8%) indicated that they received little or no training from other sources. This finding was supported by Cairns (2006), Hendrie (1998e), Just (1996), Shakeshaft (1994), Shakeshaft and Cohan (1995), and Willmsen and O'Hagan (2003) who reported a general lack of any training regarding educator sexual misconduct. 110

Subsequently, respondents indicated notable gaps in their training from various sources regarding educator sexual misconduct. Given the prevalence and frequency of educator sexual misconduct, it is critical that secondary school principals be able to obtain training if they so desire. These results point to the need for increased levels of educational training and preparation for secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct as provided by universities, colleges, professional educational associations, and school districts. Research Question Five The fifth research question investigated the predominant ethical lens used by secondary school principals when responding to a case of educator sexual misconduct. Analyses indicated that 84.2% of respondents overwhelmingly chose the Ethic of Justice as their ethical lens when responding to a case of educator sexual misconduct. This finding indicates that the sample population identified more often with ethical guidelines shaped by rules, regulations, rights, and policies than the ethical paradigms of Critique and Care. An examination of the extant research revealed no studies in this area therefore this study informs the literature.

Research Question Six The sixth research question examined the differences between secondary school principals, by gender, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct. Analyses indicated there were no significant gender differences among the respondents regarding their beliefs. This finding is consistent with research that found that gender was an ineffective predictor of leadership behavior (Robinson & Lipman-Blumen, 2003) as well 111

as research that found that there were no differences in leadership effectiveness by gender (Daughtry & Finch, 1997; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Kabacoff, 1998). This finding is also supported by research that showed no differences in performance, by gender, regarding educator sexual misconduct training sessions for school administrators (Just, 1996).

Research Question Seven The seventh research question addressed the differences between groups of secondary school principals, by years of experience, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct. Analyses indicated there were no significant differences among respondents, by years of experience, regarding their beliefs. While secondary school principals with more experience might be commensurately expected to have more knowledge regarding educator sexual misconduct, this was not the case in this study. This conclusion is supported by research that found that years of experience did not influence training sessions for administrators regarding educator sexual misconduct (Just, 1996). It seems that years of experience without the benefit of continuous professional development through university coursework, district training sessions, or professional inservice opportunities results in little professional growth or added competencies.

Research Question Eight The eighth research question addressed the differences between groups of secondary school principals, by ethical lens, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct. With the exception of how they viewed the characteristics of targets (Question 28), there were no significant findings regarding ethical lens and the beliefs of 112

the respondents regarding educator sexual misconduct. The analysis indicates that ethical lens was seldom a factor concerning how the sample population responded to the issues posed in the survey. An examination of the extant research revealed no studies investigating educator sexual misconduct in this manner. As a result, this research study contributes to the professional literature.

Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate the beliefs and extent of training of Michigan secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct as examined by gender, years of experience, and ethical lens. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that: (1) Secondary school principals have diverse beliefs regarding educator sexual misconduct, (2) Secondary school principals need more training regarding understanding the legalities of a case of educator sexual misconduct, (3) Secondary school principals need more training regarding how to handle adequately a case of educator sexual misconduct, (4) Secondary school principals need more training from a number of sources including university coursework, professional development offered by their districts, professional development offered outside their districts, or other sources, (5) The predominant ethical lens of the secondary school principals in this study was the Ethic of Justice,

113

(6)

Secondary school principals showed no significant differences, by gender and years of experience, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct, and,

(7)

Secondary school principals showed a significant difference, by ethical lens, regarding how they viewed the characteristics of targets. In all other aspects regarding ethical lens, there were no significant differences. Implications for the Profession

First, the findings of this study have important implications for school leaders and professional educators. Given the data regarding the prevalence of educator sexual misconduct and the results of this research, it is paramount that secondary school principals make a concerted effort to become better educated regarding the nature and magnitude of the problem. Due to the serious short- and long-term harm that may result from sexual abuse and misconduct and the potential legal liability for principals and their districts, no one can afford to remain ignorant of educator sexual misconduct to the detriment of the students they are charged to protect. A second implication emerging from this research was that secondary school principals must be sufficiently trained regarding recognizing the signs and symptoms of targets and offenders. These leaders must be able to correctly identify the profiles, behaviors, and manifestations relating to educator sexual misconduct so they can intervene when necessary. Principals also need to understand that anyone on their faculties or staffs can be a potential offender and that the literature indicates that some offenders may be some of the most popular and well regarded educators in the building.

114

No administrator can afford to disregard their duties regarding enforcing district policies to their fullest extent out of a sense of disbelief of the target or misplaced trust of the offender. A third implication emerging from this study was that secondary school principals need to have a working knowledge of the relevant policies, laws, and legal standards governing educator sexual misconduct. School leaders can only follow the guidelines and legislation that they know. If secondary school principals are not aware of the current legal standards for their profession regarding educator sexual harassment, then their ill-informed decisions or inactions may increase the risk of legal and financial liability. Furthermore, given the critical nature of the investigatory process, secondary school principals may unnecessarily complicate the legal process if they do not properly understand their duties. Since due process procedures are legally required for the accused offender, failure on the part of the secondary school principal to provide due process as a result of a lack of training may lead to investigatory irregularities or grounds for appeal. Similarly, if secondary school principals do not effectively enforce disciplinary action, offenders may avoid or evade proper consequences for their actions and reoffend. Finally, secondary school principals must protect the rights of targets and see to their educational needs after an allegation. Failing to perform these essential duties would be regrettable and could lead to additional trauma for the student. Additionally, if secondary school principals do not properly protect the rights of targets, they may open themselves and their districts to legal liability or lawsuits. As a result of these findings, school districts throughout Michigan should consider 115

