As I pointed out, the findings of the Fox article are based on a "Fox News Digital Analysis,"
And what of the 19-year-old report? What would you like to draw my attention to? Did you read through the entire thing? Do you expect me to? I have to wonder why Fox News is referencing a 19-year-old report. Couldn't they find something more current? Or perhaps that old one best fits their narrative. Sorry, but I can't trust them and you shouldn't either.
Looks like I was right in being skeptical. Here's an article discussing said 1994 Report:
"A report claiming that close to 10 percent of children in public schools—more than 4.5 million—endure sexual abuse or misconduct by school employees has recently touched off a media-fueled panic.
However, “Educator Sexual Misconduct,” by Carol Shakeshaft of Hofstra University, is seriously flawed, both in its methodology and in the way researchers defined sexual abuse and misconduct.
Rather than critically evaluating the report, the media have instead been trumpeting its frightening figures of abuse. Parents deserve better; they deserve the facts.
In the report, Shakeshaft defines “sexual abuse” in an extremely broad manner to include “physical, verbal, or visual” behavior by an educator ranging from sexual intercourse to telling inappropriate jokes. One study cited in the report included sexual comments, gestures or looks in its definition of sexual abuse and asked students if other students had committed such acts toward themselves or each other.
In his preface to the report, Deputy Secretary of Education Eugene Hickock observes that the terms “sexual abuse” and “sexual misconduct” are used interchangeably, which he calls “potentially confusing.” Some data-analysts use loose definitions in order to include differing yet relevant studies within their analysis. This does not appear to be Shakeshaft’s intent.
Although the subtitle of Shakeshaft’s report is “a synthesis of existing literature,” the report is not a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis consists of combining the data provided by multiple sources, all the while being meticulously careful to acknowledge and to adjust for differences in how those sources have collected or defined the data.
For example, they may have studied vastly divergent populations.
Shakeshaft states that, because so few empirical studies in this area exist, meta-analysis is not merited. Instead, she offers a review of “existing literature” which purportedly excludes “discussions ... not based on data.” Which literature does she review?
The use of sources in the report is no less confusing than its definitions. There are nearly 900 citations to news reports from Australia, Britain, Canada and all corners of the U.S., which date from 1989 to 2003. Some citations have little bearing on the report’s focus, e.g., accounts of abuse by priests. Presumably the citations are meant to indicate the prevalence of the claimed sexual abuse. If so, the attempt fails. Several hundred stories stretched over 15 years and three continents do not point to 4.5 million American children being abused today. ..."
A report claiming that close to 10 percent of children in public schools--more than 4.5 million--endure sexual abuse or misconduct by school employees has recently touched off a media-fueled panic. However, 'Educator Sexual Misconduct,' by Carol Shakeshaft of Hofstra University, is seriously...
www.independent.org
