Aloha ECEMEN listserv!

I am exploring strategies for tackling a major reason men give for not entering or staying in the field of early childhood (EC) education: That is the very real possibility of being accused of sexually molesting children.

Challenging the pervasive stereotype that all men pose a threat to young children without accurate child sexual abuse incidence data specific to EC programs is not easy. The little bit of rooting around I have done suggests that national or countrywide statistics on child sexual abuse specific to EC programs are practically nonexistent, let alone finding anything gender specific.

We do know that most child sexual abuse occurs in families, not in educational settings. I have read that nationally only 1.5% of any type of child abuse occurs in institutional settings, which includes not only EC programs, but also health care and recreational institutions.

It is not clear what sub-percentage of that 1.5% of cases is committed by male EC professionals, but logically we know that men are considerably fewer in number in EC programs. Child sexual abuse by men appears slightly more likely in family home care settings where unlicensed extended family members have access to children and in non-licensed "babysitter-type" care involving adolescent males, but again my sources for statistics are secondhand and piecemeal at best.

Accurate statistics would demonstrate that the chances of a child being exposed to a pedophile in a properly licensed EC program as statistically microscopic. Publicizing the statistical improbability of child sexual abuse occurring in licensed and regulated EC programs could help reduce the incidence of unfounded accusations.

In concert with unearthing accurate statistics, there needs to be sweeping recognition of the strategic benefits that male EC professionals in particular can derive from "healthy touch" campaigns. Large scale campaigns promoting the value of healthy touch can serve as a deterrent to child sexual abuse.

In her "Incorporating Touch in EC Settings: A Practitioner's guidebook," http://cshs.csp.edu/gensec/Capstone/Papers/carlsoncapstone.pdf Frances M. Carlson makes the case that programs with written policies, clear boundaries, and proper training face far less accusations of abuse than programs with little or no guidance on touch.

Fewer accusations implies considerably less scrutiny on a day-to-day basis, making the EC profession a more attractive and safer career choice for men. What does healthy touch look like? Ms. Carlson says start early:

With Infants
-Before touching, tell them what to expect and give the reasons
-Respond to their bodily cues
-Verbally acknowledge their feelings

With Toddlers
-Teach developmentally and individually appropriate body ownership
-Increase children's self-help and hygiene responsibilities
-Incorporate touch to non-vulnerable areas (Keeping in mind perceptions may vary across cultures): Back of head, shoulders, back, arms, hands
-Diminish touching of vulnerable body areas: chest, legs, hair, genitals

With Preschoolers
-Continue teaching and modeling body ownership e.g. Model respect by asking child's permission before touching
-Include lots of healthy touch in activities and curriculum (e.g. in greetings, music, movement, art, games, naps, hugs, pets, etc.).

Want to increase the good news? Promote the concept of healthy touch to families! In the March 2003 Work & Family Newsbrief www.workfamily.com, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Go Badgers!) researchers found that in EC programs that incorporate direct parent involvement as part of a larger quality early childhood program, there is a 52% lower rate of child maltreatment by age 17.

If anyone knows of or has sources for national or countrywide child sexual abuse statistics specific to EC programs, please share them!

I would also appreciate your opinions and any feedback, whether positive or negative, on any of my ideas.

What do you folks think?

Donald E. Piburn, M.S.Ed
macdon@aloha.net

Thank you Don, Aloha, indeed!

One of our crew suggests that getting all interested parties involved with the center in establishing a diapering policy. Such efforts could include guidelines such as you suggest below in proposing less scrutiny.

Thanks for including links to Carlson's article. I am also interested in exploring such strategies. And will participate in such dialogues as I am able.

Just a note of encouragement toward this thread before I bed.

Peace happens; we create it,

Jay Conrad Price
imouse@catlover.com

"I am exploring strategies for tackling a major reason men give for not entering or staying in the field of early childhood (EC) education: That is the very real possibility of being accused of sexually molesting children."

Yes, and my ONLY reason for considering leaving the field.

"Challenging the pervasive stereotype that all men pose a threat to young children without accurate child sexual abuse incidence data specific to EC programs is not easy."

Because itÕs not newsworthyÑat least not to the general population, and certainly not to the media.

"The little bit of rooting around I have done suggests that national or countrywide statistics on child sexual abuse specific to EC programs are practically nonexistent, let alone finding anything gender specific."

Are you asking about accusations or prosecutions? The prosecutions may be practically nonexistent, but the accusations are running rampant. All it takes are accusations to fuel the witch hunt. I believe we all know this. And after a while, parents begin to assume that where thereÕs smoke, thereÕs fire.

I recently received my second false claim in 3 years for improper conduct with a 3 year-old girl. This one went as far as Child Protection Services, who after a brief investigation determined that nothing happened.