extensive educational training courses regarding educator sexual misconduct for all secondary school principals. These training courses could include information and instruction regarding the following topics: (a) professional ethics; (b) signs, symptoms, and characteristics of offenders and targets; (c) law and legal standards regarding educator sexual misconduct; (d) due process for alleged offenders; (e) assistance for targets; (f) best practices for impartial investigations; (g) privacy and confidentiality regulations; and (h) public and media relations. These professional development training courses should include programs for administrators, teachers, and school personnel accompanied by informational sessions for all students. Recommendations for Future Research Possibilities and directions for new research are numerous. This study examined the beliefs and extent of training of secondary school principals in Michigan. It may be useful in the future to replicate this study with elementary school principals, secondary school principals from other states, or possibly secondary school principals nationwide to gain comparative data for analysis. For the same reasons, it could be of value to replicate this study with a number of other populations including building-level groups such as teachers, ancillary support staff, or athletic directors; central office personnel such as assistant superintendents or superintendents; or private or parochial populations. The findings of this study revealed that secondary school principals lack knowledge regarding educator sexual misconduct and generally receive little or no education about the topic before or during their careers. Future studies investigating the types, frequency, content, and effectiveness of university degree coursework and

116

programs relating to educator sexual misconduct are warranted. Consequently, the data emerging from this study have demonstrated that secondary school principals typically receive inadequate professional development regarding educator sexual misconduct during their careers. Once employed, these school leaders may remain untrained or unprepared to prevent or respond to cases in their buildings. There are possible models, such as those offered by the Boy Scouts of America (2004), for training leaders in the prevention of child sexual abuse. More research is needed regarding effective training and prevention programs relating to educator sexual misconduct. Moreover, as this study revealed, secondary school principals need additional information and resources regarding the legalities of investigating and handling a case of educator sexual misconduct. These school leaders may need a better understanding of the changing legal landscape to keep them and their districts out of legal liability as new cases of educator sexual misconduct manifest. More research is warranted regarding the training of secondary school administrators in the legalities of educator sexual misconduct. To date, little data exist regarding false accusations relating to educator sexual misconduct and no research could be found that exclusively examines that topic. The current study revealed that respondents were uncertain and divided about the frequency of false accusations. A need exists for studies to scrutinize and clarify this issue. Finally, further research is needed regarding ethics and educator sexual misconduct. It is important for educational leaders to better understand how their ethical views and philosophies may potentially influence their decision making regarding targets, 117

alleged offenders, and the school community vis-a-vis educator sexual misconduct. Little is known regarding this issue.

Conclusions As professionals, educators have the fundamental ethical obligation to serve the best interests of the students. This moral imperative is supported by school policies, district regulations, state laws, federal legislation and high court rulings as well as thousands of law-abiding school employees. Lamentably, the literature related to the present study demonstrates that significant numbers of educators disregard their primary duty as professionals and instead target students for sexual gratification. Unfortunately, research indicates that many students do not report these transgressions. Hence, given the complexities and dynamics of child and teenage sexual abuse, many offenders remain unpunished and undeterred. It is at this point that secondary school principals must take decisive action to break this hurtful cycle of misconduct. Secondary school principals are charged by their school boards and communities to ensure the safest learning environment possible for children and therefore are called upon to exert leadership regarding the dangers and harm inherent with educator sexual misconduct. First, secondary school principals must recognize the seriousness and prevalent nature of the problem. Building leaders must be cognizant that incidents of educator sexual misconduct may occur in their buildings and become motivated to stop them, if possible, from happening. Second, with this increased awareness, secondary school principals must then empower themselves and their entire school communities to proactively prevent educator sexual misconduct. This can be accomplished by

118

sufficiently preparing and training the faculty, staff, parents, and students regarding this potential danger. Subsequently, if an incident were to occur after this school-wide awareness had been fostered, members of the educational community would be more likely to recognize the warning signs and symptoms of targets and offenders. Swift action could be taken to address a possible incident and prevent further harm to the child. If the allegation were substantiated, it would be the charge of the school leader to meet the educational and academic needs of the target while simultaneously protecting them from community members who refuse to believe. The findings and conclusions of this study regarding educator sexual misconduct demonstrate a continuing need for additional research. It is hoped that this study has both informed the profession and provided some answers regarding how leaders should better prepare themselves and their organizations for handling this unfortunate social phenomenon. Ultimately, the purpose of this research is to foster a healthier and safer school community that maintains and enhances a mutually respectful environment for both students and adults alike in our nation's schools.

