CHILD PROTECTION AND THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL
Freda Briggs AO, Emeritus Professor of Child Development, University of South Australia, Magill Campus
(Please note that when the word teacher or educator is used in this paper, I’m also referring to child care workers. When I refer to children, I also include young persons. I will be concentrating on child sexual abuse although children and young people abused at home are often victims of physical abuse while all forms of abuse and neglect involve psychological abuse)
The most important professionals involved in child protection are those in teaching and child care. Not health professionals, not social work, not psychologists but those in child care and education. That may surprise you. It may even alarm you because your importance probably wasn’t emphasized in teacher education or child care courses, certainly not by child protection agencies, education authorities, politicians or even teachers’ professional associations. Educators are important because they are in the best of all positions to teach safety strategies to children to prevent and stop abuse; they are in the best position to identify signs of abuse given that most abuse victims attend school or early childhood centers, they are certainly in the best position to report abuse, to refer parents to services and provide appropriate support for victims.
Educators are important because they are the only professionals who have contact with abused children on five days of the week for most of the year. They are (or should have been) educated in child development. It’s also part of their professional role to observe children and respond to their special needs; to note changes in behaviour, concentration, confidence and anxiety levels, all of which may be affected when a child has been abused. Child victims usually give indications that trained educators and child care professionals can identify. If they don’t have an understanding of these signs however, educators can add to the psychological harm already inflicted on victims by their abusers, for example, by disbelieving or punishing a child who hints or discloses that abuse has occurred, by not asking the right questions when children trust someone sufficiently to give hints that something is wrong, by expressing shock and disgust and punishing victims who show an obsession with genitals, exhibit sexual behaviours, draw sexually explicit pictures and act sexually with dolls or other children in early childhood settings.
Instead of confirming that all secrets must be kept, we need to ask “Does your secret make you sad or happy? Who else knows this secret? What will happen if you tell?” If we find that a secret involves touching, we can ask the child to point to where the person touches them. We should also ask what’s involved in the teasing or the games they don’t want to play and ask what grandad does that causes distress and recording responses as soon as possible afterwards.
When they lack the vocabulary to reveal what’s happening, young victims may express their emotions through their drawings. Children who have to provide oral sex often draw a large oval mouth with exaggerated jagged teeth. The victim is usually portrayed with a sad expression while the abuser has a self -satisfied smile. Children who feel helpless may draw themselves as armless when they are capable of drawing arms and put limbs on other figures. Those who carry the burden of a terrible secret may draw themselves without a mouth or even without a face when faces feature in drawings of other people. When children feel helpless, their body image is negatively affected, often presented with less detail than their drawings of others. Some draw themselves inside the body of their abuser. Tears are often featured.
Abusers are often depicted with huge hands. Victims may use angry colours such as red, purple and black when a range of colours is available. Some create phallic symbols that give you an uncomfortable feeling or they draw an outsize penis, so large that it may be mistaken for a third arm. While most young children draw breasts and “belly-buttons”, sex abuse victims of all ages tend to be obsessed with genitals and they draw your attention to them. The drawings of sex abuse victims often give uncomfortable feelings. I saw one such painting outside the principal’s office at a New Plymouth Primary School and commented on it. The next day I had an appointment to interview a girl for my research and was told that I couldn’t because she’d disclosed abuse by her dad and was being interviewed by police. It was the same girl who had painted the picture.
Uninformed educators are likely to reprimand and silence victims when they should be saying, “That’s an interesting picture. Who is the person you’ve drawn?” “What’s s/he doing?” And “Where does this happen?”Yes, I know university art lecturers tell student teachers not to question children about their creativity. They are doing children a disservice. Drawings can be a useful tool when teachers suspect that abuse may be involved. I’ve been called to independent schools where the behaviour of 5-year-olds was so sexual that principals feared their enrolments would be affected. In two schools the instigators were girls who were teaching boys “how to do it”. The boys took up the challenge enthusiastically in the book corner, on the carpet and behind the bicycle shed. I sat down with the boys individually and asked them to draw me a picture of the nicest, the scariest and the rudest person they knew. The boys all drew the same girl in their class as the rudest. The girls drew their adult abusers as the scariest and rudest. Girls, who have learned to be sexual to please males, may behave sexually towards male teachers and boys in school. When caught, staff usually assume that the boys were the initiators when that isn’t always the case.
