Data and Analysis

A statistical analysis will be provided based off of the age of teacher respondents and the

frequency of “yes” or “no” responses regarding whether or not teachers feel mandatory reporting

is beneficial. This pilot study is hoping to create a basis of research for further research. As it is

only a pilot study, the sample size is fairly small with only 118 respondents and this paper

assumes that trends are accurate based on the sample size of the study.

Table 1: Ages of Participants:

Survey Question: What is your age?

Table 2: Comparison of Age to Opinion

 Survey Question: Do you feel that the role is useful in helping children of possible abuse?

The above tables represent the age range and frequency of survey respondents (Table 1) and the

number of “yes” or “no” opinions of the usefulness of mandatory reporting (Table 2). The first

column, titled “age” in Table 1 represents the age of a teacher provided through a short answer

response on the survey. Due to the a wide array of specific ages, the results have been organized

and grouped into ten year spans in order to make analysis easier. Column two, titled “number of

responses,” also found in Table 1, represents the number of teachers who took the survey within

that age group. The first column in Table 2 represents the organized age ranges of respondents in

comparison to the number of “yes” or “no” responses provided in column two of Table 2. Ages

are again organized into 10 year groups in order to make analysis easier to understand.

A general trend in the data shows that the number of teachers who feel that mandatory reporting

is useful, based off of table 2, is almost double that of teachers who do not feel that mandatory

reporting is useful. 66% of the respondents reported that “yes,” they do feel mandatory reporting

is useful in preventing child abuse. Only 34% of respondents answered “no,” they do not feel

that mandatory reporting is useful.

In another perspective, the trend of responses versus the number of respondents in each age

group poses an interesting understanding: per age group, the same number of respondents on

average do not think that mandatory reporting is useful. Referring to Table 1, there are differing

numbers of respondents per the median age groups, with the 26-35 group having 33 respondents,

36-45 having 41 responses, and the 46-55 age group having 31 responses. Looking at Table 2,
the general trend in data shows that despite the difference in numbers shown in Table 1, each of

the three age groups had exactly 13 respondents that answered “no.” In each age group, the

recurrent data suggests that there is a significant number of teachers who do not think that

mandatory reporting is useful.

Chart 1:

Overall, the data suggests that teachers do feel that mandatory reporting is useful. As referenced

by Chart 1, the data overwhelmingly supports mandatory reporting and its usefulness with 95.8%

of respondents in support, while only 4.2% of respondents had a differing opinion. This data

provides a counterclaim to Guttman’s research claiming that a majority of teachers do feel that

the mandatory reporting policy does more harm than good.

Example 1:
An example of a survey scenario question is shown above. The scenario assumes that the student

is a positive and successful student, while she is experiencing some hardship at home. The

question assumes that no physical abuse is taking place. The question offered three possible

methods of handling the situation to the teacher taking the survey. The different perspectives

represented within the answer show the divergence of opinions that teachers may have.

Chart 2:

The chart above shows the percentages and results of the above scenario (Example 1) as

answered by teachers. The possible answer choices represented three different approaches:

extreme, mild, and no approach. Choice A was “nothing, the student should handle her issues

with her parents outside of the classroom,” Choice B was “I should personally attempt to mediate

the situation,” and Choice C was “I need to tell a higher school official regarding my concern for

the students welfare.” Out of the three choices, 70.3% of teacher respondents believe that they

should tell a higher school official about their concern. In this case, choice C represents the

teachers choice to mandatory report a situation. The majority of teachers feel that they would

mandatory report in a situation that lacks physical abuse, but appears to have some mental and

emotional neglect going on. 25.4% of teachers in this case believe that they should personally
mediate the situation, meaning they do not believe mandatory reporting is necessary. Only 4.2%

of teachers believe that it is the students issue, and no action should be taken at all.

The data itself shows that 95.7% of teachers (70.3% & 25.4%) believe that some sort of action

should be taken for the student. Although action in this case is not always defined as mandatory

reporting, it is known that in the said situation of emotional/mental abuse, teachers do feel it is

part of their job to intervene in some way.

Example 2:

An example of an alternate survey question is shown. In this case, the situation involves a boy

who is being picked on by his classmates and his recent grades are dropping. The parents have

already been contacted by the teacher and have agreed to hire at at home tutor. This survey

question also presented three possible methods of handling the problem.

Chart 3:
The chart above shows the results of the data provided by the second scenario (Scenario 2). The

choices again represented three methods of handling the situation. Choice A was “I should report

the situation to a higher school official,” Choice B was “I should continue to work with the

parents to help the student become successful,” and Choice C was “I should stay out of the

students personal life and worry strictly about his grades. Once again, out of the three choices,

there was a distribution of results. This time, only two of the choices were selected by teachers.