119

APPENDICES

120

APPENDIX A INITIAL EMAIL MESSAGE June 2009 Dear Colleague: My name is Jeffrey J. Thoenes and I am a secondary school principal in the Mt. Pleasant Public Schools. As a doctoral student at Central Michigan University, I am in the process of conducting research for my dissertation and am investigating educator sexual misconduct. To accomplish this research, I will be administering an online questionnaire to secondary school principals regarding this topic. In a few days, you will be receiving via email an invitation to participate in this study. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to complete the questionnaire. Piloting of the instrument indicates that respondents finish in an average of 8-10 minutes. Thanks in advance for your assistance and support regarding this matter. Please feel free to contact my advisor, Dr. Betty Kirby, or me if you have any questions. I am hopeful that your participation in this study will help to increase our profession's preparedness regarding educator sexual misconduct. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Thoenes Graduate Student Central Michigan University Educational Leadership 989-835-8497 (Ext 2) jthoenes@tm.net Dr. Betty Kirby, Ed. D. Assistant Professor Central Michigan University Educational Leadership 989-774-1503 kirby2ea@cmich.edu

121

APPENDIX B INTRODUCTORY EMAIL MESSAGE June 2009 Dear Colleague: My name is Jeffrey J. Thoenes and I am a secondary school principal in the Mt. Pleasant Public Schools. As a doctoral student at Central Michigan University, I am in the process of conducting research for my dissertation and am investigating educator sexual misconduct. To accomplish this research, I will be administering an online questionnaire to secondary school principals regarding this topic. As a fellow school administrator, I would like to learn more about what you know and believe to be true about educator sexual misconduct as well as the extent of training you have received regarding this issue. Given the lack of research on this topic and its importance to our profession, I am inviting you to participate in this research study by completing the attached questionnaire. Your voluntary participation would be greatly appreciated and your responses will remain confidential. For your convenience, I have included the link to the survey in this email. To access the survey, click here: http://www.survevmonkev.eom/s.aspx?sm=EgplghlY3ZDxZWmZZt4N5Q 3d 3d Thank you for your consideration of my request. Please complete the questionnaire by no later than June 30, 2009. The process is easy and piloting indicates that respondents finish in an average of 8-10 minutes. I believe you will find the questionnaire interesting and worth your effort. Please feel free to contact my advisor, Dr. Betty Kirby, or me if you have any questions. I am hopeful that your participation in this study will help to increase our profession's preparedness regarding educator sexual misconduct. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Thoenes Graduate Student Central Michigan University Educational Leadership 989-835-8497 (Ext 2) jthoenes@tm.net Dr. Betty Kirby, Ed.D. Assistant Professor Central Michigan University Educational Leadership 989-774-1503 kirby2ea@cmich.edu

122

APPENDIX C REMINDER EMAIL MESSAGE June 2009 Dear Colleague: My name is Jeffrey J. Thoenes and I am a secondary school principal in the Mt. Pleasant Public Schools. As a doctoral student at Central Michigan University, I am in the process of conducting research for my dissertation and am investigating educator sexual misconduct. To accomplish this research, I will be administering an online questionnaire to secondary school principals regarding this topic. Recently, I sent you an invitation to take part in this study. Please consider this message a reminder of the importance of your participation. If you have already completed it, please disregard this notice and accept my appreciation. If not, I renew my invitation in the hopes you will participate. A greater response assures increased validity in the findings and allows all voices to be heard. As a fellow school administrator, I would like to learn more about what you know and believe to be true about this topic as well as the extent of training you have received regarding educator sexual misconduct. Your voluntary participation in this questionnaire would be greatly appreciated and your responses will remain confidential. For your convenience, I have included the link to the survey in this email. To access the survey, click here: To access the survey, click here: http://www.survevmonkev.com/s.aspx?sm=EgplghlY3ZDxZWmZZt4N5Q 3d 3d Thank you for your consideration of my request. Please complete the questionnaire by no later than June 30, 2009. The process is easy and piloting indicates that respondents finish in an average of 8-10 minutes. I believe you will find the questionnaire interesting and worth your effort. Please feel free to contact my advisor, Dr. Betty Kirby, or me if you have any questions. I am hopeful that your participation in this study will help to increase our profession's preparedness regarding educator sexual misconduct. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Thoenes Graduate Student Central Michigan University Educational Leadership 989-835-8497 (Ext 2) jthoenes@tm.net Dr. Betty Kirby, Ed.D. Assistant Professor Central Michigan University Educational Leadership 989-774-1503 kirby2ea@cmich.edu 123

APPENDIX D EDUCATOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT QUESTIONNAIRE Gender 1. What is your gender? Female Male Administrative Experience 2. How many years of experience do you have as a building administrator? 0-3 4-9 10+ Current Administrative Position 3. What is your current position as an administrator? Principal Assistant Principal Career or Technical Center Administrator or Director Principal/Asst. Principal combined w/ Athletic Director Other Highest Degree Obtained 4. What is the highest degree you have obtained? Bachelor's Master's Multiple Master's Educational Specialist Doctorate For purposes of this study, these terms are defined as follows: Educator sexual misconduct: Any behavior of a sexual nature by an educator that constitutes professional misconduct. Educator. Any person 18 years or older who works with or for a school or other educational or learning organization. Offender. An educator who engages in educator sexual misconduct. Target: A student who is sexually abused, exploited, harassed, or molested by an educator.

124

PART I INSTRUCTIONS: INDICATE THE NUMBER THAT REFLECTS YOUR BELIEFS ABOUT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS. 5. The extent of training I received from my university coursework regarding educator sexual misconduct. 6. The extent of training I received from professional development sources presented outside my school district regarding educator sexual misconduct. 7. The extent of training I received from professional development sources presented by my school district regarding educator sexual misconduct. 8. The extent of training I received regarding educator sexual misconduct from other sources.

