A Selected, Annotated Bibliography of Child Maltreatment Reporting by Education Professionals

| previous | Table of Contents | next |

Methods

Search Strategies

The articles selected for this bibliography were identified by consulting various databases and Web sites using the search strategies outlined below. Articles were chosen for inclusion if the content focus was related to reporting of child maltreatment by education professionals (i.e. teachers, principals, school nurses, school counsellors). Preference was given to articles published after 1990.

Keywords

Teacher, professional, principal, school nurse, school, school counsellor, nursery school, child abuse reporting, disclosure, reporting decisions, reporting intentions, reporting, mandated reporting.

The key words were combined with:

Child maltreatment, child abuse, child neglect, child sexual abuse, child physical abuse, child emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse.

Languages

English, French

Databases Consulted

Canadian Education Index (January 1976-May 1999)

Canadian Eric Tools (January 1991-November 1998)

Eric (January 1992-November 1998)

Psychinfo (January 1967-March 1999)

Social Science Abstracts (March 1997-March 1999)

Social Science Index (February 1983-February 1999)

Social Work Abstracts (January 1977-February 1999)

Sociofile (January 1974-February 1999)

Sociological Abstracts (January 1963-February 1999)

Internet Web Sites

Bell Canada Child Welfare Research Unit
http://cwr.utoronto.ca

International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect
http://www.ispcan.org/

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/

National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect
lhttp://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/NDACAN/Publications.html

UNICEF
http://www.unicef.org

World Health Organization
http://www.WHO.org

Canadian articles

Beck KA, Ogloff JRP, Corbishley A. Knowledge, compliance, and attitudes of teachers toward mandatory child abuse reporting in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Education 1994;19(1):15-29.

Purpose: To assess teacher awareness of, and compliance with, mandatory reporting responsibilities. To examine teachers' knowledge of and attitudes toward the British Columbia child abuse reporting laws and to evaluate specific factors in teachers' decisions to report or not to report child abuse.

Methods: The mail-out survey, developed by the researcher, consisted of five sections exploring respondents' demographic and background characteristics; knowledge of British Columbia's child abuse reporting law; reporting experiences during the previous year; consistency of reports for different types of abuse; and attitudes toward child abuse reporting. A 56% response rate was obtained among the sample of 216 registered teachers from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

Discussion: Survey participants were aware of  British Columbia's child abuse reporting legislation, but unaware of the reporting procedures. For example, 40% of respondents were unaware of their requirement to report suspected child abuse "immediately" to a child protection social worker. Of all the cases of child maltreatment reported in the previous year by the participants, physical abuse was reported most frequently and emotional abuse the least. The main reason given for reporting abuse was to protect the children. Less than one half of teachers indicated that they had made reports because of their legal obligation to do so. Lack of evidence was stated as the most common reason for not reporting suspected child maltreatment. Over 40% of teachers who did not report suspected child abuse feared that such a report would have negative consequences for the child or the family. Teachers were willing to report all forms of child maltreatment. The level of information about child abuse issues was significantly related to a teacher's reporting tendency.

Tite R. Muddling through: the procedural marginalization of child abuse. Interchange 1994;25(1):87-105.

Purpose: To explore the procedural context in which reporting decisions are made by female teachers in Ontario.

Methods: The research was conducted in three phases: 1) Exploratory interviews were held with 10 teachers focusing on attitudes and knowledge of abuse and reporting requirements. (The results of the first phase were included in the development of the questionnaire used in the second phase.) 2) The survey was sent to a random sample of 500 female teachers and 100 principals (mainly male). The response rates were 52% and 49% respectively. The questions covered a wide range of items, including definitions of abuse, interventions, difficulties associated with detection, and reporting. Teachers who had suspected child abuse were asked whether they had made an official report and, if so, to describe the results. 3) Follow-up interviews focusing on the actual experience of reporting were conducted with a subsample of eight teachers and two principals drawn at random from those who stated that they had reported abuse.

