RESEARCH SECTION
Sexually inappropriate or abusive behaviour
among pupils in special schools
Rachel Fyson
In this article, Rachel Fyson of the Centre for Social
Work in the School of Sociology and Social Policy
at the University of Nottingham reports the findings
of a study into sexually inappropriate or abusive
behaviour occurring between pupils in special
schools in four local authorities in England. The
behaviours identified ranged from relatively minor
misconduct, such as exposure of genitals and use of
sexualised language, through to serious acts of
sexual abuse, including rape. Although the majority
(88%) of special schools had noted sexualised
behaviours of some kind on a regular basis, only a
minority (19%) had specific policies in place to
guide staff responses to such incidents. It was
apparent that responses to sexual behaviour, and
policy decisions about whether or when to refer to
outside agencies, varied widely both within and
between schools. The implications of these findings
for the well-being of all pupils are discussed.
Key words: sexual abuse, well-being, policy, special
schools.
A note on terminology
In an effort to avoid the use of stigmatising labels, the term
‘young people who sexually harm others’ is used throughout
this article, since this is less punitive in tone than the shorter
phrase ‘juvenile sexual abuser’. The line between behav-
iours that are sexually inappropriate and those that are sexu-
ally abusive is, inevitably, imprecise. However, the term
‘sexually inappropriate’ is used here to describe behaviours
that, while not generally socially acceptable, do not directly
harm another person. The term ‘sexually harmful’ is used to
describe situations where harm may have been caused to
another. The term ‘sexually abusive’ is used where an inci-
dent could be regarded as abuse from the perspective of the
victim/unwilling participant: the use of this phrase does not
assume that the young person necessarily intended to sexu-
ally harm someone else or understood that this would be the
effect of their action.
The term ‘learning disability’ is used with reference to indi-
viduals who meet the following definition:
‘Learning disability includes the presence of: a
significantly reduced ability to understand new or
complex information, to learn new skills (impaired
intelligence), with: a reduced ability to cope
© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
bjsp_397 85..94
independently (impaired social functioning); which
started before adulthood, with a lasting effect on
development.’
(DoH, 2001, p. 14)
In some countries outside the UK, the term ‘intellectual
disability’ is used to describe this condition.
Introduction
Reports, overviews and commentaries about young people
who sexually harm others have repeatedly noted that young
people with learning disabilities are significantly over-
represented within this group (DoH, 2006; Erooga &
Masson, 2006; Hackett, 2004; O’Callaghan, 1999; Vizard,
Monck & Misch, 1995). Most of the studies upon which
these assertions are founded have focused on young people
who have been referred to specialist services because of
their sexually harmful behaviour. They have found that
somewhere between one-fifth and one-half of young people
referred to such services are identified as having some
degree of learning disability (Masson & Hackett, 2004,
2003; Boswell & Wedge, 2002; O’Callaghan, 1998;
Manocha & Mezey, 1998; Dolan, Holloway, Bailey & Kroll,
1996; James & Neil, 1996). Although the precise reasons
for this over-representation remain uncertain, a number of
factors have been identified which are believed to contribute
towards this imbalance.
Firstly, children with any type of disability are more likely
than non-disabled children to have been abused (HM Gov-
ernment, 2006; NSPCC, 2003; Sullivan & Knutson, 2000,
1998; Westcott & Jones, 1999). This holds true for all cat-
egories of abuse: physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional
abuse and neglect. It is also known that children with dis-
abilities who experience abuse are likely to be abused for
longer than their non-disabled peers (Westcott & Jones,
1999), and that, once abuse is discovered, interventions from
statutory services are less decisive (Cooke & Standen, 2002;
Cooke, 2000). There is no direct causal relationship between
experiencing abuse and becoming a sexual abuser, but high
rates of previous victimisation are noted among populations
of young people who sexually harm others, and this trend is
even stronger for young people with learning disabilities
(Fortune & Lambie, 2004).
Secondly, the lives of young people with learning disabilities
tend to be more heavily monitored than those of other
youngsters. This may mean that, when they display sexually
inappropriate or abusive behaviours, they are more likely
than their non-disabled peers to be caught (McCurry,
McClellan, Adams, Norrei, Storck, Eisner & Breiger, 1998).
Thirdly, young people with learning disabilities may find it
harder to understand the complex and fluid boundaries that
divide acceptable and unacceptable sexual behaviours
(Fyson, 2007a), with the result that they may act in ways
which are sexually inappropriate, or even abusive, without
understanding the impact or consequences of what they are
doing. In some cases, this difficulty may be unwittingly
exacerbated by parents and carers, some of whom may fail to
expect the same standards of behaviour as they would from
young people without disabilities.
Finally, there is emerging evidence to suggest that the over-
representation of young people with learning disabilities
among referrals to services of young people who sexually
harm others may be a consequence of biased referrals. Two
recent studies have suggested that a lack of skills, knowl-
edge and – above all – confidence among professionals leads
to a greater tendency to refer young people with learning
disabilities to specialist services (Fyson, 2007b; Vail, 2002).
Those who work with young people with learning disabili-
ties in educational or social settings may not feel able to
work effectively around issues of sexuality. Likewise, pro-
fessionals working in child protection or youth offending
teams may not believe that they have the skills or knowledge
to work with a young person with a learning disability.