What I’ve also found is that children who can’t talk about their abuse will draw pictures about it AND they will talk as they draw. However, I should emphasize that not all abused children create relevant pictures and the lack of drawings cannot be interpreted as evidence that a child was not abused. In 2003, I was consultant to the Australian Federal Minister of Education for his Safe School Framework that is being implemented nationally (Internet). This involved meeting early childhood administrators from all states and education sectors. They confirmed that one of the most unpleasant problems facing early childhood staff today is the young child who seeks or offers oral sex or penetrates another child with fingers or objects. Some victims re-enact their own abuse with dolls or other children, masturbate continually or simulate sexual intercourse. This is sickening to see. What the adults should be asking is, “Who showed you how to play that game? Where do you play? Who plays with you?” Yes I know that teachers are told to report suspicions and not ask investigate but overloaded child protection services are less likely to investigate mere suspicions than confirmation that a child has been abused. Furthermore children who give hints are more likely to trust you than social workers or police officers who are strangers. By asking open-ended basic questions and not putting words into children’s mouths, you are likely to gain more information that will strengthen your report. For example, tell the child that you’re concerned about her; that you know that she’s sad and ask whether the person upsetting her is at home or at school. Ask whether it’s a secret – a nice secret or a bad one. Why is it bad? Who else knows the secret? “When children behave sexually, untrained staff often conclude that they are undergoing early sexual development, or alternatively that they see parents have sex or they view porn at home. Viewing porn constitutes reportable child abuse because children are exposed to damaging role models. Porn tells boys that this is how males behave with women or children while girls learn that they’re destined to become sex objects. You need to bear in mind that porn is widely used by paedophiles to develop children’s sexual curiosity, desensitize them to and normalize deviant sex prior to being abused. Some parents justify family viewing with, “Its OK because he’s too young to understand” not realizing that children are learning constantly from what they see and hear and exposure to porn is damaging. And if children’s acting out is related to viewing porn, this is confirmation that the child has been seriously emotionally disturbed by the experience and, I repeat, it should be reported.
When young children behave sexually with others, teachers should be asking, “Who showed you how to play that game? Is that a grown up or a big boy? Where do you play? Who plays with you?”
You are most likely to be able to help a child if you behave as if you hear disclosures of abuse every day and don’t show shock and disgust. Children stay silent when they sense that trusted adults are going to respond emotionally.
When boys become sex offenders at school, their offences are often dismissed lightly with the phrase, “Boys will be boys” , even when force has been used. At schools in both the North and South Islands I learned of 11-12 year old boys who had abused virtually every student in the class. School principals handled the complaints badly, reprimanding, punishing but not reporting the offenders to child protection services. When the abuse continued, the offenders were expelled and I doubt whether their new schools were warned of their behaviour. Quite clearly, assessment and treatment were needed but, lacking the necessary education, the principals didn’t know what they were dealing with. Sex offending often starts in childhood or adolescence. Most are victims of abuse or they live in sexually violent environments. The earlier these young people are referred for treatment, the better the outcome. Without intervention, the behaviour problem continues and can become life-long. Initially young victims may re-enact their own abuse as a relief of tension – akin to a child playing doctors and nurses after having surgery in hospital. When they enjoy the sense of power that comes from abusing others, they are at great risk of becoming habitual offenders.
Quite clearly, all teachers need to know the difference between normal sexual curiosity and indications that child victims are acting out their experiences. Normal sexual curiosity is short lasting, spasmodic and participants are easily distracted. The scope is limited – on the lines of “You show me yours and I’ll show you mine”. The ages when interest is highest are from 4-6 and again at 8. Experimentation is usually with close friends and there is usually no difference in age, size or the developmental level of participants. Coercion is not involved and there’s equal power. Behaviour is more visual than tactile. Motivation is exploratory – they want to know how others are constructed. They giggle a lot and behave in a silly fashion. After discovery, the sexually curious are embarrassed and afraid of being punished.
I wish to emphasise that it’s NOT normal curiosity when there is penetration. Its not normal curiosity when perpetrators use sex talk, porn language such as “golden showers” or ask victims if they are enjoying it. Normal curiosity does not include asking others to kiss their genitals or offer oral sex. It doesn’t include the use of violence, threats, bribes, blackmail, tricks or secrecy. Young sex offenders choose vulnerable, younger or smaller victims and children who are less well informed or have disabilities and they may bully others into committing offences while they watch. Unlike normal curiosity this behaviour involves the abuse of power.
Young sex offenders usually deny their involvement and become angry or withdraw when caught. Their interest in sexual matters is obsessive, focusing on sex and aggression. They draw your attention to genitals in drawings. The juvenile sex offender is angry, vindictive, threatening, punishing or lonely, sad and anxious. Sadness and social isolation often pair with aggressive sex. There is a relationship between sexual victimization and arson (such as burning down schools), drug abuse and anti social behaviour.
