Of all the lessons that organizations should have learned from the Catholic Church priest abuse scandal, one of the most important is don’t try to handle issues of child molestation and predation “in house”. Another important lesson that should have been learned is that when issues of child molestation and predation are raised within your organization, it’s best not to minimize them or blame others for the way you handled the situation.
It appears these are lessons the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction did not learn.
In case you missed it, the Capital Times newspaper in Madison concluded more than a year’s worth of investigative reporting by Danielle Duclos detailing how DPI handles complaints of inappropriate conduct by teachers involving students, and how many of those cases are adjudicated. The report has set off a firestorm of controversy in the state capital, and is calling into question the leadership and oversight of Superintendent of Public Instruction Jill Underly.
I’m not going to try and offer all of the details contained in the Cap Times story, but suffice it to say that the majority of complaints dealing with teachers accused of sexual contact with students, or behavior that could be considered “grooming” of students for potential sexual assault, result in either no action taken by DPI or by allowing the teacher to voluntarily give up their teaching license in exchange for no in-depth investigation into their conduct. And when those teachers give up their licenses or resign their positions, no explanation is given to the residents of their school districts detailing the reason for their suddenly leaving the teaching profession.
If you listen regularly to our newscasts here on WHBY, or have caught previous My Two Cents on this topic, you may have noticed rising cases of criminal sexual activity involving those within the education system. Every week we are adding more cases involving not just teachers but also administrators, coaches, and even police resource officers working in schools. Cases are coming from public, charter, and private religious schools. The victims have been in elementary, middle, and high schools in large urban districts, districts in suburbs, and rural school districts as well. Those accused have been men and women, white and people of color, and there have been cases with heterosexual dynamics and those of same sex dynamics.
The Cap Times was able to review more than 200-investigations DPI started in connection with complaints about school employees’ actions between 2018 and 2023 (more on that time period in a moment)–none of which were ever released to the public before. They ranged from actual sexual assaults of students, to inappropriate contact outside of the classroom, to sexual relationships that started immediately after students graduated from high school.
I think there was an intentional choice made to examine investigations from the time period starting in 2018–as going back farther than that would have covered cases started during the term of current Governor Tony Evers when he was state superintendent, rather than just focusing on Jill Underly’s tenure (more on that in a moment).
While approximately 200-investigations dealing with inappropriate sexual conduct by teachers over six years may not sound like “a lot” of cases, we hear time and again for sexual assault and sexual harassment advocacy groups that actions like that are often under-reported. The Cap Times report quotes one estimate that as many as one out of ten students in Wisconsin schools have been subjected to inappropriate actions by a school official between kindergarten and 12th grade–which would equate to 93-thousand kids. The story does not relate any instances where DPI officials contacted local law enforcement to begin criminal proceedings against any complaint subjects.
As was also noted in the story, when a teacher was found to be in violation of professional standards involving contact with students, they may have been stripped of their license to teach–but that information was never made public. Nor were cases where instructors voluntarily gave up their licenses to avoid investigations–all of which leaves the public in the dark as to the nature and extent of misconduct in our schools. And without the great work of Danielle Duclos, we would still have no idea.
Which brings us to the DPI response to this report, which has been, in a word: embarrassing. Underly initially issued a written statement calling the story “misleading”, a very intentional choice of words. If the Cap Times story had been wrong, the statement would have included the PR firm approved term “inaccurate”, or “wildly inaccurate”. “Misleading” simply means “yeah, you are right–but the way you are presenting this information is different from the way I want the general public to construe it.”
Adding further insult, Underly failed to appear at a government oversight committee hearing on the Cap Times report last week, choosing instead to attend a ceremony at Indiana University that day to–ironically enough–accept a “Distinguished Alumni award”. Instead, her deputy had to handle grilling from legislators on both sides of the aisle demanding answers as to why allegations of teacher misconduct are shielded from the public. Underly instead posted a video statement blaming the Legislature for not giving DPI more money to handle investigations, even though she never requested additional funding to handle investigations.
And this is where we need to step back and consider the role the Department of Public Instruction has taken on in the last couple of decades. The reason we have an elected Superintendent is so the department is held accountable to voters and taxpayers. Yet, the DPI has become downright hostile toward the Legislature and (depending on which party holds the position) the governor. Its leadership is closely tied to the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers’ union, and the financial backing and organizational support that it provides to its preferred candidates for Superintendent.
