POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR STAFF INTERACTIONS WITH STUDENTS

A critical first step in the commitment to the elimination of adult sexual misconduct (ASM) in schools is the development of clear, written policies and procedures (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2014). This ensures that all school personnel and volunteers

• receive consistent messages;
• understand the conduct that constitutes ASM; and
• are aware of their duty to prevent, report, and respond to ASM (see mandatory reporting discussion below) (Shoop, 2004).

To reinforce the seriousness of ASM and the school district’s zero-tolerance policy, Shoop (2004) recommends that policies and procedures be promoted widely by posting them on the district’s website and disseminating them to parents. In addition, policies should be shared with all school personnel every school year during orientation and with new school personnel and volunteers as they come on board. It is also important to communicate that the responsibility for protecting students from ASM is shared by the school board, the superintendent, all school personnel, volunteers, parents, state agencies, and law enforcement. And, protections for the victim and the concerned reporter, as well as precautions for the adult if the investigation results in no misconduct, are important. The burden to report should not be on the child.

Clear school policies spell out both appropriate and inappropriate behaviors—as well as the contexts in which they occur. Many schools find it helpful to include specific examples. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Saul and Audage, 2007) recommends the development of precise definitions, policies, and procedures in the following areas:

• Verbal, written, and physical misconduct—in person and in cyber settings, as well as before, during, and after school—including acceptable and unacceptable behaviors
• Education about ASM prevention strategies for students, teachers, administrators, staff (e.g., custodians), coaches, school bus drivers, and volunteers, as well as parents and guardians
• Guidance for identifying and reporting behaviors that might indicate ASM, including:
  • an established child abuse reporting policy to the district and the authorized investigating agency, as defined by state and Federal laws;
  • the establishment of channels for reporting suspected ASM;
  • clear information about reporting to local law enforcement;
  • the school or district’s system for ensuring an impartial investigation when abuse is suspected;
  • mechanisms for reporting concerns to the state education officials that certify and license educators;
  • the legal consequences for a violation;
  • the fact that both illegal and inappropriate conduct will not be tolerated, and can lead to termination of employment; and
  • disclosure of formal reprimands or dismissals for violating policies on sexual misconduct to other schools seeking references.

Shoop (2004) recommends including a written prohibition against false student complaints in school policies, noting that children and youths must understand the damage caused by a false complaint and the punishment for those who make false accusations. Similarly, it is a good idea for schools and school districts to develop a similar prohibition against false complaints made by school personnel against their colleagues.

Policies can also be developed to help shape the school’s physical and cyber environments and decrease the risk of ASM. Examples of precautions taken by other schools include requirements to monitor locked classrooms, storage rooms, and offices (particularly before and after school); conducting after-school tutoring in public and/or supervised locations; and posting cyber security policies that protect students and staff. Some schools have policies for classroom doors with glass windows that are not to be covered (Shakeshaft, 2013). And, some have policies for communications and interactions via computer and smart phones.

Policies for “Gray Areas”

Procedures also can be developed that ensure close supervision of adult-student interactions, especially when interactions with students are highly personal. In some cases, behaviors that are considered ASM are obvious and illegal, but in many cases, actions are legal and subject to interpretation. Since school personnel may have difficulty determining the kinds of behavior that are unacceptable, that is, the “gray areas,” they should be clearly spelled out in school district policies and presented in school and district training related to ASM. Examples of situations for which school districts may want to consider for policy development include the following:

• Traveling with students/transportation issues. The boundaries for coaches or chaperones when traveling for sports or other competitions should be considered. For example, is it ever appropriate for a teacher to enter a student’s hotel room? (Seattle Public Schools with funding from the U.S. Department of Education, 2013). Is it appropriate for an educator to give a student a ride home from school?
• After-school guidelines. When is it appropriate for a teacher to pay particular attention to a student by offering to help with after-hours study sessions? (Seattle Public Schools with funding from the U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
• Attention that may cross boundaries. Examples include frequent compliments directed toward a particular student, overly personal cards, notes, emails, or teasing that references gender or contains sexual innuendo (Seattle Public Schools with funding from the U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
• Social media boundaries. What types of interactions are appropriate between school personnel and students on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter; or when texting or emailing images? (Maxwell, 2007). Chapter 4 closely examines the complex issue of online interactions.
• Acceptable and unacceptable interactions between students over 18 and young teachers that are recent college graduates. Administrators may wish to prohibit the following issues in school policies: dating, spending time together outside of school, and sexting, which can be a precursor to sextortion. Some ASM incidents may involve an adult who believes they have fallen in love with a student (Seattle Public Schools with funding from the U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
• Circumstances that require teachers to have close physical contact with students. For example, if assisting a special education student with using the restroom falls within a teacher’s regular job duties, a documented policy and a tailored job description could prevent the investigation of a teacher based on a misunderstanding (Seattle Public Schools with funding from the U.S. Department of Education, 2013).

The following scenario, which takes place when a teacher is found alone in a bathroom stall with a student, was used in the REMS TA Center's Adult Sexual Misconduct in Schools: Prevention and Management training on the topic, which was available prior to this updated guidance. The scenario illustrates the importance of clear policies in matters of close interpersonal contact with students (originally developed by Seattle Public Schools with funding from the U.S. Department of Education, 2013). Even when a mandatory reporter is unsure whether inappropriate conduct is occurring, it is always a good idea to conduct an investigation if a child's well-being is in question. Use the following scenario prompt discussion among emergency management planning and/or ASM prevention and management teams at your school or school district. Imagine this scenario unfolding and then discuss with your team how they would have responded if they were Ms. Smith and/or Mr. Fiori.

If you were Ms. Smith or Mr. Fiori, how would you have handled this situation?

All school policies should recognize the importance of healthy communication and interaction in learning and instruction, while establishing reasonable boundaries for educator-student relationships. Employees can protect themselves from misunderstandings and false accusations by familiarizing themselves with and consistently adhering to documented policies.

The GAO (2014) strongly recommends that school officials work with their state district attorney to ensure that their policies and procedures are in alignment with all applicable laws pertaining to ASM in the school setting—including those governing the age of consent and requirements for mandatory reporting.

The Virginia Board of Education policy (2011, p. 2), used here with permission, delineates specific guidelines for communication and interaction and is presented here as an example of one state’s approach.

Codes of Conduct

The GAO report (2014) found that professional standards or codes of conduct are tools used by 42 states in their efforts to prevent the perpetration of ASM by school personnel. According to the experts interviewed by GAO, statements that identify acceptable and unacceptable behaviors for school personnel—such as being behind closed doors alone with a student—can help staff, students, and parents determine when violations have occurred. These policies can help identify questionable behaviors that should be reported and make the consequences for their violations clear (e.g., such as termination of employment).

Of these 42 states, 15 address grooming behavior in their codes of conduct, and 22 reported that their codes of conduct help define boundaries between school personnel and students by citing examples of appropriate and inappropriate behavior, including those for engaging in the use of technology (GAO, 2014).

School district and school codes of conduct would be well-served to explicitly prohibit romantic and sexual relationships between students and teachers, regardless of a student’s age. Both teachers and students need a clear understanding of what constitutes ASM and the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable interaction between teachers and students (Shoop, 2000).