Incidentally, this child was never removed from my care or from the school. She has, however, been removed now at my request.

I have taken the following two measures, and although drastic, I donÕt know what else to do at this point:

1) Despite already having surveillance cameras in place, I have requested the installation of a new one at my expense to ensure the daily recording of every sound and movement I make.

2) Despite my belief in gender equity and against all sense of fairness in this world, I am now profiling my parents. ALL of the accusations that I have received over the past 17 years have been initiated by a bitter divorcee.

I knew from the look on this womanÕs face (my recent false claimant), not to mention her mannerisms, that she harbored ill feelings toward men. Now whether she regrets having made the claims afterwards, IÕll never know; she goes out of her way to avoid me.

The sad thing is, that in every case, I never receive an apology from anyone but my director.

Still, at any rate, I will be largely admitting children into my classroom by way of intuition from this day forward; either that or give up altogether.

My director has agreed.

Anonymous

A further thought here to Don and all, especially in response to Anonymous's response to Don.

I encourage conceptualizing and articulating this issue or set of issues in gender-inclusive ways. Men are typically (stereotypically) seen as predators, but all of us in early childhood education are potential targets for claims of abuse and I want all of us on board in pro-active advocacy to protect both children's authentic needs, the social respect and the legal rights of those of us who work with children.

I think you are right to structure safeguards that make sense for you. I think the indicators you mention and also your intuition can be part of am objective formulation that professionals can use to require positive regard and professional standards with clients. Also procedural policies.

For instance as a director, I ALWAYS made it a point to initiate a conversation about any possible touchy points with prospective parents before they ever enrolled. This would include our policy of meeting kids needs for both autonomy and human touch. I also requested that they share their thinking with me about such matters, or any areas that had ever been a parent concern in the past.

I considered this as assertive, pro-active screening for people or issues that would not be a good fit in our program. It was my aim to surface bitterness, hostility, or punishing notions about children (or adults) that potential clients were not willing to deal with honestly. I have never wanted to be a punching bag. It diminishes my ability to provide compassion and loving kindness. Without those qualities I can not do my professional job to my own satisfaction.

In short, let's step forward -- thoughtfully and professionally Ð with both feet, not hold back.

Barry Albert Bussewitz
barryb@svn.net

Great Stuff Don!

I've written some about this topic and as you know included it with the Myths About Men Teachers (Bruce Cunningham was a great resource for that work) www.ccie.com.

I've been collecting data for Minnesota and here are some of the latest findings:

For 2003:
There were 16,299 Alleged male and female offenders (viz. neglect, abuse, etc.)
145 were women child care providers
14 were men child care providers

There were 7,693 Determined Offenders
51 were women child care providers
5 were men child care providers

So, if we estimate that approximately 4% of providers are men then men may indeed be more alleged and determined offenders (10%) of children among child care providers.

BUT, compared to the overall abuse population, men (and women child care providers) are .1% and .7%, a very small percentage, as you are theorizing

Don. I have to caution though, data doesn't always win when it comes public thinking. We know that drinking kills people, smoking kills people, yet people drink and drive and people smoke. It will take data AND public campaign.

I think we'll need to promote the fact that men are nurturing as you mention.

By the way, great paper by Carson. Thanks.

How did you find it?

Regards,

Bryan G. Nelson
bgnelson@menteach.org

Aloha, Don!

Thank you so much for this posting. I saw your similar post n the NAEYC board and haven't responded yet (busy busy busy!).

I did download Ms. Carlson's guidebook on touch. Thanks for the excerpts!

I think this work offers a tremendous gift to both young children and to men who wish to work with them professionally, as you say in your second paragraph below. I think a healthy touch campaign is needed and wanted for the young children of America and I have been acting in that direction in my own classrooms of Early Childhood students.

I'd love to see NAEYC promote this. And it would be helpful for the adults, women and men, who work with children as well.

Barry Albert Bussewitz
barryb@svn.net

Thanks for your generous feedback!

Though it isn't practical for me to respond to the entire dialog being generated on this topic, I hope other ECEMEN please will! Let's keep up the exchange of ideas on this topic for awhile.

If anyone thinks or knows of other good places to look for those statistics, let me know.

Anonymous, your response really cuts to the chase. I appreciate your sharing how you are managing the scrutiny and the unfounded accusation that you have faced, and I would appreciate hearing more strategies from you and others.

Your "accusation or prosecutions" question is well taken, but I doubt statistics exist on either one. I would be satisfied with conviction data, if only for use as a tool to draw attention to the fact that there is no statistical justification for the degree of societal paranoia that surrounds us.

I am promoting the use of "healthy touch" campaigns as one way to get the scrutiny levels down. Cameras are good as far as I am concerned, although not always fiscally practical for smaller programs.