Underly in particular has been openly defiant in setting more stringent standards for student learning, attempted to debase standardized test results, opposed changes in curriculum (especially in the area of literacy) until ordered to do so by Legislative action, and has characterized reduced increases to public education funding as cuts in education funding.
The biggest takeaway from the Legislative hearing was Underly’s deputy repeating several times that state statutes regarding teacher misconduct do not “define the act of grooming”. And this is where the next battleground between DPI and a public that wants to see kids be safe in their classrooms is going to be fought. Because what is considered to be “grooming” is now generally-accepted classroom and school behavior–and in some cases, is codified in school policy.
According to the website SafeKidsThrive.com, grooming behavior takes on three forms: The first is “physical grooming”
Physical grooming involves desensitization to touch. Starting with innocent pats on the back or arm, an acceptable form of touching a younger person, the offender progresses the touch to hugging, tickling, and wrestling. Over time, this conditions the child to increase levels of physical contact. The potential victim feels that nothing is wrong because he or she basically interprets the touch like one given from a loving parent. The offender uses these skills to make the child/youth increasingly receptive to their touch – eventually progressing to sexual contact.
It is not unusual to see a sign outside of an elementary classroom today that asks kids to choose a hug, a handshake, a high five or a wave as the way to be greeted by their teacher. Ostensibly, this is so the teacher can “gauge a child’s mood that day”, but why is a teacher asking to hug a child, or have any physical contact on a regular basis–and does anyone consider that this will lead a student not to question more inappropriate forms of contact later?
Another form of grooming is “psychological grooming”.
Psychological grooming is used with both the child and the family. Offenders spend time with their victims; they show children attention and use any possible method of communication that allows the child to feel they are on the offender’s level and that the offender understands them. Offenders try to become “friends” to their victims – friends with power and thus, control – and use their power and control over the victims as a way of eliciting cooperation. Special gifts, treats, breaking of rules, foods they might not be allowed to eat at home, trips, and attention allow for a deep connection to be forged between the molester and the child. At the same time, offenders groom the parents or other caretakers who may feel happy that another adult is showing their child attention, and allow increasing levels of independent access – both inside and outside of the home. The result of these tactics is for the offender to ultimately isolate and confuse the child into feeling responsible for, or complicit in the abuse (one of the primary reasons children do not report).
How many times do you hear kids talk about how their teacher “makes them feel special”? How they bring “treats” for the class? How they let kids just “hang out in their room” after class to “talk about whatever”? How they are “friends” on social media, provide their cell phone or personal email so that kids can “contact them whenever they are having a tough time”? In many of the criminal cases that are brought against educators, discussion of sexual topics doesn’t happen on school grounds, but rather through chat apps and other social media platforms.
And the final form of grooming is “community grooming”.
Community grooming is the way in which offenders create a controlled environment around themselves. Offenders are skilled in projecting an image to others that they are responsible and caring citizens. As a result, they are placed in positions of trust, are allowed unmonitored or unsupervised access to children and youth, and are thereby given greater access to their eventual victims. If a suspicion or allegation comes forward, it is easily explained away by adults in the organization who have been groomed by the offender to think that they would never harm a child. In this way, the community unwittingly enables the offender and confirms what the offender has told the child/youth as part of the grooming process – that if they tell, they will not be believed.
I hear from a lot of educators nowadays about how schools need to be a “safe space for kids”. I cringe every time I hear administrators say that teachers and other staff need to be seen as “trusted adults” to whom kids can come with their personal issues. “Don’t tell the parents” policies are in place for many districts in our area regarding issues like gender identity and sexual activities–where children are openly encouraged to keep secrets from their parents that can only be shared with the adults at school. And how often do we hear about how classrooms are “spaces for love”, or how “every child needs to feel loved” while they are at school. Doesn’t the focus on the word “love” just make your skin crawl–as it is so closely tied to acts of sex?
With “developing relationships with children” being such a focus in education now, getting any meaningful codification of “grooming” will be next to impossible to achieve without major opposition from those working in the system. And when the Department of Public Instruction is more than willing to provide cover for those that develop “too close” a relationship with kids, we are going to continue to see more of the cases that should make parents and taxpayers wonder just how “safe a space” the classroom is nowadays.
