How can states curb schools' hiring of suspected sex offenders?

Recent legislation could stop the practice of allowing potential sexual abusers to hop from school to school, but laws regarding sexual misconduct in schools are few and far between, overall.

Steven Senne/AP/File
St. George's School in Middletown, R.I., where former students at the school recently alleged they were molested or raped there, mostly in the 1970s and '80s.

New federal legislation regarding the hiring of suspected child abusers by schools could help to curb sexual misconduct by school staff, a problem that has been addressed at the national scale only recently.

Across the United States education system, in both private and public schools, finding information on which teachers can be entrusted with children can be anything but straightforward. In many cases, past sexual misconduct or physical abuse by teachers may be covered up or shunted away; schools utilizing the practice known as “passing the trash” force teachers suspected of a transgression out of their system. But it’s common that those teachers don’t face any long-lasting consequences, and can end up employed at new schools without a solid background check to discover any possible misdeeds.

“This practice of passing the trash has created a large pool of mobile molesters that exist in our classrooms right now,” Terri Miller, president of the board of directors with the child advocacy group Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation (SESAME), told The Christian Science Monitor in an interview.

According to the Associated Press, only three states currently have laws that ban “passing the trash” – Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Oregon. And while the AP reports that other states are currently considering similar legislation to crack down on teachers suspected of abuse, the majority of the US still has no concrete rules in place regarding how schools should handle situations involving aberrant employees.

A new measure passed through Congress and signed by President Barack Obama, the Every Student Succeeds Act, provides that schools receiving federal funding cannot help their employees find a new job if they are suspected of sexual misconduct. That portion of the bill was the first such national legislation to protect children from pedophiles in the classroom, and would not affect schools that do not receive federal funds.

A woman who was abused at the age of 16 while attending the Marlborough School in Los Angeles says harsher rules than the ones in place are long overdue, as her abuser Joseph Koetters was able to freely move on to another school after Marlborough. Mr. Koetters was sentenced to one year in prison last October for sexually molesting the woman and another girl at Marlborough, but without stronger legislation it’s possible teachers like Koetters would never face justice.

“It's clear that not just in Marlborough but in all these cases nationwide, the schools lack the will or the moral compass to take these measures on their own,” the unidentified woman told the AP.

The problem is widespread, and hard to address, due to school systems’ lack of transparency on the subject. A recent USA Today Network investigation graded states based on teacher misconduct and school hiring practices. Only seven states received an “A” grade, and 12 failed. Twenty-three states were awarded a “C” or “D.”

A new law in D-rated Connecticut would go further than the current federal legislation on the issue. The proposal states that schools would have to contact the past employers of teachers applying for a job to find out if the candidate was ever investigated or disciplined for sexual misconduct.

Opposition to the Connecticut measure comes from groups such as the teachers’ labor union AFT Connecticut, which says the bill overreaches despite its worthy goal. The union’s president, Jan Hochadel, told the AP that there “[A]ppears to be an assumption that school employees are guilty, rather than innocent before proven guilty.”

Ms. Hochadel could not be reached for comment by the Monitor Monday.

“I’m absolutely behind it,” Ms. Miller said of the proposal. “The mandating of transparent communication from administrator to administrator, that's how we stop these predators from getting in the classroom in the first place.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.