Your director sounds genuinely supportive. Perhaps she or he could use "written policies, clear boundaries, and evidence of proper staff training" in helping prospective enrollee families to understand the importance that your early childhood program places on this issue for empowering of children and for the protection of all staff.

In reference to Barry's "gender inclusive" comments: Not that I am promoting behaving divisively, but I have noted before that it is useful for a lesser number of us to push people's comfort zones just a bit. I think that in addition to promoting the strategic benefits that "healthy touch" campaigns offer to men, that one way to get the rest of the EC professionals to share ownership in the "unfounded accusations" issue might be to point out that this horrifying legacy is being passed on to them in the form of "no touch" policies.

Toward that end, I posted the following on the NAEYC general discussion board: 8/6/2004 The director of a Salvation Army franchised early childhood (EC) program informs me that their insurance carrier notified them that "hugging" children or putting them on their laps is no longer allowed.

Theirs' is not a strict "no-touch" policy, but they have implemented very strict limitations regarding physical contact between all EC professionals and young children that excludes full-arm hugs, placing children in the proximity of the genitals (aka. your lap), or much else besides placing a caring hand strategically across back and shoulders.

Does anyone else think this is totally insane besides me?

Young children absolutely require nurturing physical contact to foster attachments and ensure their healthy emotional development. How on earth did we allow insurance company business people and lawyers into the position of deciding what is best for society's young children?

No sane person would seriously entertain the idea that a properly licensed EC educator poses any more than the most statistically microscopic threat to the children in her or his care. It is appropriate to rationally and reasonable minimize any danger, and to that end an initial FBI background check and yearly criminal background checks are required for all licensed EC workers. Such "careful how you touch" policies are driven by nothing more than modern society's taste for sensationalism and unscrupulous media and attorneys quick to capitalize on our greatest fears.

Male EC educators expend tremendous amount of energy coping with stereotypes that portray us as potential abusers, but now female EC professionals have been swept up in the insanity. I am hoping for anyone's and everyone's opinions, but I am also trying to locate powerful studies, professional position-statements, and research-based ammunition to assist in combating the imposition of such idiocy.

I had several positive responses from my colleagues. I did some digging and found the on-line resource "Incorporating Touch in Early Childhood Settings: A Practitioner's Guidebook" citation and the NAEYC Prevention of Child Abuse Position Statement item #6 which states "Programs should not institute "no-touch" policies to reduce the risk of abuse."

In "Incorporating Touch", Ms. Carlson also notes: "For those skeptics who are incredulous that such policies could exist in settings where children should be nurtured and supported, be aware that on an episode of the Oprah Winfrey show, the president of the National Education Association said, "Our slogan is, teach, don't touch."

In a follow up personal position statement on no touch prohibitions, I posted: 8/30/2004 No-touch prohibitions are imposed on all male EC educators from the moment we enter the culture of child care, but what our female EC education colleagues must realize is that this horrifying legacy is now being passed on them.

What men know, and what women can expect, is regular institutional reminders throughout their professional preparations, in-service trainings, and consultations with superiors emphasizing the scrutiny they will be held to. There are unofficial mentoring, narratives, and off-hand reminders from parents and colleagues promoting the adoption of no-touch practices purportedly in "your own best interests."

The spread of no-touch policies forces all EC educators to grapple with the proposition once reserved principally for male professionals, that it would take only a serious misunderstanding to cause your careers, reputations, lives, and the lives of your dearest loved ones to be permanently desecrated.

You need only recall recent exchanges between the media and Michael Jackson to confirm society's misguided appetite for so-called "reality" playing to our greatest fears for children.

Under the influence of no-touch, each and every time a child naturally seeks physical comfort, all EC educators will have to actively and consciously strive to avoid the "appearance of evil." That ever-present cloud of suspicion tarnishes the most basic human act of nurturing a child. The children feel it, but know it only as rejection. The only practical way I know for EC educators to be shielded from this spreading malady is to promote the "normalization" of developmentally, culturally, and professionally appropriate physical touch in all EC programs and to promote the concept to the families we serve.

What might ultimately be necessary is to afford our leadership a small lesson in the power of large numbers in political processes by collectively demanding that they promote and disseminate professional safeguards on behalf of all early childhood educators.

Although the NAEYC Prevention of Child Abuse Position Statement item #6 is a great start, perhaps a position statement specific to the larger topic of healthy touch is in order. The distribution of an influential book on the critical importance of healthy touch in all EC education settings, perhaps as a NAEYC comprehensive membership benefit might help, but prominent discussion of the impact of no-touch policies must be moved up to the professional front-burner where it belongs.

Although the first post got some positive feedback, the follow-up position just sat there until once again, the silence has become deafening. Too radical I suppose, but I continue to believe in the value of a few radical pro-male voices.