An Auckland University study of 482 - 11-19 yr old sex offenders by Dr Ian Lambie showed that 84% were abuse victims, 40% sexual abuse. Most lived in dysfunctional families with histories of sexual violence, drug abuse, absent or non-functioning fathers and a lack of social boundaries. 66% had separated parents. More than a third had committed vaginal rape, more than a quarter had committed sodomy, 42.5% committed oral rape and 87% sex assault. 57% of offenders used violence. Lambie found, as we found, that sexual abuse by youths is just as violent and as damaging as abuse by adults but people tend to view it less seriously. The 482 NZ boys were known to have abused 1416 victims . Drug and alcohol abuse was a factor in 22% of cases and criminal histories in 33%.
Victoria police recently confirmed that more and more young sex offenders are being reported. In the recent crackdown, 12% of those arrested for downloading child porn were adolescent boys. This isn’t a victimless crime. European (COPINE) research shows that 73% of males who download child porn either committed offences against children immediately before or immediately after viewing images of children being sexually abused and the average number of victims was 30 per offender. Yes childhood is disappearing rapidly. An 11 year old English boy has fathered a child – while the youngest mother in Switzerland is aged 9. In Queensland, boys aged 8, 11 and 13 have been arrested for pack raping a girl. The 8 year old couldn’t be charged because of his age.
Treatment programs for adolescent offenders are available in New Plymouth, Christchurch, Auckland and Lower Hutt, some with outreach programs to extend coverage. Parents are usually resistant to treatment, arguing that their kids were normal and merely curious, dismissing highly damaging sibling rape – as harmless. Mothers in particular defend their sons, often at the expense of victims. If they continue to deny that there’s a problem, the matter can be placed before a Family Court judge who can make an order for treatment. If the decision of the Family Group Conference is that the youth attends the program, a breach of that order can be dealt with by reconvening the group conference or returning to the Family Court. I’m told that New Plymouth’s SAFER CHANGE program is the only one with a pre-adolescent component but there is a push for provision nationally. Of course, cases have to be reported for action to occur and that means distinguishing abuse from curiosity.
It’s especially important that teachers and school principals know how paedophiles groom children, parents and school staff. Child sex offenders are proficient manipulators, liars and cowards. They are attracted to employment in schools and early childhood centers –in paid and voluntary positions. They are usually perceived as “great with children” dedicated, enthusiastic and popular with boys in particular. School principals and staff love them because they volunteer for extra playground duty and out-of-school activities such as sports coaching, camps, drama or choir rehearsals or assisting children with disabilities – anything that provides access to children. Child sex offenders deliberately befriend and gain the trust of parents, teachers and school principals so that danger signals are ignored and children’s hints and legitimate complaints are dismissed. When they gain everyone’s trust, school principals are at risk of relaxing supervision, making it easy for paedophiles to commit offences. Some, despite being single, own mini-buses used to take boys to sports. One such person was a magistrate now serving a 25 year sentence. No-one was suspicious that he joined a boys’ life saving club but couldn’t swim. He allegedly wrote to parents on court letterhead assuring them that their sons would be taken and brought home safely. They were abused in the vehicle. You will note that I refer only to male offenders because although offences by women are coming to light, my research has been confined to males.
When a paedophile teacher is reported, uneducated New Zealand and Australian principals and the one I worked for in the UK accuse victims of lying. They even demonise the parents who make the reports. All too frequently, they support the offending staff member and expect other staff to do the same to protect the good name of the school. They are fooled by the grooming process and the adult’s denial. Child sex abuse is not a one-off crime akin to a traffic offence; it’s an obsessive behavioural problem that involves adults viewing children as sex objects, abusing power and gaining pleasure from manipulation and degradation. American and British research shows that the average offender commits 580 crimes by the age of 37.
Typically, at a time when victims and their families most need support, they are vilified and ostracized by the school community – in a Taranaki case, the family was forced to leave the area despite the fact that the teacher had been abusing boys for years. In a case last year, the victim suicided but the school welcomed the teacher back when he left jail. When offences are committed in church schools, the families are often told that they, not the paedophile priests or teachers, have brought the church into disrepute. They should have remained silent. Some school principals provide wonderful character references at trials not realizing that the behaviour they describe is typical of paedophiles. Had they been educated in the modus operandii of child sex offenders, they would not have been duped. Our national TV network showed a good example recently: boys were sexually abused by their teacher who was thought to be gay. He was accidentally killed by two of his victims. One boy suicided and the other was arrested and jailed 7 years later. The teacher’s former colleagues were interviewed on TV. They demonised the victims despite police confirming that the teacher was a serial paedophile. Staff only lamented the loss of the man they described as the best teacher the school had ever had. They clearly had no concept of the lifelong damage that victims can suffer as a result of abuse.
