Report: U.S. public schools' sex abuse worse than Catholic Church

Javafour

Javafour

New member
Worse Than The Church Abuse Scandals?
by Jason Salamone on Saturday, July 2, 2011

According to a major study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, the most in-depth investigation to date, nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students have been targeted with unwanted sexual attention by school employees in an adult/minor context.

Titled, "Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature," the report says the mistreatment of students ranges from sexual comments to rape. In fact, says the studies author, Carol Shakeshaft, professor of educational administration at Hofstra University, in Hempstead, New York, the scope of the school sex problem appears to far exceed the clergy abuse scandal that has rocked the Roman Catholic Church.

Comparing the incidence of sexual misconduct in schools with the Catholic Church scandal, Shakeshift notes that a study by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops concluded that 10,667 young people were sexually mistreated by priests between 1950 and 2002.

In contrast, the extrapolates from a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000.

The figures suggest "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests," said Shakshaft, according to Education Week.

Indeed, more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarden and 12th grade, says the report.

Sources:

- Carol Shakeshaft, "Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature," June 2004, http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf

- Laurie Goodstein, "Scandals in the Church: The Overview; Abuse Scandals has been Ended, Top Bishop Says," New York Times, Feb 28, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/us/sca...?pagewanted=all

- Caroline Hendrie, "Sexual Abuse By Educators Is Scrutinized, "Education Week, March 10, 2004, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/03/10/26abuse.h23.html

And something has especially gone seriously wrong with our society when we now have an epidemic of female teachers sexually abusing their (minor) students...


http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39783


http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=168525
 
Seems about right. About once a month I read about some rainbow warrior getting caught with his pants down my way. And the union continues to hire them!
 
Hmmm, makes you wonder if there's a connection with the mandated curriculum teaching queerdom from kindergarten on. And yep, the unions continue to not only hire the pedophiles, they will go to court to keep them from being fired.

Of course this has nothing to do with the quality of education in the government school system, and certainly nothing at all to do with the government school teaching profession, I mean how could it.

Really folks, isn't it past time to kill the government/union monopoly school system dead?
 
Originally Posted By: ozzySeems about right. About once a month I read about some rainbow warrior getting caught with his pants down my way. And the union continues to hire them!


Sorry, just stupid.
 
You're right jeffo, unions don't hire them, they accept them as members and then fight to keep them in their jobs.

That's a mighty fine group of folks you associate yourself with there.
 
This point actually dovetails into AZ's post about 'gay marriage' being discussed as mandatory in CA schools, but all the discussion back here about the teachers' union (NEA) it is worth mentioning that the NEA has been 100% behind "gay marriage" for several years now: http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2009/08/04/nea_goes_all-out_for_same-sex_marriage

This is one of the things teachers' mandatory union dues help support. As usual with so many of the NEA's positions on issues from nuclear freeze to gun control, this matter has nothing to do with teacher pay or benefits, nor does it have to do with better educating children.

In fact, 'gay marriage' is harmful to children.

The socio-scientific data collected over the past 50 years are conclusive: Children do best when raised by their married biological (or adopted) parents. Each sex brings a different palate of valuable elements into the child's life that make the child more likely to become a happy, productive and responsible adult. And this is also just old fashioned common sense, a kid's mom gives them certain necessary things growing up and so does their dad. It is also beneficial to the child to see the man and woman interacting in the daily family life, because this models these behaviors for them for their later life.

Since the 1960's the number of kids raised without their dads in the home--due to de-stigmatized divorce or illegitimacy--has skyrocketed. In the US black culture, ~75% of all kids are born out of wedlock and the associated dysfunction and burden borne by these children is mind boggling. The influence of the male parent, one vested in the child to which he is connected by blood, is of incalculable value. There is not as much data on motherlessness, simply because it is not nearly as common, but the advantages of having a mom, especially during a kid's young years, seem just blatantly obvious to any thinking person.

Re-marriage to a step parent is sometimes, but not typically, any help. Data show children of step-families don't do much better than illegitimate kids. Lacking the genetic tie to the kids, step parents--especially male step-parents-- are far more likely to harm the step-children. This is so widespread that sociologists have dubbed it, the "Cinderella Effect." (I wish popular culture did a better job of making women aware of this reality, instead it has been romanticizing and encouraging it with unrealistic fantasies like ‘The Brady Bunch’ for ~40 years now).

The primary reason that the state recognizes marriage is that it is THE procreative relationship that best facilitates the rearing of healthy kids. No, we do not require married people to procreate, but most first marriages do, by an overwhelming margin. Duh.

Marriage as a child rearing institution has a huge impact on the country's future. When marriage declines there are huge costs. How many billions since LBJ's 'great society' destroyed the black family has that cost in all the various welfare programs, incarceration of fatherless boys, remedial education, etc., etc.?

Children of divorce or who are illegitimate are more likely to drop out of school, to become addicts, criminals, to commit suicide and a host of other social ills. How much has that cost since the 1960s liberals, particularly feminists, gave us destigmatized illegitimacy and no-fault divorce? Social service industries have been built around all this dysfunction and perpetual suffering.

So after ~40 years of liberal tinkering with marriage, we have a huge increased social suffering and dollar cost, the suffering and burden placed mostly on innocent children.

Homosexuals are currently allowed to adopt children in most, if not all, states and it is everywhere legal for two lesbians to have one inseminated to become pregnant. These innocent children are being intentionally placed into environments where at BEST they are going to be denied a different sex parent. Add to the at the overt, often highly graphic sexuality that accompanies the male homosexual lifestyle and how many boys raised by male gays are then exposed to pederasts and of the often venomous, anti-male attitudes of so many lesbians, it can hardly be argued that such homes come close to offering the advantages of the traditional nuclear family.

The NEA, in its PROMOTION of gay marriage is actually working and expending resources that will result in the INCREASED SUFFERING OF CHILDREN. When we recognize a homosexual couple's pairing as a 'marriage,' we then deny the unique procreative relationship that is a man and a woman and with that the unique advantages to kids that it bestows. This union, which tries to wrap itself in a public facade of being an advocate of children, is NOT. Quite the opposite, it uses children as a means to its end and that end is: more pay for its members for doing as little work as possible AND promotion of a cacophony of items on the liberal wish list--many of which, like 'gay marriage'--actually HARM kids.

In fact, anyone who DOES value kids, faith, traditional American values and the free enterprise system should work to end the unionization of government school employees. If America really cared about its children then every state would be Right to Work.
 
We had Two Teachers arrested for having sexual relations with Special Ed students.
Their Attorneys have the gall to say they have a disease that makes them pry on kids.
I say their screwed up in the head and need to be shot.
BTW they where both female teachers!
 
Back
Top