No Training

Little Training

Some Training

Adequate Training

Extensive Training

125

9. From what source did you obtain most of your training regarding educator sexual misconduct? University coursework Professional development presented outside my district Professional development presented by my district I've never had any training 10. Check any of the following areas of training you would like to receive regarding educator sexual misconduct: Recognizing the warning signs and symptoms Reporting and documenting allegations Knowing investigative roles and responsibilities Ensuring proper due process for the accused employee Enforcing policy and procedure Protecting the rights of the target Maintaining privacy and confidentiality regulations Understanding the implications of applicable state law Understanding the implications of Title XII and DC Understanding the implications of Supreme Court cases All of the above None of the above 11. Have you ever been directly involved in investigating a case of educator sexual misconduct? Yes No

126

No PART II - IF PRESENTED WITH AN Training ALLEGATION OF EDUCATOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN YOUR BUILDING, INDICATE THE EXTENT OF TRAINING YOU HAVE RECEIVED 12. Recognize the warning signs and symptoms of offenders. 13. Recognize the warning signs and symptoms of targets. 14. Follow my district's policies for reporting and documenting allegations of educator sexual misconduct. 15. Understand my roles and responsibilities during the investigative process. 16. Ensure proper due process for the accused. 17. Enforce disciplinary action, if necessary, under my district's policies regarding educator sexual misconduct. 18. Protect the rights of the target. 19. Attend to the educational needs of the target. 20. Maintain privacy and confidentiality regulations during the investigative process.

Little Training

Some Training

Adequate Training

Extensive Training

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

127

Select the one description that best fits you: 21. If presented with an allegation of educator sexual misconduct in your building, what approach would you immediately take to address the issue? I would first look for manifestations of abuse of power, social class, race, or gender, and then intervene to prevent possible additional exploitation. I would first speak with and show concern for the individuals involved in the case and consider how my actions as the building principal would impact the individuals involved. I would first consult district policy, seek guidance from and follow the direction of legal principles, and view the situation as a serious legal matter.

128

Strongly PART III -1 Disagree HOLD THE FOLLOWING BELIEFS REGARDING EDUCATOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT: 22. Educator sexual 1 misconduct is a serious problem in my school district. 23. Educator sexual 1 misconduct is a serious problem within the education profession. 24. Educator sexual 1 misconduct most often occurs between male offenders and female targets. 25. Educator sexual 1 misconduct occurs only when physical touching is involved. 26. Targets are likely 1 to report their offenders. 27. False accusations 1 of educator sexual misconduct are rare. 28. Targets are often 1 the most emotionally vulnerable, immature, and needy students in the school. 29. Offenders at the 1 secondary level are often popular and respected school employees.

Disagree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

129

PART IV -1 HOLD THE Strongly Disagree FOLLOWING BELIEFS Disagree REGARDING THE LEGALITIES OF EDUCATOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT: 30. School district 1 2 administrators can be held liable for the sexual misconduct of school employees (adult-to-student) under their charge even when they are NOT aware of the harassment. 31. Educator sexual 1 2 misconduct is a form of sexual harassment. 1 2 32. Educator sexual misconduct excludes verbal behaviors such as sexual innuendo, inappropriate jokes, and comments of a sexual nature. 1 33. Nearly 10% of public 2 school students in Kindergarten to 12th grade will be targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school years. 1 34. Behaviors viewed as 2 "welcomed" by the target may still constitute educator sexual misconduct. 1 2 35. Even though educator sexual misconduct existed previously, it became a federal issue for schools only in the early 1990s. 1 2 36. Given that the age of consent in Michigan is 16, students in Michigan of that age can legally consent to sexual relations with school employees. 130

Neither Agree or Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

37. Cases involving female offenders and 16-18 yearold male targets are NOT as harmful as cases involving male offenders and 16-18 year-old female targets. 38. The principal's ethical obligation to the target ends when the harassing behavior is stopped.

131

APPENDIX E CROSSWALK TABLE Research Questions: 1. What are the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding educator sexual misconduct? 2. What are the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding to what extent their training has prepared them to understand the legalities of a case of educator sexual misconduct? 3. What are the beliefs of secondary school principals regarding to what extent their training has prepared them to handle a case of educator sexual misconduct? 4. What is the extent of the training that secondary school principals have received regarding educator sexual misconduct? 5. What is the predominant ethical lens used by secondary school principals when responding to a case of educator sexual misconduct? 6. What are the differences between groups of secondary school principals, by gender, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct? 7. What are the differences between groups of secondary school principals, by years of experience, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct? 8. What are the differences between groups of secondary school principals, by ethical lens, regarding their beliefs about educator sexual misconduct? RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ Research Citation #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 X Berson, Berson, Karges-Bone & Parker, 1999; Brandenburg, 1997; Cairns, 2006; Hendrie, Just, 1996; 1998; Shoop, 2004; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003

5.

6.

Cornish, 1999; Eckes, 2006; Fibkins, 2006; Hardy, 2002; Hendrie, 1998; Just, 1996; Shakeshaft, 1994; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 2004; Smith, Morrow, & Gray, 1999; Spirito, 1994; Sutton, 2006; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003

132

7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12.

13.

RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ Research Citation #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 X Cornish, 1999; Eckes, 2006; Fibkins, 2006; Hardy, 2002; Hendrie, 1998; Just, 1996; Shakeshaft, 1994; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 2004; Smith, Morrow, & Gray, 1999; Spirito, 1994; Sutton, 2006; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003 X Berson, Berson, Karges-Bone & Parker, 1999; Brandenburg, 1997; Cairns, 2006; Cornish, 1999; Eckes, 2006; Fibkins, 2006; Hardy, 2002; Hendrie, 1998; Just, 1996; Shakeshaft, 1994; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 2004; Smith, Morrow, & Gray, 1999; Spirito, 1994; Sutton, 2006; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003 X X X X X X Cairns, 2006; Graves, 1994; Hendrie, 1998; Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Just, 1996; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 1999; Shoop, 2000; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003 X Cairns, 2006; Hendrie, 1998; Graves, 1994; Just, 1996; Lowenthal, 1996; Shakeshaft, 2003; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003; Woodhull, 1996; Yaffe, 1995; Zemel, 1999 X Cairns, 2006; Essex, 1998; Freeman, 2003; Hardy, 2002; Hendrie, 1998; Just, 1996; Mann & Hughes, 1998; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 2000; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003; Wishnietsky, 1991; Woods, 2002; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2000

14.

RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ Research Citation #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 15. X Austin, 2000; Bludworth, 1996; Cairns, 2006; Cohan et al. 1996; Essex, 1998; Freeman, 2003; Hendrie, 1998; Just, 1996; Kent, 2006; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 2004; Smith, Morrow & Gray, 1999; Stover, 2000; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003; Wishnietsky, 1991 Cairns, 2006; Cohan et al., 1996; Essex, 2000; Just, 1996; Kent, 2006; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 2008; Smith, Morrow & Gray, 1999; Stover, 2000 Cairns, 2006; Freeman, 2003; Graves, 1994; Hendrie, 1998; Just, 1996; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 2000; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003; Wishnietsky, 1991 Bludworth, 1996; Freeman, 2003; Hendrie, 1998; Just, 1996; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 2000; Shoop, 2004; Shoop, 2008; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003 Hendrie, 1998; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995 Cairns, 2006; Hendrie, 1998; Graves, 1994; Just, 1996; Shoop, 2000; Spirito, 1994 Starratt, 1991 AAUW, 1993; AAUW, 2001; Cairns, 2006; Freeman, 2003; Fromuth & Holt, Gupta, 1998; Hendrie, 1998; Hendrie, 2003; Schultz, 2005, April 25; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft, 2004; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003; Wishnietsky, 1991; Zemel & Twedt, 1999

16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

X X

21. 22.

X X X X X

134

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ Research Citation #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 X X X X AAUW, 1993; AAUW, 2001; Cairns, 2006; Freeman, 2003; Fromuth & Holt, 2008; Gupta, 1996; Hendrie, 1998; Hendrie, 2003; Schultz, 2005, April 25; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft, 2004; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003; WILX.com, 2007; Wishnietsky, 1991; Zemel & Twedt, 1999 X X X AAUW, 1993; AAUW, 2001; X Bludworth, 1996; Hardy, 2002; Hendrie, 1998; Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Shakeshaft, 2004; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995 X X AAUW, 1993; AAUW, 2001; X X Bludworth, 1996; Brandenburg, 1997; Cairns, 2006; Cohan et al., 1996; Essex, 1998; Essex, 2000; Gupta, 1998; Hendrie, 1998; Just, 1996; Kelley, 2000; Lindemann & Kadue, 1992, Lowenthal, 1996; Shakeshaft, 2004; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop & Hayhow, 1994; Snyder, 2001; USLegalDefinitions.com, 2008; Woodhull, 1996; Woods, 2002; Yaffe, 1995 X X X X AAUW, 1993; AAUW, 2001; Cooper, 1998; Gupta, 1998; Hardy, 2002; Hendrie, 1998; Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Lowenthal, 1996; Newsmax.com, 2004; Schultz, 2004; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft, 2004; Shoop, 1999; Skinner, 2001; Willmsen & O'Hagan, 2003; Wishnietsky, 1991 X X X Graves, 1994; Hendrie, 1998; X McGrath, 1994; Shakeshaft, 2004; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 2000; Stover, 2000; Zirkel, 2000

135

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ Research Citation #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 X X X X Bludworth, 1996; Chaika, 1999; Hendrie, 1998; Shakeshaft, 1994; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Snyder, 2001 X X X X Bludworth, 1996; Hardy, 2002; Hendrie, 1998; Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Kent, 2006; McGrath, 1999; Shakeshaft, 1994; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995; Shoop, 1999; Snyder, 2001; Zemel, 1999 X Fossey & Demitchell, 1996; Kent, 2006; Lindemann & Kadue, 1992; Mann & Hughes, 1998; Marczely, 1999; McGrath, 1994; Tanner, 2005 X Bludworth, 1996; Cairns, 2006; Essex, 1998; Kelley, 2000; Kent, 2006; Lane, 2006; Mann & Hughes, 1998; Marczely, 1999; Woods, 2002; Yaffe, 1995; Yell & Katsiyannis, 2000 X Bludworth, 1996; Brandenburg, 1997; Cairns, 2006; Cohan et al., 1996; Essex, 1998; Essex, 2000; Kelley, 2000; Lindemann & Kadue, 1992, Lowenthal, 1996; Shakeshaft, 2004; Shoop & Hayhow, 1994; USLegalDefinitions.com, 2008; Woodhull, 1996; Woods, 2002; Yaffe, 1995 X X X X AAUW, 1993; AAUW, 2001; Hendrie, 1998; Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Kent, 2006; Shakeshaft, 2003; Shakeshaft, 2004 X Bludworth, 1996; Cairns, 2006; Hendrie, 1998; Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Kent, 2006; Lane, 2006; Shakeshaft, 2004; Yaffe, 1995 Bludworth, 1996; Essex, 1998; Marczely, 1999; Shoop & Edwards, 1994; Stein, 1996; Yaffe, 1995

34.