In Western Australia, parents went on TV saying they would welcome back their children’s jailed teacher because he was so good with the kids. Of course he was good with kids: paedophiles seduce by being charming. A lawyer defending an Adelaide Catholic school teacher said he was idolized by boys. They wanted to go camping with him. Of course they did because, being a typical paedophile, he provided treats banned at home: alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and pornography. And once they participated in illegal activities, they were trapped and couldn’t tell their parents what happened.
Abuse is often made possible by sloppy school management. And if you think this doesn’t happen in New Zealand, think again. I was in a South island church school at lunch-time when the local priest came in and asked a group of 8 year olds standing in the corridor if they’d like to go to McDonald's. The priest popped his head around the staff room door and told the principal that he was taking six boys for burgers. Despite international publicity given to the abuse of children by Catholic clergy and monks, the staff thought this was cute. I was appalled: no parental permission sought – no other adult present. No record of which boys went with him and what would happen if there was an accident? I tentatively expressed concern and was quickly silenced. When risks are exposed, the messenger is shot and the message ignored.
Negligent management has cost schools and churches vast sums of money for victim compensation. One of Queensland’s most prestigious schools was ordered to pay $800 000 to just one victim. In 2 others, the abuser was a school counsellor who, over many years, persuaded hundreds of boys that what he was doing was the latest form of relaxation therapy.
How could this happen?
Its easy for a counselor to abuse secondary students if he is able to remove them from classes for hours at a time ..and that’s easy when teachers change classes at 50 minute intervals and don’t compare notes...easy when teachers ignore the deterioration in students’ academic performance or behaviour despite prolonged “counselling”; …easy when nobody monitors counsellor’s activities and the counsellor’s door can be locked … easy when students’ emotionally disturbed behaviours are punished without sensitive investigation and easy when staff ignore rumours about the counsellor and mind their own business.
This school counsellor gained authority over victims by using a medical expert model, wearing a white jacket, using a stethoscope, taking pulse rates and covering his walls with certificates… despite having only a BEd. Victims said they daren’t challenge him because he exuded expertise. Second, he told parents and boys that what happened in counselling was confidential and must not be questioned. When a boy asked the counsellor why he didn’t use talk, he allegedly replied that his relaxation technique was new and worked faster than traditional counselling. What interested me was that, although victims didn’t identify the behaviour as abuse, the effects were often devastating; angry behaviour led to school failure and drop-out led to unemployment and withdrawal from family. Confusion about their sexuality led to bisexual experimentation with devastating results, alcohol then drug abuse to dull the pain, suicide attempts and psychiatric treatment. Offences only came to light when a former student in his 20’s asked his new therapist why he used old fashioned talk and not the method used at school.
I made enquiries about what steps are taken to balance the child’s right to privacy with the child’s right to safety in counseling in Australia and NZ. In some of your schools, windows are placed where passing staff can see the counsellor without seeing the student. In some schools the secretary sits outside the counselling room to monitor “comings and goings”. In Australia, education authorities hadn’t even thought about it.
Some of the most prestigious schools have been caught napping. They lacked child protection policies and child protection curricula for students. Without a program such as KOS, students didn’t realize that what they were experiencing was reportable criminal behaviour. It was especially easy for vulnerable children to be targeted in boarding schools; students who were home-sick, orphaned, had divorcing and overseas parents, dying mothers and learning problems. And when victims were suspended for exhibiting angry behaviours, one school made it possible for the counsellor to ‘counsel’ them at his home where they were further abused.
Offenders are daring. They convince victims that they are the principal’s best friend and demonstrate their power by bullying children who resist sexual advances, sending them to the principal to be punished for trivial or fabricated offences. When sex offenders are perceived as popular, inadequately educated principals and staff may ignore obvious risks; for example, unmarried male teachers baby-sitting or taking students home.
So how are your teachers prepared for this most important role in child protection?
Deans of Education have given me 3 reasons for the lack of emphasis on child protection information in teacher education courses. The first is that their students are not ready for it…and they are talking about students aged 21 to 50. The second, excuse is that if student teachers are given information they may make mistakes and report people falsely. Surely they are more likely to ignore signs of abuse and make mistakes if they are not well informed. Research shows that uninformed teachers lack the confidence to make reports for fear of making a mistake. ..thus allowing abuse to continue.
