“The tip of the iceberg”: Multiple thresholds in schools' detecting and reporting of child abuse and neglect

Our study reveals behaviors and workarounds that develop when reporting child abuse and neglect (CAN) is not mandatory. An issue here is interpretation of the notion of duty. Participants interpreted duty as commitment to the well-being of each child in their school. They perceive reporting suspected CAN as potentially, even probably, detrimental to children's well-being. In a study of “the paradox of non-compliance” Gallagher-Mackay (2014, p. 256) found that teachers weigh duty to report against reluctance to disrupt conditions and relationships they consider favorable to a child's progress at school; and “in a context where there is considerable uncertainty about the implications of making a call, and even a culture of skepticism about children's aid, this weighting does not always favor the letter of the law” (p. 275). Gallagher-Mackay concludes that the seemingly irrational behavior of non-reporting makes sense “in the larger frame of a system that functions best in the presence of caring relationships and frontline workers who take active steps to maintain them” (p. 282). Reporting requirements may be perceived as instigating intrusive intervention and undermining the child-centered nature of education.