35.

136

36.

37.

38.

RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ RQ Research Citation #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 X Hendrie, 2003; Michigan Legislature, 2008; Schultz, 2005, April 24 X X X X Fromuth & Holt, 2008; Hendrie, 1998; Irvine & Tanner, 2007; Shoop, 2004; Tanner, 2007 X X X X Shakeshaft & Cohan, 1995

137

REFERENCES American Association of University Women. (1993). Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America's schools. Washington, DC: Author. American Association of University Women. (2001). Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America's schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/hostilehallways.edf. Austin, J. S. (2000). When a child discloses sexual abuse [Electronic version]. Childhood Education, 77 (1), 2-5. Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Beckner, W. (2004). Ethics for educational leaders. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., Karges-Bone, L., & Parker, J. K. (1999). Screening teacher education candidates for sexual predators [Electronic version]. The Educational Forum, 63 (2), 150-155. Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., Karges-Bone, L., & Parker, J. K. (2000). Self-regulation may not be enough: A rejoinder to Horns-Marsh [Electronic version]. The Educational Forum, 64 (2), 150-153. Bludworth, C. (1996). Stop passing the trash: The principal's role in confronting sexual abuse [Electronic version]. American Secondary Education, 25, 2-8. Boy Scouts of American. (2004). How to protect your children from child abuse: A parent's guide. Irving, TX. Brandenburg, J. B. (1997). Confronting sexual harassment: What schools and colleges can do. New York: Teachers College Press. Braveman, S. L. (2008). Male victims: When boys are molested by teachers and others in positions of authority. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://sesamenet.org/male_vics.html. Brown, J., & Townsend, R. (1997). Developing an ethical framework. [Electronic version]. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 27, 12-14. Cairns, S. S. (2006). School principals' knowledge and understanding of educator sexual misconduct against students (ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts International UMI No. 3230364).

138

Chaika, G. (1999). Is the teacher in the classroom next door a convicted felon? Education World. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/issues059.shtml Cohan, A., Hergenrother, M. A., Johnson, Y. M., Mandel, L. S. & Sawyer, J. (1996). Sexual harassment and sexual abuse: A handbook for teachers and administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Colgan, C. (2004). The ethical choice. American School Board Journal, 191 (5), 12-19. Cooper, M. J. (1998). Probing for the truth: Investigating charges of sexual misconduct. American School Board Journal, 185 (9), 46-47. Cornish, T. (Ed.). (1999). Zero tolerance: An employer's guide to preventing sexual harassment and healing the workplace (2n ed.). Rockville, MD: BNA Communications, Inc. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. Washington, DC: Author. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2n ed.). New Jersey: Pearson. Daughtry, L. H., & Finch, C. R. (1997). Effective leadership of vocational administrators as a function of gender and leadership style. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 22 (3), 173-186. Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M , & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford University, Standford Educational Leadership Institute. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108 (2), 233-256. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Johnson, B. T. (1992). Gender and leadership style among school principals: A meta-analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(1), 76102. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125-145. Eckes, S. (2006). Reducing peer sexual harassment in schools [Electronic version]. Education Digest, 71 (7), 36-40.

139

Essex, N. L. (1998). School official's liability limited in teacher-student harassment case [Electronic version]. American Secondary Education, 27 (2), 23-27. Essex, N. L. (2000). Classroom harassment: The principal's liability [Electronic version]. Principal, 79 (4), 52-55. Fibkins, W. L. (2006). Innocence denied: A guide to preventing sexual misconduct by teachers and coaches. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Fossey, R., & Demitchell, T. A. (1996). "Let the master answer": Holding schools vicariously liable when employees sexually abuse children. Journal of Law & Education, 25 (4), 575-599. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 112 S. Ct. 1028, 117 L. Ed. 2d 208 [72 Educ. L. Rep. 32] (1992). Freeman, M. H. M. (2003). The ethical dimension of the superintendency in handling allegations of sexual misconduct (ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts International UMI No. 3119642). Fromuth, M.E. & Holt, A. R. (2008). Perception of teacher sexual misconduct by age of student [Electronic version]. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 17(2), 163-179. Furman, G. C. (2003). Moral leadership and the ethic of community. Values and Ethics in Educational Administration, 2(1), 1-8. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274; 118 S. Ct. 1989; 141 L. Ed. 2d 277; (1998) U.S. Lexis 4173. Graves, B. (1994). When the abuser is an educator: Dealing with sex abuse allegations becomes an ail-too common task for school leaders. School Administrator, 51, 8-20. Grayson, J. (2006). Sexual abuse by educators and school staff [Electronic version]. Virginia Child Protection Newsletter, 77, 1-6. Green, L. (2009). U.S. supreme court rules on title EX and sexual harassment. High School Today, 2, (6), 20-21. Gupta, D. A. (1998). Sexual harassment of Miami-Dade County public school students by school personnel. (ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts International UMI No. 9903429). Hale, E. L. & Moorman, H. N. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations. Institute for Educational Leadership, Washington, DC and Illinois Education Research Council, Edwardsville, IL. 140