As with Barry, I know all of you are very busy people. Then again, I subscribe to the old adage that says if you want something done, asks a busy person to do it!

All of your ideas continue to inspire me and are really and truly valuable.

Please share more of your ideas on this!

Mahalo,

Donald E. Piburn, M.S.Ed
macdon@aloha.net

Hi there,

I have been reading with interest the postings on appropriate touch and the issues involved for you guys in the US.

I run a Males in early childhood network group in my local area and we are meeting next Monday night. I'll be bringing a copy of your e mails about this issue to the group for discussion. I'll put up a post after the meeting to outline how the discussion goes.

In previous discussions, issues of child protection and waiting for the inevitable accusation is the main reason why men get out, or don't get into early childhood in the first place.

The money and conditions here aren't too bad I think ( e.g. a teacher in a centre starts at about $45 000 and it goes up 9 increments) The men here are saying that the money is not worth it.

I'll keep in touch (ha ha).

Regards,

Craig d'Arcy
Craig.DArcy@newcastle.edu.au

Men changing diapers! Get the rope!!

Man, I love this subject. I bet we all have run the gambit of experiences with poopy pants in our day, I'm not proud, its just a fact.

However, I certainly have seen a variety of attitudes from both within and across cultural boundaries concerning men in diaper changing.

In a Migrant program, the parents asked that I only change boy's diapers. I feel guilty, but I didn't mind. Changing diapers is not at the top of my favorite tasks, its just part of the job.

As far as scrutiny goes, I could care less if someone feels the need to watch me, after all they are also looking out for you in a way. I don't believe the shadow of scrutiny many of us men perceive as we work with young children will ever completely go away. I fight back by embracing scrutiny in everything I do at the center.

After the third time my specialist made a surprise visit to my center, I encouraged her to bring her camcorder and make a training film for the rest of the agency. I hate to say this guys, but I am a bit mystified by the number of men in ECE who voice surprise and frustration at the way some in our society views us. What are we striving for?

Yours as Always,

Chuck Allen
chucka@syix.com

In my last early childhood special education teaching position at a small country preschool, we had a policy that males were not to be alone in the bathroom with a child (embrace the scrutiny).

Despite all of the staff's best efforts to stick to the policy, once in a very great while unavoidable circumstances did force a compromise. It was just not possible for a female to be unconditionally available to be with me on demand of every child's bodily functions.

Many of the children's Individualized Education Plans, which bore my signature as the acknowledgement of my obligation, required longer than typical toileting times, comprehensive supervision, and frequently hands-on physical assistance throughout the toileting process.

As conscientiously as we all tried to avoid it, there were very rare situations were someone might come upon me, alone in the bathroom, bent over with my hands on an unsteady child with his or her pants down. I had to trust that my reputation, professional qualifications, and the strength of my character would cause people to reach an appropriate conclusion.

When someone is jockeying to get a better view of what I am up to with that child, I can't say that I feel like she or he is really looking out for me. The human mind plays nasty tricks and it is a very small step from looking for unseemly behavior and believing that's what you saw.

Is it any wonder that otherwise courageous men might pass over our profession in favor of something infinitely less perilous? Those of us who stay develop coping strategies, yours being to embrace the scrutiny. I applaud that, but far too many of us are still forced to abide the course of an unfounded accusation at some point in our careers.

The field of ECE cannot profess to value diversity, equal employment opportunity, and working for a just world until it proactively acknowledges our concerns and implements universal safeguards on behalf of all ECE professionals. We should all be striving so the next generation of early childhood (EC) education professionals has the luxury of viewing such scenarios as relics of less-enlightened bygone times.

Donald E. Piburn, M.S.Ed
macdon@aloha.net

Guys and friends of guys,

In these times, I think there are steps we can take to increase real and perceived safety of children. Some of those are literally structural, as in removing doors from bathrooms and when possible remodeling and designing new buildings to make "point of view" observation of all easier.

In our older buildings we installed windows in the toddlersÕ bathroom wall and in a new facility included such elements as well as used plexiglass half gates in place of doors. This not only makes adults and children in there easy to observe but makes those spaces visually part of the totality of children's environments.

I remember when I became the Toddler teacher in an old house immediately removed all interior doors. Visually open spaces make for a more open children's world. I also want to add my agreement with the importance of being transparent with parents about your policy and practice about touch.

Dennis Reynold
dreynold@uoregon.edu

While I understand the limitations of "embrace the scrutiny" as a philosophy and/or survival tactic, I'm not sure I really want less scrutiny.

And I am QUITE sure I don't want to be perceived by... well, pretty much anyone, as wanting to reduce scrutiny. That sounds like the sure way to attract far more scrutiny, it not simply vigilante action.

Neil Fullagar
k6ncx@hotmail.com