Discussion: Seventy-five percent of the teachers who participated in this study had suspected abuse at some point during their career. Of those, 85% had reported it, usually to their principals (as required by school board policy), and sometimes directly to the Children's Aid Society (CAS). Because teachers' reports were made to the principal first, it seems that almost half of the reports never made it beyond this internal investigation stage. Teachers surveyed found it difficult to report directly to the CAS: 85% of non-reporters and 70% of reporters indicated this difficulty; 39% and 17% of non-reporters and reporters respectively indicated that they found it difficult to report to their principal. Ten percent of reporters had no idea what happened once they had made their report. Teachers worried that the CAS response would be too disruptive for the child's family life, and that the report would negatively affect the working relationship with children and their families. Over a quarter of the teachers felt that this working relationship would not be affected if the principals handled the report. Forty-six percent of the teachers surveyed felt that it was the principal's job to contact the CAS. Teachers had concerns about their legal liability (42%) and job security (11%) surrounding their duty to report. Survey results also indicated that teachers overestimated their principal's ability to handle reports; 94% believed that principals would know how to handle the report. Seventeen percent of the teachers questioned their own ability to make a report, and an additional 12% worried that their principal would not agree with their judgement of the situation. The study determined that principals could affect the teacher reporting procedure in several ways: 1) they could make the call immediately after a teacher had come forward or allow the teacher to make the call to CAS herself, 2) they could screen the report, meanwhile the teacher would believe the situation has been handled properly, or 3) they could dismiss the teacher's suspicions to the point where she would start doubting herself. The principals surveyed did seem prepared to handle reporting; 87% had attended child-abuse training in the previous five years, 67% responded that they were clear about the reporting route, and about 66% knew child abuse definitions. However, principals were less likely than teachers to apply the abuse label. Principals may not have directed every teacher report to the CAS, but those surveyed indicated that they had held private consultations with parents, set up counselling sessions for the children, or consulted with the public health nurse following such disclosures.

Tite R. Detecting the symptoms of child abuse: classroom complications. Canadian Journal of Education 1994;19(1):1-14.

Purpose: To assess the difficulties associated with detection and subsequent reporting of child abuse in an Ontario school setting. The study focuses on the initial stage of the decision- making process with regard to reporting suspected child abuse, the factors affecting the detection of symptoms, and the initial decision to proceed with a report.

Methods: The research was conducted in three phases: 1) Exploratory interviews were held with 10 teachers focusing on attitudes and knowledge of abuse and reporting requirements. (The results of the first phase were included in the development of the questionnaire used in the second phase.) 2) The survey was sent to a random sample of 500 female teachers and 100 principals (mainly male). The response rates were 52% and 49% respectively. The questions covered a wide range of items, including definitions of abuse, interventions, difficulties associated with detection, and reporting. Teachers who had suspected child abuse were asked whether they had made an official report and, if so, to describe the results. 3) Follow-up interviews focusing on the actual experience of reporting were conducted with a subsample of eight teachers and two principals drawn at random from those who stated that they had reported abuse.  

Discussion: Crowded classrooms and numerous teaching assignments do not enable teachers to engage individual children on a level that is conducive to noticing signs of abuse and to pursuing the topic. Often, teachers do not know what signs to look for and feel they have not been sufficiently trained to detect sexual, physical, or emotional abuse. Although the majority of teachers surveyed had received reporting law information from their school boards, fewer than half had been required to attend child abuse in-service training. Almost 40% stated that they did not know whether their school board had a child abuse policy. Many teachers chose to investigate the abuse informally before making a report. However, 97% of respondents found it difficult to probe for information with the parents, and 89% faced similar difficulties with the child. More than half of the respondents worried about disturbing the parent-teacher relationship, fearing the reactions from the parents; 72% worried about invading the privacy of the family; 59% of respondents were concerned about disturbing the child's trust in the teacher; and more than 90% were afraid of parents taking their anger out on the child. Less than 10% of this sample of teachers and principals in their role as educators used corporal punishment, yet 69% were in favour of spanking as a disciplinary measure, and 42% indicated that it might be difficult to distinguish between abuse and discipline.