The over-representation of those with learning disabilities
within populations of young people who sexually harm is
therefore created by a complex interplay between differen-
tial rates of child abuse and differences in professional
awareness of, and responses to, inappropriate or abusive
sexual behaviours exhibited by different groups of young
people. The disparities noted within treatment populations
may or may not reflect actual differences in behaviour
between young people with and without learning disabili-
ties, but nevertheless cause concern:
‘One of the key changes in the response to adolescent
sexual aggression over the past decade is a rapid
increase in the number of young people with learning
disabilities being identified and referred for
intervention.’
(Hackett, 2004, p. 44)
It is undoubtedly the case that, during adolescence, many
young people will display behaviours that could be regarded
as sexually inappropriate; a smaller proportion (mostly
male) will behave in ways that are sexually harmful to
others; and a small minority of these will go on to engage in
lifelong sexual offending. A significant proportion, around
one-third, of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by adolescents
against younger children (Cawson, Wattam, Brooker &
Kelly, 2000). Crime statistics show that young people are
responsible for between one-fifth and one-quarter of all
sexual offences; but when cautions and reprimands as well
as court convictions are taken into account, young people
86 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 36 · Number 2 · 2009
are responsible for almost two-thirds of reported sexual
crimes (Erooga & Masson, 2006).
As they grow older and pass through puberty, most young
people – including those with learning disabilities – will
want to begin exploring their own burgeoning sexuality;
many will experience their first sexual relationships. These
initial forays into the world of adult sexual relations are
seldom easy, and young people with learning disabilities
may experience particular social pressures arising from their
position in a society which often views people with learning
disabilities as, by turns, either asexual or the possessors of
monstrous sexual appetites (Priestly, 2003; Brown, 1994;
Craft, 1987).
Regardless of its causes, the fact that young people with
learning disabilities may exhibit sexually inappropriate or
abusive behaviours should be of concern to all parents and
professionals. Preventing behaviours which are merely inap-
propriate from escalating into acts of abuse is important not
only because of the harm that such acts cause to others, but
also because being labelled a ‘sexual abuser’ will undoubt-
edly further damage the already limited life opportunities of
a young person with a learning disability (Fyson, Eadie &
Cooke, 2003).
It is therefore important that special schools are aware of the
possibility that pupils may engage in sexually inappropriate
or abusive behaviours. Previous studies have highlighted
that children can be at risk of abuse in schools or other
institutional settings (Gallagher, 2000), but have typically
limited their scope of inquiry to abuse perpetrated by pro-
fessionals, rather than considering the risks which pupils
may at times pose to one another.
School staff have lengthier and more frequent contact with
young people with learning disabilities than any other group
of professionals. Schools can therefore play a vital role in
identifying needs or difficulties and making referrals to
other services. The Every Child Matters (HM Treasury,
2003) programme of reforms is premised upon creating
structures that enable and require closer working between
education, social services and health services across all chil-
dren’s services. However, as previous research has high-
lighted, many teachers have had limited child protection
training during initial teacher training (Baginsky &
Hodgkinson, 1999); and the majority would ‘welcome more
help and information on child protection issues’ (Baginsky,
2000). Moreover, previously identified difficulties with the
systems through which social services are notified of child
protection concerns (Statham & Cameron, 2004) suggest
that the combined effects of limited teacher knowledge and
poor communication between education and social services
may create significant barriers to responding to the needs of
young people with learning disabilities who sexually harm
others in a timely and effective manner.
The study
Previous research into young people who sexually harm
others has largely been based on populations already
© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN
referred for specialist treatment. Therefore, although studies Consent was sought to record interviews, which lasted
have noted the over-representation of young people with for an average of one hour. Interviews were transcribed in
learning disabilities, they have not been able to shed light on full. Transcripts were then subject to detailed analysis,
the origin of the behaviours that eventually gave rise to the based on the principles of grounded theory (Glaser &
referral. The present study therefore sought to explore the Strauss, 1967; Gray, 2004). Initial coding categories were
extent to which special schools were aware of pupils engag- generated directly from the text and these were then
ing in sexually inappropriate or abusive behaviours, in order broken down into a number of themes. Identified themes
better to understand: included ‘policy’; ‘behaviour of pupils’; ‘responses to
behaviour’; ‘seeking help’; and ‘relationships with external
1. the nature and frequency of such behaviour and the agencies’.
locations in which it may arise;
2. staff responses to these behaviours, including
adherence to any available policy guidelines; Survey findings
3. how decisions are made about whether and when to The vast majority of special schools (88%; n = 23; see
request help from outside agencies and the barriers to Table 1) were aware of incidents of sexually inappropriate or
seeking such support. abusive behaviour occurring between their pupils during the
school day. In most schools, such incidents were known to
happen on a regular basis. Two-thirds (65%; n = 21) of
Methodology schools reported sexually inappropriate or abusive behav-
A questionnaire was sent to all special schools for children iours occurring between pupils at least once per term, and
with learning disabilities within four English local education almost one-fifth of schools (19%; n = 5) reported incidents
authorities (n = 40). This included schools in both the state occurring at least once a week. Only a small minority of
and independent sectors and those providing both day and/or schools (12%; n = 3) asserted that sexually inappropriate or
residential facilities. Special schools that served other abusive behaviour never occurred and, of these, one was
groups of children (for example, those with physical or careful to explain that this was simply because the profound
sensory impairments) were not included in the research. The nature of their pupils’ disabilities precluded them from inde-
questionnaire asked about school policy with regard to sexu- pendent physical interactions.