70.3% of the teachers in this question selected that they would rather continue to work with the

student and his parents without the help of higher officials. Teachers in this case, for the

majority, do not think that mandatory reporting is necessary. 29.7% of respondents, however, did

select that they feel that they should report the situation to a higher school official and ultimately

mandatory report. Teachers in this selection felt that the situation was strong enough that higher

officials should be involved. No teachers selected that they felt they should stay out of the

students personal life.

Example 3:
An example of the last survey scenario question is shown above. In this case, it is obvious that

the child is undergoing moderate-severe abuse. The parent is not involved in teacher

communication and is participating in illegal drug activity. Bruises suggest that the child is being

hit by someone, not necessarily the mother. This question also presented three possible methods

of solution. The data revealed that 100% of teachers (118) would immediately report to a higher

official. As it is 100% the same response, a pie chart was un-needed to demonstrate the data

distribution.

Although this question (Example 3) does deal with a situation that under state standards would

require a report, limitations are presented as the question may be overly simplified and answer

choices could be bias. The answer choices are written in an obvious way and could possibly shift

the overall perspective of the results. While all questions are considered relevant to the research,

it is important to understand possible limitations of the study.

The overall data suggests that teachers feel there are times at which mandatory reporting should

occur, as shown in Chart 2, however, the degree of severity per situation has an impact on

whether or not the teacher feels that a report is necessary. Evidenced by the results shown in

Chart 3, the degree of severity per situation can also decide whether or not the teacher handles

what is going on personally. The majority of respondents for Example 2 would have taken a

personal approach versus the data shown in Example 1, in which the majority of respondents

would report the situation to a higher school official. The data distribution shows that there is a

correlation between severity of the situation and the decision to report.

 Discussion

Through the analysis, it is evident that an appeal towards personal mediation when legal

is the central focus of teachers’ roles as mandatory reporters. As long as teachers are able to

personally mediate a situation while maintaining the dynamics of the law, the data reveals that

teachers are apt to do so. While the data does provide a new understanding, design flaws in the

study may have hindered the credibility of the analysis. The case study questions within the

survey pose some sort of inaccuracy regarding who a teacher is to report to. Pre-survey

construction research revealed that teachers were to report to a higher official, however, further

research conducted after the survey had been finalized reveals that teachers are to directly report

to CPS through a call or online forum. The answer choices per case study may be somewhat bias

as there is not 100% accuracy of information per choice. Teachers are not legally required to

report a negative relationship between a parent and a student to CPS unless physical abuse is

detected, however, they may want to gain the help of a higher school official, which in this case

could be a counselor or principal. The answer choices in no way fully represented all possible

ways of handling certain situations and could be a source of inaccuracy within the results. Due to

limitations set by the answer choices of the question, further research should be done in order

fully understand a variety of perspectives of teachers on the topic.

Future research on the perspective of mandatory report laws should be conducted in order

to further divulge the understanding of the role by those who are required to fill it. It is important

to understand how teachers interpret their roles’ in order to improve the policy to best fit both the

teachers and the students. Expanding on the findings of this pilot study, it would be beneficial to

conduct research focusing on a wide scale of degree of severity in order to gauge which teachers
are inclined to report for which situations. Teacher interviews may provide subjective data that

adds to the overall understanding of the role and how it is conducted by its participants.

Although this paper focuses on one group of mandatory reporters, teachers, future research could

also expand on other mandatory reporters, such as counselors, doctors, or police. Further

research on a broader scale may allow for a general understanding and an adaptation to a law that

suits a variety of professions beyond teaching.

The main aim of this paper was to determine which ways teachers perceived their roles as

mandatory reporters of child abuse in a school setting. The main takeaway from this research is

that teachers would rather personally mediate, if possible by the restrictions of the law. This

research supports the findings of Guttman and expand on the ideas and evaluation put forth by

Walsh’s analysis method. The distribution of results show that a majority of teachers use the

severity of the situation in order to decide if a report is necessary, however, most would prefer to

personally mediate a situation at home if possible or through the help of a higher school official

(i.e. principal or counselor). Previous findings did not directly research perception, however,

solely focused more on the yes or no aspect of teacher’s reporting, thus calling for an expansion

of research surrounding perception. In order to evaluate the fullest extent of the law, more

research must be conducted in order to analyze the perception of the law in all professions

necessary.