Well now you do:
Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests
Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School?
but I don't believe it's relevent(sic) to the behavior of men of God.
What's relevant is the fact that the media, the public and many freepers - including yourself - choose to be ignorant of the epidemic of the sexual abuse of minors by employees in public education. Many even find it to be a lauging matter when the perp is a woman they find even mildly attractive. Behind every double standard lies an unconfessed single standard.
I read your first link. It refers to sexual abuse in the church and in schools over the last year or so. The comparison with the numbers in the Church’s report is not valid. I don’t think anybody doubts that there is much less sexual abuse in the Church in recent years and that when reported it is taken much more seriously than in the past.
That is, of course, at least partially due to the fact that the Church was starting from such a low level. It’s not difficult to be much better when you used to be really bad.
The Church’s own study reported 4.3% of priests accused of sexual abuse. Some of these were no doubt innocent, but then we can also assume some who were guilty were not accused.
100,000 priests and >6M teachers mean you would expect 60x as many teachers misbehaving with students. While I’m among the least happy people imaginable with the public school system, I don’t think there are anywhere near 1/4 million teachers misbehaving sexually with their underage students.
Or we could just go to the FR thread posted that same day: Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests. Quoting that article:
....according to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a little-remembered 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests"....The 156-page report titled Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature, is roughly sixty pages of report, and 100 pages of Appendix/bibliography. The actual report does it's best to survey all of the available literature and studies on the subject, and more importantly it attempts to synthesize those various statistics into a homogeneous set of numbers.....According to the 2004 study “the most accurate data available at this time” indicates that “nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career”....
....In 2004, shortly after the Shakeshaft study was released, Catholic League President William Donohue, who was unavailable for an interview for this story, asked, “Where is the media in all this?”
“Isn’t it news that the number of public school students who have been abused by a school employee is more than 100 times greater than the number of minors who have been abused by priests?” he asked.
Having read the entire study, something is amiss with Shakeshaft's purported statement that "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests". First, the study does not place a number or ratio on the number of abuser-teachers. Second, the study does not focus on physical sexual abuse, but includes "sexually-related conversations, jokes, or questions directed at students" (page 1). Third, the Shakeshaft quote appears nowhere in the 156-page report itself. Fourth, the word "Catholic" is never used in the report except in the Appendix/bibliography sections, and most importantly the report never makes comparisons or comclusions using any Catholic Church numbers. If Charol Shakeshaft did indeed make the statement, she did so contrary to her own report.
For anyone who wishes to jump to the report's money quotes, IMO there are five. The first two are found in the report's opening:
....the author’s findings are in part broader than the congressional mandate and therefore could be perceived by some as insufficiently focused....The third money quote comes in the following statement on the statistics themselves:....It is important to note some of the Department’s reservations about the findings in the literature review. Specifically, the author focuses in large measure on a broad set of inappropriate behaviors designated as “sexual misconduct,” rather than “sexual abuse,” which is the term used in the statute. Specifically, section 5414(a)(3) of the ESEA requires the Secretary of Education to conduct “[a] study regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse in schools. . . .” (emphasis added) The distinction between “sexual misconduct” and “sexual abuse” is significant in legal and other terms. However, both are of concern to parents and the Department.
The author’s use of the two words interchangeably throughout the report is potentially confusing to the reader. Federal law gives separate and specific meaning to the words “sexual abuse,” and such words should not be confused with the broader, more general concept of “sexual misconduct.” Specifically, “sexual abuse” has been a defined term for over 17 years [18 U.S.C. § 2242]. It involves an act where one knowingly “causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear. . .” or “engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act. . . .” Id. “Sexual abuse” carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. Id.
....there are few empirical studies on educator sexual misconduct. As a result, there are insufficient studies to undertake even the simple synthesis method of counting the votes, let alone to merit the more formal and rigorous methods of synthesis such as meta-analysis. Thus, this synthesis is confined to a review of existing empirical literature and identification of issues which need initial or further study.The fourth and fifth money quotes are found in Section 3.2 and Section 4.0. 3.2 presents a synthesized chart showing the prevalence of sexual misconduct in public schools. It opens with:
Because of its carefully drawn sample and survey methodology, the AAUW report that nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career presents the most accurate data available at this time....Then in Section 4.0, "Offender Characteristics", it states this:
Although we do not know how many or what percent of school employees are offenders, several studies describe the employees who have been identified (Table 6) using both surveys and first or third person descriptions of incidents of educator sexual misconduct. A number of the studies below, as well as newspaper and court reports, indicate that many are chronic predators; thus, the number of teachers who abuse is fewer than the number of students who are abused.