ally inappropriate behaviour; the type, frequency and loca-
tion of inappropriate or abusive behaviour known to have
occurred between pupils; and whether, and from what
source, schools had sought help in responding to these Table 1: Frequency of sexually inappropriate or
behaviours. Of the 40 schools contacted, 26 responded to the abusive incidents
survey, giving a response rate of 65 per cent. In order to
Cumulative % of
maintain anonymity for this relatively small sample, survey % of schools schools
respondents were not asked identifying questions about their
school (for example, whether it was a day or residential Weekly 19 (n = 5) 19 (n = 5)
school, or whether it was a school in the state or independent Monthly 27 (n = 7) 46 (n = 12)
sector). Termly 19 (n = 5) 65 (n = 17)
Yearly 8 (n = 2) 73 (n = 19)
All survey respondents were also given the opportunity to Less often 15 (n = 4) 88 (n = 23)
volunteer to be interviewed. This approach resulted in semi- Never 12 (n = 3)
structured interviews being undertaken with staff from ten Total 100 (n = 26)
schools. Of those putting themselves forward for interview,
two were from independent schools (one day, one residen-
tial) and the remainder were from schools in the state edu-
cation sector, including one school that took both day pupils
and boarders. In each case, the interviewee had responsibil- Incidents happened at all times of the school day and in a
ity for child protection issues within their school; they some- variety of locations, as shown in Table 2. Although inci-
times also had responsibilities for the delivery of PHSE dents were most often identified as occurring within
(personal health and social education) teaching across the school buildings (77%; n = 20), they also occurred in over
school. half of school playgrounds (54%; n = 14) and around a
third (35%; n = 9) of school transport; the ‘other’ category
Ethical clearance was sought and obtained from local consisted mainly of incidents arising during school
research ethics committees prior to data collection taking trips.
place. Survey respondents remained anonymous unless they
chose to reveal themselves by volunteering to be inter- Schools reported a variety of different types of sexually
viewed. Interviews did not seek, or obtain, information that inappropriate or abusive behaviour (see Table 3). The
could identify any individual pupil, although examples of most frequently recorded category, ‘inappropriate touch’,
incidents that had occurred – including the age and gender was reported in 85% (n = 22) of schools. However, this
of the pupils involved – were discussed. term could be used as a catch-all for a wide variety of

© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 36 · Number 2 · 2009 87
Table 2: Location of incidents reported sions about when or whether to seek support from outside
agencies about a pupil’s sexual behaviour. Table 5 shows the
% of schools proportion of schools that had sought help from a variety of
In school buildings 77 (n = 20) sources, as well as an indication of their satisfaction with the
In school playground 54 (n = 14) support gained. Over half (54%; n = 14) of schools had
On school transport 35 (n = 9) sought help from pupils’ parents and most had found them
Other 27 (n = 7) supportive. By contrast, although exactly the same propor-
tion of schools (54%; n = 14) had sought help from social
services, there was a significant level of dissatisfaction with
the response from social services – with a third of those who
had sought help from this source not finding this input
actual incidents, ranging from very minor or even accidental
useful. Schools were more likely to ask for help from edu-
physical contact through to aggressive sexual groping. In
cational psychologists (46%; n = 12) than clinical psycholo-
general, behaviours that might be classified as sexually inap-
gists (27%; n = 7), even though satisfaction rates were much
propriate – such as verbal sexual harassment and ‘flashing’
higher with the latter group. Few schools had involved the
– were more likely to be reported than incidents which were
police (23%; n = 6), and this was another group of profes-
unequivocally abusive. However, some very serious acts of
sionals whose input was often deemed unhelpful.
abuse – including rape – had occurred in a small proportion
(15%; n = 4) of schools surveyed.

Table 5: From where was help sought?

Table 3: Nature of incidents reported
% of schools % of schools
% of schools that sought help that received help
from this source from this source
Verbal sexual harassment 50 (n = 13)
Exposure (flashing) 54 (n = 14) Parents 54 (n = 14) 50 (n = 13)
Masturbation 58 (n = 15) Social services 54 (n = 14) 31 (n = 8)
Inappropriate touch 85 (n = 22) Educational 46 (n = 12) 35 (n = 9)
Actual or attempted anal 15 (n = 4) psychologist
or vaginal penetration Clinical psychologist 27 (n = 7) 27 (n = 7)
Police 23 (n = 6) 15 (n = 4)

Despite the frequency of inappropriate sexual behaviours and

the fact that in some schools acts of very serious abuse were
known to have occurred, only a minority of schools (19%;
n = 5) had specific written policies in place to help guide staff
responses to such incidents (see Table 4). The majority of
schools (62%; n = 16) had no such policies. The remaining
schools responded to this question by saying that they used a
combination of their child protection policy and their behav-
iour policy to guide responses to such situations: during
interviewing it became apparent that, when specific policies
were absent, this approach was the norm.