Another excuse is that child abuse is a welfare responsibility and nothing to do with teachers. And how is welfare supposed to provide early intervention if the profession that spends the most time with victims doesn’t make reports? This shows how these administrators are remote from the needs of their students. My experience has been that student teachers want information. A substantial number are abuse survivors who want to protect kids. Some completed assignments on child abuse in high school and many have encountered victims on teaching practice and while employed in before-and after-school care and child care programs. Only recently I was interviewed very competently by an 11 -year old boy who saw me on TV and, for his school project, decided to research child abuse. He did this so well that when, a few weeks later, I provided a state seminar for Catholic Education the school invited him to introduce me. He demonstrated that an 11year old could understand the issues, because only he could have written that introduction. And yet our 21 year old students are dismissed as too immature to cope.
How do we know what to report if we don’t know the difference between normal curiosity and the signs that a child has been abused and is re-enacting that abuse? How can we support abused children if we don’t understand the effects of abuse? How can we provide the best protection in schools if we don’t know the grooming strategies used by sex offenders? Early reporting and early intervention are the keys to prevention and teacher training is vital. Unlike Australia, NZ has no statutory requirement to educate teachers and teachers are not required to report abuse – you can seemingly choose to ignore it and collude with the abuser by letting it continue. This is appalling. What about the teacher’s duty of care?
I understand that teacher training course content is determined by each provider – and you have 30 different providers. Who tells them what is needed? I’m told that, at best, students might get a couple of lectures to cover this complex and important subject and that’s not good enough.
Some of our Teachers’ Unions have proclaimed to the media that teachers shouldn’t be required to report abuse because that’s the role of “welfare”…teachers are only there to teach lessons. This was said after a victim of step-father rape successfully sued her Victorian primary school principal and deputy for $400 000 after they failed to report signs of abuse. The judge argued that the child suffered a further year of rape because of their negligence. The union denied teachers’ responsibility again when the State of Victoria included them in mandatory reporting legislation. And it was repeated again on radio in Western Australia last year after I commented on the lack of reporting legislation in that state. Obviously these union reps were not early childhood educators or they would have recognized that education is about the development of the whole child, not just teaching lessons. Furthermore, nothing has been taught until its been learned and children worrying about abuse are unlikely to be interested in math’s or the voyages of Captain Cook.
University administrators often dismiss child protection education as the responsibility of employers. Victoria’s State Government disagrees. It doesn’t have the means to train thousands of teachers or pay for the employment of temporary staff to replace them while they train. However, the South Australian Government – after trying to negotiate with our federally funded universities – obviously unsuccessfully - is training all personnel working in schools including volunteers, cleaners and gardeners. And our mandatory reporting legislation – in existence since 1977- includes everyone who is involved in schools and early childhood settings, health, care and education. Those who suspect abuse must report it to the Child Abuse report-line – not to the principal or a string of bureaucrats, or they risk a hefty fine.
I realize that it’s a controversial issue but in my view, teachers should never be given a choice as to whether they will report abuse or let it continue. I’ve had countless arguments with successive NZ CEOs and Ministers over the last 25 years. What they say repeatedly is that mandatory reporting legislation will increase the number of reports of abuse and you don’t have enough resources to deal with them. I translate that into: “We know there are many more abused kids out there but we don’t want to know who they are because we aren’t prepared to allocate the necessary funds to protect them”. This is short -sighted given that today’s victims are the ones most likely to become tomorrow’s abusers, psychiatric patients, drug addicts and criminals.
Young and disabled children are the ones most vulnerable to all forms of abuse because they are uninformed, easily manipulated and powerless, being dependent on adults for their care and safety. They are vulnerable because, unless there are adult witnesses, there is little risk of offenders being prosecuted and punished. In SA it’s reported that fewer than 2% of reported child sex offenders are prosecuted and convicted: 5% in NSW. In other words, 98% of reported offenders are getting away with their crimes. NZ stats are not available.
Last year most Australian states introduced reforms requiring lawyers to use developmentally appropriate questioning. Judges already had the power to stop inappropriate behavior but seldom used it and I question how lawyers and the judiciary will know what is developmentally appropriate for a young or disabled child if their expertise is limited to law. By now, I hope I’ve convinced you that abuse prevention is better than cure because, all too often, there is no cure.
So what can be done to prevent and stop abuse?
Given that schools have long taught children to stay safe from risks in traffic, water, fire, heat, sharp objects and electricity, they are obviously the best equipped to teach children to stay safe with people.