Tite R. How teachers define and respond to child abuse: the distinction between theoretical and reportable cases. Child Abuse & Neglect 1993;17:591-603.

Purpose: This study focuses on a discussion of the definitions of abuse that Ontario teachers use and the relation between these definitions and intervention.

Methods: The research was conducted in three phases: 1) Exploratory interviews were held with 10 teachers focusing on attitudes and knowledge of abuse and reporting requirements. (The results of the first phase were included in the development of the questionnaire used in the second phase.) 2) The survey was sent to a random sample of 500 female teachers and 100 principals (mainly male). The response rates were 52% and 49% respectively. The questions covered a wide range of items, including definitions of abuse, interventions, difficulties associated with detection, and reporting. Teachers who had suspected child abuse were asked if they had made an official report and, if so, to describe the results. 3) Follow-up interviews focusing on the actual experience of reporting were conducted with a subsample of eight teachers and two principals drawn at random from those who stated that they had reported abuse.

Discussion: Teachers hold a broader definition of abuse than that legally cited by the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. Respondents most frequently cited cases of neglecting cleanliness (87%), failure to provide supervision (64%), and bruising (55%). Teachers reported only a quarter of suspected abuse cases, and those reported most frequently were cases of incest. Of the 49 teachers in this sample who revealed suspicions of incest, 32% recalled making a report to child protective services. Teachers most often made their reports through the school principal, since they are required to do so by the Ontario School Boards.  Bruising was reported 18% of the time by the 138 teachers who encountered these cases.  

The interview data suggest that in most cases of suspected child abuse or neglect, public health and/or community charity and school resources are channelled to the victim without drawing attention to Child Protective Services. Teachers described monitoring the situation and the child's behaviour, holding discussions with parents, consulting with colleagues, clergy, or local community resource people, and providing personal care themselves. The decision to report appears complex and difficult to predict. It involves the interplay of definitions, institutional response, teachers' experience and personal traits. With unreported cases, teachers felt they had insufficient evidence to proceed with a report and preferred informal intervention to determine whether a formal report would be supported. When teachers do make reports to child protective services, these generally involve cases in which efforts by the public health nurse and all informal attempts to convince and help the parents have failed.

Bridgeland WM, Duane EA. Principals as secondary enforcers in child abuse. Education and Urban Society 1990;22(3):314-24.

Purpose: To explore the impact of mandatory reporting laws on elementary school staff, mainly principals, in Ontario and Michigan.

Methods: A sample of 20 principals was drawn from a representative list of principals compiled by both Ontario and Michigan to participate in the 50 minute telephone interview. Topics covered in the interview included the reporting process, school programs and practices, and the impact of abuse issues on the relationship between the abused child, the child's family, social services, and school staff.

Discussion: Both Canadian and U.S. principals mentioned frustrations surrounding their contact with social services. In particular, they were upset about the lack of feedback and follow-up, the slow response of processing abuse cases, and the perceived self-importance on the part of the workers. Teachers and principals are equally responsible under the law to report suspected abuse. This equality in responsibility may conflict with traditional lines of authority. Teachers may delegate the problem to the principals and then expect full feedback and follow-up consultations. School teachers are more sensitive to identifying signs of abuse than they were in the past. However, concerns were expressed that this might undermine their traditional expression of caring and affection toward the children for fear of being charged themselves.

McClare G. The principal's role in child abuse. Education and Urban Society 1990;22(3):307-13.

Purpose: To provide an overview of issues that school principals in Canada should be aware of to effectively address child abuse.

Method: Descriptive article.

Discussion: The author suggests that the school principal should be the communications liaison with outside agencies and that a multi-disciplinary committee be formed to assist in developing child abuse reporting procedures. Important features of child abuse reporting procedures are presented as well as directions and warnings concerning common mistakes made by school personnel when confronted with a suspicion of child abuse. A strategy is provided for when a child is inter- viewed by child protection workers at the school. There are suggestions about information to be gathered if a child is removed from his or her parents, and the usefulness of employing a resource person is discussed. The topic of education and training programs (for teachers and parents) and their usefulness is included.

| previous | Table of Contents | next |