In summary, the survey responses provided evidence that
special schools are frequently aware of a variety of sexually
inappropriate, harmful or abusive behaviours occurring
between pupils in various locations throughout the school
day. Responses also indicated that few schools had specific
policies in place to govern staff responses to these behav-
iours, and that although staff sought support and guidance
from a variety of external agencies, they were often dissat-
isfied with the help provided.

Interview findings and analysis

Table 4: Did the school have a specific policy on
The first point that was immediately apparent from analysis
sexual behaviour?
of interview transcripts was that, although sexually inappro-
% of schools priate behaviour was a relatively commonplace occurrence,
not every incident was necessarily considered abusive. Staff
Yes 19 (n = 5) were often at pains to explain that many of the sexually
No 62 (n = 16) inappropriate behaviours that they witnessed were the unin-
Other* 19 (n = 5) tended consequence of random and/or exploratory behav-
iours, rather than premeditated acts with abusive intent. Some
Note: * Respondent indicated that incidents arising would be
dealt with under a combination of the school’s child protection behaviours were described as ‘one offs’; other behaviours
policy and behaviour policies. were explained as arising ‘naturally’ in the context of young
people growing up and beginning to explore the possibilities
of more adult relationships. A number of interviewees
The lack of policy guidelines may have been one factor that believed that, far from exhibiting more inappropriate behav-
contributed to the considerable variation in schools’ deci- iours (sexual or otherwise) than their non-learning disabled

88 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 36 · Number 2 · 2009 © 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN
peers, their pupils were inhibited from displaying many ordi-
nary adolescent behaviours. As one teacher put it, ‘I think we
expect our students to be more appropriate than mainstream
pupils are with behaviours, sexual or otherwise’.
At the same time, however, interviewees acknowledged that
some of their pupils found it difficult to learn the complex,
unwritten social rules that govern acceptable and unaccept-
able sexual behaviour. This could have serious conse-
quences, as one interviewee explained:
‘We had a case recently where a child was reported
in the community masturbating. And it was
[reported] through the police and they had to take
their actions. And I think it’s a real shame, because
he doesn’t understand the consequences of what he’s
doing.’
The main difficulty for staff lay in judging whether any
particular behaviour was or was not a cause for concern and
so, during interviews, they were asked to explain the basis
on which they made such decisions. Most interviewees
emphasised that their judgements were based primarily on
the fact that they knew their pupils well and were therefore
well placed to judge if a particular act was or was not
deliberate, and whether the pupil concerned was likely to
have any sexual intent. In addition to their knowledge of
individual pupils, four factors emerged that were typically
taken into consideration by staff:
1. The act itself: anything that involved direct physical
contact of a sexual nature between pupils (for
example, forced kissing; touching of breasts or genital
areas) was regarded as more serious than non-contact
behaviours (for example, exposure of genitals or use
of sexualised language).
2. Imbalances of power: this could take the form of
differences of age, physical size or cognitive ability –
anything that suggested that contact between two
pupils might not be consensual.
3. Attempts at secrecy: because it indicates that the pupil
knows, at some level, that what they are doing is
wrong.
4. Repetition: this indicates a likelihood that an act was
intentional, rather than an inconsequential one-off
behaviour.
However, despite the consistency with which interviewees
were able to identify the factors that they took into consid-
eration when assessing any potential act of inappropriate or
abusive behaviour, there was evidence that in practice their
responses to such behaviours varied considerably.
Many interviewees made reference to national child pro-
tection guidance such as Working Together (DoH et al.,
1999) and to guidelines issued by their local ACPC (Area
Child Protection Committee), but the use to which these
guidelines were put varied enormously. Typically, local
guidelines were considered to be of more practical value
than those emanating from national Government, but in
© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 36 · Number 2 · 2009
both cases the guidance tended to focus on how staff
should respond when they thought that a child was the
victim of abuse, rather than a possible perpetrator. In addi-
tion, many staff also felt that guidance was not geared
towards the particular needs of children and young people
with learning disabilities: one interviewee described their
local ACPC child protection guidelines as being ‘generic
documents that are suitably bland and not necessarily
written for our setting’.
Where it was felt that existing policies and guidelines had
little to offer, they were likely to be, as another interviewee
candidly acknowledged, left ‘gathering dust on a shelf’.
However, this was not always the case. Some schools dem-
onstrated how, when used consistently, written policies
could be of value. This was particularly evident when poli-
cies were treated as an integral part of good practice – as in
the following example, in which an interviewee described
how a school had developed its own policies, and continued
to revise them in the light of each new situation that arose:
‘The regular review means that every time anything has
happened it’s actually altered the policies and proce-
dures. [. . .] So because this has been going a while it
does tend to cover most – well, everything really.’
This approach helped staff not only by ensuring consistency
of response to incidents that arose, but also by giving them
confidence through knowing that further support was avail-
able if needed. In particular, linking the school’s internal
policy documents with national guidelines gave staff a clear
sense of how and when to bring on board other agencies,
particularly social services.
Whether or not policies were in place and actively utilised,
most schools had at some time or another been faced with a
situation where a pupil’s sexually inappropriate or abusive
behaviour had not responded to interventions devised by
school staff and/or was serious enough to warrant an imme-
diate child protection response. In such cases, schools
turned for support to a variety of sources, including both
parents and professionals.