Hardy, L. (2002). Trust betrayed. American School Board Journal, 189 (6), 14-18. Hendrie, C. (1998a, December 2). Sex with students: When employees cross the line [Electronic version]. Education Week, 18 (14), 1-10. Hendrie, C. (1998b, December 2). Abuse by women raises its own set of problems [Electronic version]. Education Week, 18(14), 1-3. Hendrie, C. (1998c, December 2). Labels like 'Pedophile' don't explain the many faces of child sexual abuse [Electronic version]. Education Week, 18 (14), 1-4. Hendrie, C. (1998d, December 2). In youth's tender emotions, abusers find easy pickings [Electronic version]. Education Week, 18 (14), 1-4. Hendrie, C. (1998e, December 9). Cost is high when schools ignore abuse [Electronic version]. Education Week, 18(15), 1-4. Hendrie, C. (1998f, December 9). Passing the trash by school districts frees sexual predators to hunt again [Electronic version]. Education Week, 18 (15), 1-8. Hendrie, C. (1998g, December 9). Living through a teacher's nightmare: False accusation [Electronic version]. Education Week, 18 (15), 1-4. Hendrie, C. (1998h, December 16). 'Zero tolerance' of sex abuse proves elusive. Education Week, 18 (16), 1, 12-16. Hendrie, C. (1998i, December 16). Principals face a delicate balancing act in handling allegations of misconduct. Education Week, 18 (16), 14. Hendrie, C. (2003a, April 9). Experts convene on sexual abuse by teachers [Electronic version]. Education Week, 22 (30), 1-4. Hendrie, C. (2003b, April 30). States target sexual abuse by educators [Electronic version]. Education Week, 22 (33), 4-14. Hendrie, C. (2003c, May 7). No easy answers for schools in misconduct inquiries [Electronic version]. Education Week, 22 (34), 1-10. Hendrie, C. (2004). Report examining sexual misconduct taps some nerves [Electronic version]. Education Week, 23 (42), 1-5. Irvine, M. & Tanner, R. (2007). Sex abuse a shadow over U.S. schools [Electronic version]. Education Week, 27(9), 1, 16-19.

141

Just, V. D. (1996). Training school administrators in the prevention of child sexual abuse in the school setting. (ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts International UMI No. 9711834). Kabacoff, R. I. (1998, August). Gender differences in organizational leadership. Paper presented at the 106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Kelley, M. L. (2000). Sexual harassment in the 1990s [Electronic version]. The Journal of Higher Education 71 (5), 548-568. Kent, C. C. (2006). Protecting a district from educator sexual misconduct [Electronic version]. Catalyst for Change, 34 (2), 18-29. Kidder, R. M., & Born, P. L. (1999). Resolving ethical dilemmas in the classroom [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 56 (4), 38-41. Lane, A. J. (2006). Gender, power, and sexuality: First, do no harm. Chronicle of Higher Education, 1, supp. Lashaway,L. (1996). Ethical leadership. ERIC Digest 107. Retrieved June 21, 2009, fromfile:///Dl/digests/digestl07.html Lindemann, B. & Kadue, D. D. (1992). Primer on sexual harassment. Washington, DC: BNA Books. Lowenthal, B. (1996). Educational implications of child abuse [Electronic version]. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 21-25. Mangione, T. W. (1995). Mail surveys: Improving the quality. London: Sage Publications. Mann, R. L., & Hughes, W. (1998). Sexual harassment: The supreme court speaks [Electronic version]. American Secondary Education, 27 (2), 28-31. Marczely, B. (1999). Mixed messages: Sexual harassment in the public schools [Electronic version]. The Clearing House, 72 (5), 315-318. McGrath, M. J. (1994). The psychodynamics of school sexual abuse investigations: An attorney's inside look. School Administrator, 57,28-34. McNabb, D. E. (2004). Research methods for political science. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

142

McNeal, L. R. (2006). Book review essay [Review of the book Sexual exploitation in schools] [Electronic version]. NASSP Bulletin, 90 (4), 343-347. Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, All U.S. 57, 91 L Ed 2d 49, 106 S Ct 2399 (1986). Michigan Education Report. (2008, January 8). Districts recycle dismissed teachers. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://www.educationreport.org/print.aspx?ID=9179 Michigan Legislature. (2008). Michigan compiled laws. Retrieved April 18, 2008 from http://www.legislature.mi.gov Michigan State Board of Education. (2003). Michigan professional educators' code of ethics. Lansing, MI: Author. Nowesnick, M. (1993). Shattered lives. American School Board Journal, 180, 14-19. Plaut, S. M. (1993). Boundary issues in teacher-student relationships [Electronic version]. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 19, 210-219. Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (eds.)(2000). Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reyome, N. D. & Gaeddert, W. (1998). Teachers' awareness of child and adolescent maltreatment [Electronic version]. Child Study Journal, 28 (2), 111-122. Robinson, J. L., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (2003). Leadership behavior of male and female managers [Electronic version]. Journal of Education for Business, 79 (1), 28-33. Schemo, D. J. (2002, June 18). Silently shifting teachers in sex abuse cases. New York Times. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://www.nospank.net. Schultz, M. (2005a, April 24). State fails to stop teacher sex abuse. Detroit News. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://www.detnews.com Schultz, M. (2005b, April 25). Schools, Granholm pledge to curb abuse by teachers. Detroit News. Retrieved April 13, from http://www.detnew.com Shakeshaft, C. (1994). Responding to complaints of sexual abuse: New study examines how school districts are handling allegations. School Administrator, 51, 22-27. Shakeshaft, C. (2003). Educator sexual abuse. Hofstra Horizons, Spring, 10-13. Shakeshaft, C. (2004). Educator sexual misconduct: A synthesis of existing literature (PPSS2004-09). Jessup, MD: ED Pubs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED483143). 143