I first became interested in school programs when as a child protection specialist in London, attached to the Metropolitan Police, (i.e. the real “Bill”) a 7 year old American girl reported sexual abuse by a neighbour. She was visiting her grandma when the neighbour invited her to join his own two sons and other children on a picnic. Grandma said, “How kind of Mr Clarke to invite you” and “Be a good girl and do what Mr Clarke says”. Fortunately she didn’t. When she returned home she reported that Mr Clarke had sexually abused all the children, including his own. Others confirmed the girl’s statement and disclosed that abuse had occurred on previous outings. Clarke was convicted of offences against 38 local children and his sons. What interested me was why the American child “blew the whistle” while 37 others said nothing. The answer was simply that an American teacher told her class that no-one is allowed to “play around with” or tickle children’s genitals or ask children to play around with theirs – if someone tried, they had to put out both arms defensively and shout “Stop that or I’ll tell” .. and she did.
That case made me realize that there is no “safety in numbers”. It’s as easy to manipulate a group of children as it is to seduce one. When new arrivals are reluctant to join in, the offender humiliates them: “What’s wrong with you? It’s fun. Look, your mates have joined in. You’re weird”. Children hate being different and reluctantly comply. Later, I worked in a school where an entire class of boys was sexually abused by a male teacher employed to teach remedial reading in a temporary classroom at some distance from the main building. I’ve also encountered children abused in groups at camps, sports training and youth groups…parents mistakenly believing that groups provide safety.
Years later, I collected child protection programs from education departments throughout the US and Canada. In 1984, I mentioned this to Victoria Police who were being urged to replace ‘stranger danger’ with something more realistic following the revelation that 94% of reports involved known and trusted people. A Melbourne committee examined my collection and chose a Wisconsin program called Protective Behaviours. Its author claimed that it was effective for preventing sexual abuse without mentioning sex when, in reality, it had never been evaluated with children. Education authorities adopted it but it was seldom used because teachers lacked confidence to teach it without developmentally appropriate resources.
Furthermore, for effectiveness it relied on children recognizing sexual touching as feeling unsafe, implying that touching that’s enjoyable is OK. It ignored the attractive grooming process, sexual curiosity, adult power and the fact that children obtain concepts of safe and unsafe from the adults in charge and paedophiles are adept at making them feel loved and safe. Furthermore, 78.5% of sexually abused boys in our national survey (N=198) told us that when abuse was introduced they thought it was normal behaviour and 43% enjoyed the initial fondling and receipt of oral sex. New Zealand boys have since confirmed this. These 200 boys were sexually abused 1800 Australian offenders only one of whom was reported to police.
Here in NZ we found in 1996, 2000 and 2004 that boys don’t report sexual misbehaviour because they don’t recognise it as reportable or they’re embarrassed and afraid that they’ll be blamed or disbelieved or bashed by the perpetrator or, worse, labeled as ‘poofter’ and taunted by their peers. When boys’ bodies respond to genital touching, they are easily convinced by predators that they are gay, want sexual contact and are to blame for their own abuse. Without counseling, they may suffer long lasting sexual confusion and guilt.
Paradoxically, the sexual abuse of boys is presented as a manly thing – its fun, it’s exciting – it’s what real guys do or it’s presented as sex education that their supposedly uncaring parents failed to provide. It’s also presented as tenderness and “what people do when they love each other”. Offenders flatter potential victims, ply them with expensive treats, boost their egos and make them feel very special. Victims are often prepared to tolerate painful abuse to retain the emotional benefits of the relationship.
New Zealand Police quite rightly rejected Protective Behaviours and wrote their own national, comprehensive school curriculum. “Keeping Ourselves Safe” catering for all ages to Year 13. This is arguably the best independently evaluated program in the world - undervalued in your own country but emulated by NSW and, now, SA. Why all New Zealand parents don’t demand its use in schools is beyond my comprehension.
International research and our own evaluations of KOS showed conclusively that explict, comprehensive programs are effective in providing safety knowledge and strategies that children will use; without programs, all kids are extremely vulnerable. Information has to be explicit because they don’t understand hints and they don’t know what to do when someone behaves sexually. Most children know that rude behaviour is naughty but naughty means you’re to blame, its your fault, you’ll get into trouble and be punished twice over if reporting involves rude talk and breaking an adult’s secret. Children will tolerate abuse rather than risk parental displeasure.
In the US, David Finkelhor surveyed 2000 children and found that school programs don’t necessarily prevent abuse from happening but they help children to report it quickly and feel positive about their involvement. The most effective programs were the most comprehensive and explicit.
NZ intermediate school students and their parents provided evidence that the strategies taught in school were used by students, not just for their own safety but to help others to stay safe too. Importantly, the safest children were those whose parents were involved in the program from the junior stage, reinforcing strategies at home. Parents said their children were more confident when they knew the limits of behaviour and parent-child relationships were more open and honest as a result. Importantly, when schools didn’t involve parents, family members unwittingly undermined the school’s efforts.