Seeking help from parents
Whether as a result of a period of monitoring or in response
to a single more immediately serious incident, the people to
whom special schools most often turned for support were
parents. In many special schools, parents were automatically
informed as soon as any sexually inappropriate or abusive
behaviour was noticed. One interviewee said:
‘We’d certainly let parents know that something had
happened, even if it’s only a telephone conversation
saying we’ve dealt with it, but they need to know.’
In other schools, although the involvement of parents was
one step further along in the process, it was still very much
part of the expected route, as this interviewee’s comments
show:
89
 ‘If it had been repeated and the staff and I were
concerned enough about it, then the first thing would
be to have a meeting with the parents, to find out if it’s
a behaviour that’s also exhibited at home.’
In fact, although the majority of schools informed parents
of all sexual incidents involving their child – whether as
consenting participants, alleged victim or alleged perpetra-
tor of abuse – this was not always the case. A minority of
interviewees explained how, particularly when more
serious acts of sexual abuse were believed to have
occurred, the school would report the matter directly to
social services without informing parents; for example, ‘I
wouldn’t have any contact with parents if I’d made a child
protection referral.’
The reason for this was a concern that any untoward sexual
behaviour exhibited by a pupil might be an indicator that the
child had been sexually abused and, if this was the case, the
abuse could be occurring at home, as one interviewee
explained:
‘I might go to social services first and ask their advice
as to whether I inform parents, in case it’s something a
child has witnessed at home and then introduced here.’
Another interviewee described the situation that might arise
if parents were contacted before information was passed to
social services as follows:
‘If you phone a parent and say “I’m going to make a
referral, can I have your permission?” “No.” [laughs]
No! Where do you stand? So what I will do, I will
phone social services and I will pass on information to
them and I will say to the social services “I am happy
to tell the parents” – but tell them what I’ve done, not
ask for their permission.’
Despite this, a minority of interviewees stuck very deter-
minedly to the belief that parents always had a right to know
before any referral was made to an outside agency. One even
described a situation where, having telephoned social ser-
vices for advice and been told that a referral should be made
for further investigation of the child’s home situation, the
school refused to hand over details of the child until after
they had been in touch with the parents to tell them what was
about to happen:
‘They wanted me to refer immediately, and they weren’t
very happy when I said “No, I will not give you the
child’s details until I have spoken to the parents”,
because I had promised the parents that.’
Part of the difficulty was that most interviewees were able
vividly to recall situations where social services had – from
the school’s perspective – made heavy-handed interventions,
which had in some cases destroyed previously positive rela-
tionships between school and home. It was this, as much as
anything else, that made some schools keen to preserve their
role as the mediator between parents and social services.
90 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 36 · Number 2 · 2009
In other cases, however, it had proved possible for schools to
agree protocols with social services about how cases involv-
ing sexual activity between pupils would be handled. One
interviewee commented:
‘I think the major change that has happened – from us
having to inform social services first to being able to
handle it ourselves – has been much better because
schools like to have that relationship with parents and
we often felt before that, depending on how it was dealt
with by social services, you know, sometimes social
services have gone in and – we’ve felt – taken a very
harsh approach to parents; whereas if we’d have dealt
with it we’d have gone in gently.’
Regardless of the reasoning behind the stance taken by any
particular school about whether or when to inform parents,
schools were in essence having to pre-judge the situation: to
decide whether the parents were more likely to be the cause
of any untoward behaviour or to play a key part in preventing
its recurrence.
Seeking help from social services
Among professionals, social workers were the most signifi-
cant source of potential support: not least because they have
a legal mandate to investigate any allegations of harm
against children, including those arising from the actions of
other young people. The decision to involve social services
appeared in general to be less emotionally charged than
whether or not to inform parents. Some interviewees would
only consider contact with social services after work
between the school and home had failed to have a positive
impact; for example:
‘If the behaviour was persistent and causing enough
anguish on the part of either child that I’d need to
bring it to the attention of parents, and between us we
hadn’t been able to get our heads around it, then I
might consider approaching social services or child
protection for advice.’
However, it was more common for the decision on whether,
or when, to contact social services to be made on the basis of
both the nature of any given incident and school staff’s
belief in their ability to handle the situation; as one inter-
viewee put it, ‘There’d be a balance between the seriousness
and our effectiveness, I think.’
In the first instance, what schools most often wanted from
social services was further information about the pupil’s
home situation that might help to explain any behaviour
which was evident in school. One interviewee commented:
‘I think sometimes they’ve been able to give us some
more information on the home situation which has
helped us you know fit the jigsaw together probably.’
A significant factor in deciding whether or not to contact
social services appeared to be the school’s previous experi-
ences of seeking support for sexually inappropriate or
© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN
abusive behaviour. In a wider context (that is, contacts
related to broader aspects of disabled children’s welfare,
rather than necessarily having a focus on child protection
issues), interviewees spoke warmly of their colleagues in
social services; for example:
‘I feel very positive about social services; they are very
supportive. And I think that comes from quite regular
contact in one context or another.’
However, not all were happy with the response received
when seeking help on behalf of their pupils. There appeared
to be two key factors, either of which would make a positive
outcome more likely when a special school made contact
with statutory social services.