Shakeshaft, C. & Cohan, A. (1995). Sexual abuse of students by school personnel [Electronic copy]. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,512-20. Shapiro, J. P. & Stefkovich, J. A. (2005). Ethical leadership and decision making in education (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sheehan, K. M. & Hoy, M. G. (1999). Using e-mail to survey internet users in the United States: Methodology and assessment [Electronic versiony. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4 (3), 1-24. Shoop, R. J. (1999). See no evil: Sexual abuse of children by teachers [Electronic version]. High School Magazine, 6 (7), 8-12. Shoop, R. J. (2000). The principal's dilemma [Electronic version]. Principal Leadership, 1 (I), 22-27'. Shoop, R. J. (2004). Sexual exploitation in schools: How to spot it and stop it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Shoop, R. J. (2008). Troubleshooting an investigation. Principal Leadership, 8 (5), 6567. Shoop, R. J., & Edwards, D. L. (1994). How to stop sexual harassment in our schools: A handbook and curriculum guide for administrators and teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Shoop, R. J. & Hayhow, Jr. J. W. (1994). Sexual harassment in our schools: What parents and teachers need to know to spot it and stop it. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Singleton, R. A. & Straits, B. C. (1999). Approaches to social sciences (3 rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Skinner, J. (2001). Teachers who abuse: The impact on school communities [Electronic version]. Educational Research, 43 (2), 161-174. Smith, A. E., Morrow, J. E., & Gary, D. L. (1999). Principals educate beginning teachers about the law [Electronic version]. Education, 120 (1), 60-63. Snyder, M. K. (2001). A deafening silence: Various school systems' reactions to student sexual victimization by school personnel. (ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts International UMI No. 3013166). Spirito, J. P. (1994). One superintendent's nightmare: A personal study in handling sexual abuse allegations. School Administrator, 51, 35-37.

144

Stamler, V. L. & Stone, G. L. (1998). Faculty-student sexual involvement: Issues and interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Starratt, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185-202. Stein, N. (1996) From the margins to the mainstream: Sexual harassment in K-12 schools [Electronic version]. Initiatives 57 (3), 19-26. Stennis, J. (2006). Equal protection dilemma: Why male adolescent students need federal protection from adult female teachers who prey on them. Journal of Law & Education, 35 (3), 395-403. Stover, D. (2000). Fairness for teachers charged with harassment [Electronic version]. The Education Digest, 66 (3), 29-33. Sutton, L. C. (2004). Educator sexual misconduct: New trends and liability [Electronic version]. School Business Affairs, 71 (1), 6-8. Sutton, L. C. (2006). Teaching about educator sexual misconduct [Electronic version]. School Business Affairs, 72 (11), 14-17. Tanner, B. (2005). Innocence lost and no remedy to be found: A new standard for Section 1983 supervisory liability in the context of sexual abuse of students in public schools. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from http://www.educationlawconsortium.org/forum/2005/papers/tanner.pdf. Tanner, R. (2007). Gender affects response to teacher-student sex [Electronic version]. Education Week, 27(9), 17-18. Tanner, R. (2008). 10 states act to stop teacher sex abuse. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052902565.html Taylor, K. R. (2009). Supreme court update. Principal Leadership, 9 (9), 61-63. Truell, A. D., Bartlett II, J. E., & Alexander, M. W. (2002). Response rate, speed, and completeness: A comparison of internet-based and mail surveys [Electronic version]. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34 (1), 46-49. USLegalDefinitions.com (2008). Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http://definitions.uslegal.com Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. (2009). New York: Gramercy Books. 145

Wiersma, W. (1995). Research methods in education: An introduction (6 ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Willmsen, C. & O'Hagan, M. (2003a, December 14). Coaches who prey: Coaches continue working for schools and private teams after being caught for sexual misconduct. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/coaches/news/dayone.html Willmsen, C. & O'Hagan, M. (2003b, December 14). Coaches who prey: How parents can spot trouble before it's too late. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/coaches/news/parents.html Willmsen, C. & O'Hagan, M. (2003c, December 15). Coaches who prey: Misconduct often goes unpunished by districts. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/coaches/news/daytwo.html Willmsen, C. & O'Hagan, M. (2003d, December 15). Coaches who prey: What school districts can do. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/coaches/news/schools.html Willmsen, C. & O'Hagan, M. (2003e, December 16). Coaches who prey: Misconduct registry, more training needed for Washington coaches. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/coaches/news/state.html WILX.com. (2007, October 20). Tougher laws boot more teachers guilty of sexual misconduct. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/10692336.html. Wishnietsky, D. H. (1991). Reported and unreported teacher-student sexual harassment. Journal of Educational Research, 84(3), 164-169. Woodhull, A. V. (1996). Coping with difficult teachers. Rochester, VT: Schenkman Books Inc. Woods, J. (2002). Hostile hallways [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 59 (4), 20-23. Yaffe, E. (1995). Expensive, illegal, and wrong: Sexual harassment in our schools [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 1-15. Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2000). Student-on-student sexual harassment: What are school's responsibilities [Electronic version]? Preventing School Failure, 44 (3), 130132.

146

Zemel, J. E. & Twedt, S. (1999, October 31). Dirty secrets: Why sexually abusive teachers aren 't stopped. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://www.postgazette.com/regionstate/1999103newabuse.asp.

147