Because of the frequency with which children are used for oral sex we have to teach them that mouths are special private places and no-one is allowed to put anything yucky or stinky in them. This is necessary because children equate bad touches with hands, not mouths.
School programs are essential because parents have such a poor history of protecting children. Most don’t know what to say or do. Myths are prevalent; the myth that children concoct abuse, that boys aren’t abused or alternatively, that victims will forget about it “if we don’t talk about it”. An Australian survey of more than 900 parents showed that child protection came 16th on their list of concerns long after the price of petrol. Furthermore, despite all the media coverage, one third said they wouldn’t believe their child who reported sexual abuse. Although we’ve known for 20 years that strangers are not the greatest danger, parents continue to limit safety messages to “Don’t talk to strangers” and “Don’t get in a stranger’s car”. Its not only a waste of time, its dangerous because under 9’s don’t understand the complex concept of stranger. Despite the fact that I’d just come in on an international flight, children throughout NZ told me that I wasn’t a stranger because I’m a woman, looked kind- like their grandmas, knew their names or had been talking to them for a minute. They told me that strangers are always men who wear black balaclavas, have evil eyes, leer and drive old black cars. Children have nightmares about them. Class after class of little Kiwis assured me that they’d never seen a stranger in their lives but would know one instantly if they saw one. Piaget noted that children judge people by appearances and cant assess adults’ motives. If we seem kind, look kind and don’t fit their stranger description, we are judged to be kind and trustworthy. Thus, we found we would lose whole classes of children to strangers who offered help. This was confirmed in a TV program shown on Holmes. Children up to the age of 12, who had been taught to avoid strangers, cooperated immediately with strangers who sought their help. One climbed into the back of a van, others accompanied an actor to the supermarket car park and two went with him to find a non existent lost dog. That is why school programs don’t talk about dangerous people; they concentrate on potentially dangerous situations using problem solving methods: “What if…” and “Just suppose…” questions covering a wide range of situations, such as what to do to stay safe if lost in a big shop, or if someone asks you to help find a lost puppy. Children need to know what constitutes an emergency and how to get help. There are many ideas in my book, “Teaching children to protect themselves” (Allen & Unwin, Sydney).
So how serious is the child sex abuse problem?
The Commissioner of Police for NSW describes it as an epidemic, confirmed by the UN. Internet child pornography is blamed for the increase. It is a $3 billion business with over 100 000 known websites, more than can be monitored by police. Some paedophile clubs require new members to submit 10 000 new images to attain membership. The largest Australian collection to date consisted of 350 000 images on the hard drive of a newly married IT technician in Perth. Cork University research showed a 300% increase in new child victim-images within a 2-year period. Child porn is widely used by paedophiles to stimulate victims’ curiosity, desensitize them and normalize deviant sex. At a South Island special school, 81% of girls of 11-13 had been raped by more than one person – all of them shown porn prior to the offences.
Paedophiles infiltrate children’s chat rooms pretending to be same-age friends. This has serious implications for the safety of children using computers in and outside school. Auckland University research found that 75% of girls using chat rooms had distressing sexual experiences and more than half met correspondents without their parents’ knowledge. Most revealed personal information and some sent their photographs.
When things went wrong, they were unable to tell their parents because of the fear that their freedom would be curtailed.When children are abused by drug addict mothers – or their boyfriends, victims may be removed from home while offenders remain unpunished, confirming the widely used threat: “If you tell, welfare will take you away”. Victims are angry, sensing that they’ve been punished for reporting. Initially they may live with grandma who lacks experience of handling angry behaviours and may lack the professional and monetary support given to foster carers. Her ability to cope is often short-lived. The children then move to foster care. Because of the child’s right to privacy, neither foster carers nor teachers are informed of children’s histories and behaviour problems. You may have an arsonist or a juvenile sex offender in your class without being aware of it. You are expected to cater for children’s special needs without knowing what they are. As children are moved from foster home to foster home and school to school, they suffer from attachment problems and their sense of insecurity and anger increase. Commonsense tells us that, to achieve the best possible outcome, teachers and carers should be involved in the team that creates and implements case plans.
In 2004 we researched with NZ secondary school students identified as three or more years behind their peers in all aspects of the curriculum; 44% of both boys and girls had been sexually abused but only 2% of the boys had made reports. All but two of the NZ boys referred to “wanking” older boys in school toilets. They could talk freely about this because “wanking” is a term used in their everyday vocabulary, whereas victimisation is the antithesis of masculinity. We suspected that rape was concealed because, in our Australian study, 57% of male victims told us they had to provide oral sex and 52% were anally raped.