The first was whether or not the child already had a named
social worker, prior to the school wishing to raise concerns
about a particular incident. Where there was a named social
worker, schools generally felt able to contact that individual
and ask directly for advice and support. This included
checking whether there were any factors in the pupil’s home
environment that were already logged by social services as
cause for concern.
The second factor, which came into play when pupils did not
have a named social worker, was whether the school’s des-
ignated child protection co-ordinator had built up a personal
relationship with individual social workers. If this were the
case, then concerns could be raised via a simple phone call,
as one interviewee explained:
‘If people haven’t got a social worker then we would
just phone the social work team and say, “Can you
help us?” Although there are people who we know, who
we would tend to go to [. . .] we might just ask to speak
to them because we know them.’
By contrast, difficulties between schools and social services
most commonly arose in the absence of personal relation-
ships, when the school was forced to make contact via the
duty team, rather than having a discussion with someone they
already knew. The most common complaint was that, when
contact was made via a duty team, social workers were not
prepared to offer advice. One interviewee complained that ‘If
you phone for advice they always take it as a referral’.
Others echoed this view:
‘Once I’ve got a social worker’s name or say a social
worker has been attached to a child or a family
whatever then that’s not a problem; you develop a
working relationship and it’s fine. But if you pick the
phone up and just say “This has happened, what do
you think?” No, it goes through, in this area, it would
become a referral.’
‘If you just go cold to somebody quite often it triggers
a “We must investigate it” because they don’t know us
and they don’t know the school.’
© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 36 · Number 2 · 2009
Interestingly, however, this was not always the case for every
school, or even for all of those in the same local authority.
Indeed, some schools had succeeded in developing positive
relationships even with duty teams. An interviewee
described such a relationship thus:
‘If a person has not got a social worker then the duty
officer will then make a decision on whether they need
to be involved at a more aggressive level or at a more
sort of passive level. But it’s one of those things that I
have no qualms at all about just phoning up and saying
“Can you just listen to this?” And that again I think is
because they know us and they know where we’re
coming from and so it just, it just seems to work.’
It was not clear whether different duty teams within a single
local authority were interpreting the rules differently, or
whether some duty teams had a lower staff turnover that
enabled special schools to develop ongoing relationships
with particular social workers. What was clear, however, was
that many schools had not been able to develop good rela-
tionships, or good lines of communication, between them-
selves and duty teams.
At the same time, other interviewees complained that they
were unable to get social workers involved in situations
where their input could have been helpful. For example, one
described how:
‘In this area at the moment we’ve just been told they
can’t do anything other than child protection. So there’s
no preventative stuff. And sometimes we can see what’s
going on. We can see that a bit of help in the home – just
to explain that perhaps if the boys slept in one room and
the girls slept in another – that might help.’
Others interpreted this in a less forgiving light. They
expressed the belief that social services were specifically
avoiding involvement with children with learning disabili-
ties, because such cases were likely to be more complex and
time-consuming than cases involving children without
learning disabilities:
‘If it was a child in a mainstream school with normal
ability, with the power to actually say “This has
happened to me and I don’t like it”, I think they would
take it more seriously.’
‘I think they can also easily be talked into the fact
that this is not to do with sexual abuse, it’s to do
with disability. [. . .] And I’ve seen several things
where I’ve felt hang on this is child protection,
changed to children in need because the child has
got a disability.’
‘I would like social workers to respond as if I wasn’t
working in a special school, because the minute you
say the name of the school then you can hear the
silence. [. . .] It does mean more work, but I’m sorry,
that’s just the way it is.’
91
When asked about the changes they would like to see being
made to existing systems of support, interviewees repeatedly
emphasised the need for greater awareness and understand-
ing of learning disabilities within social work teams; for
example:
‘There’s a lack of knowledge about special needs; lack
of knowledge about autism; lack of knowledge about
learning difficulties; lack of knowledge about speech
and language problems.’
Several called for more effective training on disability issues
to be provided to social workers. In general, despite the poor
experiences often cited, special schools remained keen to
obtain the help they needed to ensure that their pupils were
given the right support. One interviewee said:
‘We’re a school, a special needs school; we’re not
specialists in dealing with sexual abuse. [. . .] What
we’re looking for is advice on how we can approach it
or what things we can put in place to support the child.’
In summary, staff in special schools were acutely aware of
the complexities surrounding both the causes and the con-
sequences of sexually inappropriate or abusive behaviours
between their pupils. Their responses to particular incidents
were grounded in their knowledge of individual children,
but in many cases needed the support of more effective
policy. Decisions about whether and when to involve either
parents or social services were particularly fraught, not least
because of the potential for abusive behaviours to have their
roots in the home environment. Some of the ambivalence on
the part of schools to seek help from social services must be
seen in light of the fact that these teams had the power to
decide not only whether but how to respond to the referrals.
By contacting social services, situations often moved
beyond the control of school staff; sometimes this was
essential and appropriate, but at other times this could
unnecessarily damage relations between parents and school.
Positive relationships with social work colleagues were key
to obtaining effective responses from social services, but
many schools continued to believe that their pupils received
less effective interventions than were available to non-
disabled children.
Discussion
The findings from this study demonstrate that sexually inap-
propriate behaviours occur regularly between pupils in
special schools, and that acts of serious abuse are also pos-
sible. They also demonstrate how a lack of relevant policy
and practice guidelines can result in inconsistent responses
to such behaviour and uncertainties over when or whether to
inform either parents or child protection agencies.
The fact that sexualised behaviours happen in playgrounds
and on school transport as well as within school buildings
shows that the development of consistent responses to such
incidents must actively involve all school staff: lunch-time
supervisors and travel escorts as well as teachers and class-
room assistants.
92 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 36 · Number 2 · 2009
When inappropriate or abusive sexual behaviours between
pupils are noticed, staff have to make difficult decisions
about whether the behaviour is or is not consensual;
whether an act is serious enough to require an intervention;
whether the behaviour is likely to be repeated; what might
be the consequences for all parties if the behaviour were
repeated; whether the perpetrator was acting with intent;
whether the behaviour could be occurring as a result of
abuse suffered by the pupil in another context; and how
best to ensure pupil safety. None of these questions is
simple or straightforward. They require staff to use both
their professional expertise and their knowledge of the par-
ticular pupils involved in order to make complex judge-
ments, often based on incomplete knowledge (for example,
it may not be known whether or not a pupil has experi-
enced abuse at home).
In order to make such finely balanced judgements, it is
important for staff to respond to any concerns or allegations
in a dispassionate manner. This is no easy task: it is undoubt-
edly easier to think of children and young people as potential
victims of sexual abuse, who therefore need our protection,
than to take on board the fact that a small minority may at
times also perpetrate abuse. This is one of the many reasons
why effective policy and guidance are so important, as they
not only create a framework that encourages consistency of
response, but also enable a degree of emotional distance
which is necessary for objective decision making to occur.
Current school child protection policies are typically
designed to guide staff when they suspect that a pupil may
be the victim of abuse. As such, they may be of less value in
situations where a pupil is believed to have perpetrated an
abusive act. Schools need to develop guidelines that are
specific to the issue of sexually inappropriate or abusive
behaviour between pupils. These need to be particularly
clear about decisions to inform parents, or to involve pro-
fessionals from other agencies.
The relationship between special schools and social workers
is often fraught and at times school staff expressed justifi-
able frustration with the apparent inflexibility of the support
on offer. In particular, the findings from this study support
those of Statham and Cameron (2004) in suggesting that the
gatekeeping role of social work duty teams can at times
leave much to be desired. However, there was also evidence
to suggest that, where relationships with individual social
workers had been fostered, it was possible for schools to
obtain timely and supportive advice and interventions.
Although schools cannot be expected to prevent the occur-
rence of all sexually inappropriate or abusive behaviours
between pupils, they clearly have an important role to play in
the early identification and effective initial response to such
behaviours. It was encouraging to find that, despite the
dearth of specific policy guidelines, staff in special schools
demonstrated an eagerness to engage in this aspect of child
protection.
Many, perhaps most, sexually inappropriate behaviours
displayed by young people never develop into anything
© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN
that could rightly be considered damaging or dangerous
(Hackett, 2004; Erooga & Masson, 2006). However, whether
arising in the context of special schools or elsewhere, sexu-
ally inappropriate behaviours by young people with learning
disabilities should not be dismissed without careful consid-
eration. Such behaviours matter, not least because they can
develop into behaviours that are not merely inappropriate,
but are sexually harmful to others. They matter because
abuse perpetrated by their peers appears to be one of the
many factors that puts disabled children at an increased
References
Baginsky, M. (2000) Child Protection and Education.
London: NSPCC.
Baginsky, M. & Hodgkinson, K. (1999) ‘Child protection
training in initial teacher training: a survey of provision
in higher education’, Educational Research, 41,
173–181.
Boswell, G. & Wedge, P. (2002) Sexually Abusive
Adolescent Males: an evaluation of a residential
therapeutic facility. Community and Criminal Justice
Monograph 3. Leicester: De Montfort University.
Brown, H. (1994) ‘ “An ordinary sexual life?”: a review of
the normalisation principle as it applies to the sexual
options of people with learning disabilities’, Disability
& Society, 9, 123–144.
Cawson, P., Wattam, C., Brooker, S. & Kelly, G. (2000)
Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom: a study of
the prevalence of child abuse and neglect. London:
NSPCC.
Cooke, P. (2000) Disabled Children and Abuse.
Nottingham: Ann Craft Trust.
Cooke, P. & Standen, P. (2002) ‘Abuse and disabled
children: hidden needs?’ Child Abuse Review, 11,
1–18.
Craft, A. (1987) ‘Mental handicap and sexuality: issues
for individuals with a mental handicap, their parents
and professionals’, in A. Craft (ed.) Mental Handicap
and Sexuality: issues and perspectives. Tunbridge
Wells: Costello.
DoH (Department of Health), Home Office and DfEE
(Department for Education and Employment) (1999)
Working Together to Safeguard Children. London: DoH.
DoH (Department of Health) (2001) Valuing People: a
new strategy for learning disability for the 21st century.
Cm 5086. London: The Stationery Office.
DoH (Department of Health) (2006) The Needs and
Effective Treatment of Young People who Sexually
Abuse: current evidence. London: DoH.
Dolan, M., Holloway, J., Bailey, S. & Kroll, L. (1996)
‘The psychosocial characteristics of juvenile sexual
offenders referred to an adolescent forensic service in
the UK’, Medical Science Law, 36, 343–352.