Although the NZ schools in our research had very strict rules about sexual misbehaviour and those who broke the rules were expelled, this did not give victims the confidence to make reports. Furthermore, despite explicit sex education, boys with learning disabilities were unsure of their rights and some thought it was acceptable to rape girls in general or their girl-friends in particular. Another concern that we noted in 1996 and 2004 was that some 12 yr olds with learning disabilities were in sex-only relationships with adults aged 30 +, referred to as boyfriends or girl-friends. This was known by their case-workers suggesting that different standards exist for children with disabilities.
In secondary schools (2004) we found that abuse victims bought other children’s ADD medication, smoked dope, stole asthma puffers, sniffed felt-tipped markers and white-out and took a range of illegal pills. Some resorted to crime or sold drugs to pay for ecstasy, fantasy, amphetamines and marijuana. Angry adolescent sex abuse victims are the ones most likely to resort to crimes marked by a lack of conscience – bashing old people, lighting bush fires, burning schools and of course, sexually abusing younger children. If we could stop child abuse now, governments would be able to sell prisons and psychiatric units for housing blocks in 20 years’ time.
SO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
First, child abuse and child protection information, including how to teach KOS must be included in teacher education at both undergraduate and in-service levels. It isn’t.
Education is clearly the key to a safer environment. Educators need strategies for professional, responsible action. They need to know what to look for, how to interpret it and how to support victims. They need to be aware of the strategies that offenders use to access and seduce children and develop their trust. They need clear guidelines for reporting the inappropriate behaviours of colleagues. Knowledge enables staff to react professionally rather than emotionally when a report involves someone they know. Staff must also know when to report children who abuse others. Child protection services usually have the power to enforce treatment when parents refuse to cooperate.
Second, KOS should be in every school in the country. Obviously more attention needs to be given to the protection of boys. Because of their lack of maturity compared with girls, some single sex sessions may be necessary. Your secondary boys are much less knowledgeable than most people imagine. “Dirty old men” and “poofters” are perceived as one and the same. They told us repeatedly that child protection programs are irrelevant to males because only girls get raped “unless you’re a poof and then you deserve it”. Boys have to appear macho, brave and strong. The protection of boys has to be taken seriously because male victims are the ones most likely to become the next generation of offenders.
In 2002, the University of Wisconsin claimed to have identified a genetic link to explain why one male victim becomes an abuser while his twin who has the same experiences remains in victim mode or puts the abuse behind him and moves on. They found a genetic answer to why more male victims than females become offenders. Findings were published in the journal, Science, in August 2002.
Police checks should deter most convicted offenders from seeking employment with children. We cant afford to be complacent however given that so few reported offenders are convicted.
It’s important that schools develop prevention policies and ensure that these are read and implemented by all teaching staff and visitors. A policy should aim to protect children from the risk of abuse and ensure that staff respond in supportive ways when abuse is suspected. It should help to protect staff from the risk of false allegations by establishing and practicing clear boundaries and maintaining high professional standards. Child sex offenders are less likely to seek employment where there is a whole school approach to teaching and practicing personal safety skills with parent involvement.
It’s also important that principals support teachers who wish to report suspicions or evidence of abuse. Our research with 711 professionals published by the Institute of Criminology (February 2004 Trends & Issues 273) showed that, despite mandatory reporting legislation, teachers who make reports are often subjected to harassment and derision by principals and colleagues.
The fact is that we can no longer afford sloppy school management. As our SA Inquiry into the Sex Abuse of State Wards now shows, past negligence can return to haunt you years later, long after you’ve retired. Unless school managers respond to risks, students and staff may face what is undoubtedly a school’s worst and costliest nightmare. Unless all school managers realize that all children need your Keeping Ourselves Safe program, child sex abuse will continue and damage millions of lives.
Download a copy of this article
Download Adobe Acrobat Reader
Back to the Top
10 Ways to Keep Children Safer
from Sexual Abuse
10 Positive Non-violent Ways to
Bring Discipline into Your Home
5 Ways to Talk to Your Children
About Sex to Protect Them from
Sexual Abuse
Fostering Confidence and a Sense
of Self-worth in Children
From Misunderstanding to
Misbehaviour
How to Recognise the Signs of
Sexual Abuse and Trauma
The Smacking Debate
Professor Freda Briggs Keynote
Speech - Wellington 2006
What to do if Your Child Goes
Missing - A Practical Guide
______________________
To purchase your copy online here, please click on the
button below.
Copyright Global Nurture 2007
Web site Design Unusual Attitudes