Erooga, M. & Masson, H. (2006) ‘Children and young
people with sexually harmful or abusive behaviours:
underpinning knowledge, principles, approaches and
service provision’, in M. Erooga and H. Masson (eds)
© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 36 · Number 2 · 2009
overall risk of abuse. They matter because timely and effec-
tive interventions are the best way of ensuring that young
people who sexually harm others do not continue on to
become lifelong sexual offenders. They matter because,
after immediate family or carers, young people with learn-
ing disabilities spend more time at school than anywhere
else. School staff are therefore the professionals best placed
to notice sexually inappropriate or abusive behaviour
between pupils and, where necessary, to initiate interven-
tions which can prevent escalation.
Children and Young People who Sexually Abuse Others:
current developments and practice responses (2nd
edition). London: Routledge.
Fortune, C.-A. & Lambie, I. (2004) ‘Demographic and
abuse characteristics in adolescent male sexual
offenders with “special needs” ’, Journal of Sexual
Aggression, 10, 63–84.
Fyson, R. (2007a) ‘Young people with learning disabilities
who sexually abuse: understanding, identifying and
responding from within generic education and welfare
services’, in M. C. Calder (ed.) Working with Children
and Young People who Sexually Abuse: taking the field
forward. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.
Fyson, R. (2007b) ‘Young people with learning disabilities
who sexually harm others: the role of criminal justice
within a multi-agency response’, British Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 35, 181–186.
Fyson, R., Eadie, T. & Cooke, P. (2003) ‘Adolescents with
learning disabilities who show sexually inappropriate
or abusive behaviours’, Child Abuse Review, 12,
305–314.
Gallagher, B. (2000) ‘The extent and nature of known
cases of institutional child sexual abuse’, British
Journal of Social Work, 30, 795–817.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of
Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative research.
Chicago: Aldine.
Gray, D. (2004) Doing Research in the Real World.
London: Sage.
Hackett, S. (2004) What Works for Children and Young
People with Harmful Sexual Behaviours? Ilford:
Barnardo’s.
HM Government (2006) Working Together to Safeguard
Children: a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard
and promote the welfare of the child. London: The
Stationery Office.
HM Treasury (2003) Every Child Matters. Cm 5860.
London: The Stationery Office.
James, A. & Neil, P. (1996) ‘Juvenile sexual offending:
one-year period prevalence study within Oxfordshire’,
Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 477–485.
Manocha, K. & Mezey, G. (1998) ‘British adolescents
who sexually abuse: a descriptive study’, Journal of
Forensic Psychiatry, 3, 588–608.
Masson, H. & Hackett, S. (2003) ‘A decade on from the
NCH Report (1992): adolescent sexual aggression
93
 policy, practice and service delivery across the UK and
Republic of Ireland’, Journal of Sexual Aggression, 9,
109–124.
Masson, H. & Hackett, S. (2004) ‘The extent and nature of
work with adolescents who have sexual behaviour prob-
lems: findings from a survey of Youth Offending Teams
in England and Wales’, Youth Justice, 4, 160–177.
McCurry, C., McClellan, J., Adams, J., Norrei, M., Storck,
M., Eisner, A. & Breiger, D. (1998) ‘Sexual behaviour
associated with low verbal IQ in youth who have severe
mental illness’, Mental Retardation, 36, 23–30.
NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children) (2003) ‘It Doesn’t Happen to Disabled
Children’: child protection and disabled children.
Report of the National Working Group on Child
Protection and Disability. London: NSPCC.
O’Callaghan, D. (1998) ‘Practice issues in working with
young abusers who have learning disabilities’, Child
Abuse Review, 7, 435–448.
O’Callaghan, D. (1999) ‘Young abusers with learning
disabilities: towards better understanding and
positive interventions’, in M. Calder (ed.) Working
with Young People who Sexually Abuse: new pieces
of the jigsaw puzzle. Lyme Regis: Russell House
Publishing.
Priestly, M. (2003) Disability: a life course approach.
Cambridge: Polity.
Statham, J. & Cameron, C., with Jones, E. & Rivers, K.
(2004) Getting Help: a survey of reception and initial
contact arrangements in social services departments.
London: Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of
Education.
94 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 36 · Number 2 · 2009
Sullivan, P. & Knutson, J. (1998) ‘The association between
child maltreatment and disabilities in a hospital-based
epidemiological study’, Child Abuse & Neglect, 22,
271–288.
Sullivan, P. & Knutson, J. (2000) ‘Maltreatment and
disabilities: a population-based epidemiological study’,
Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1257–1274.
Vail, B. (2002) ‘An exploration of the issue of sexuality and
abusive behaviour amongst adolescents who have a
learning disability’, Child Care in Practice, 8,
201–215.
Vizard, E., Monck, E. & Misch, P. (1995) ‘Child and
adolescent sex abuse perpetrators: a review of the
research literature’, Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 36, 731–756.
Westcott, H. & Jones, P. (1999) ‘Annotation: the abuse of
disabled children’, Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 40, 497–506.
Address for correspondence:
Dr Rachel Fyson
Centre for Social Work
School of Sociology & Social Policy
University of Nottingham
Nottingham NG7 2RD
Email: Rachel.Fyson@nottingham.ac.uk
Article submitted: June 2007
Accepted for publication: June 2008
© 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 NASEN