Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Database of Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages. The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - March 6, 2018 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 8489
Date: 2010-05-21

Author:Wells, Susan J

Subject:RE: Educational Neglect

Here are responses to comments of D F McMahon from Tim Zuel and Anita Larson. They are not on the listserv so in the interest of time, I forwarded the comments to them and asked if they would like to respond. Here is what Tim Zuel sent: Yes the racial disparity was significant for ed neglect reporting. Some of this is responsible for pulling the overall CW disparity rate for MN to a higher rate. I would consider this theory at this point since there is not enough data over the subsequent years to prove that ed neglect reporting disparity continues. Only approximately half the counties in the state even reported ed neglect in the 2000/2001 school year. I am sure some of the disparity rests with majority culture professionals reporting minority children. I am also guessing that the urban counties have a higher disparity due to higher minority populations in inner city schools and better reporting standards for school professionals. I found that there is little research on the effect of schools in young truants. A recent meta-analysis of truancy interventions (Stuphen, R., Ford, J., & Flaherty, C. (2010). Truancy Interventions: A Review of the Research Literature. Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 20, No. 2, 161-171) shows that among all evaluations with rigor, there is little involving young children and those that are present usually do not involve school. I again theorize that this is due to a young child's sphere of influence being the immediate family and in some cases the physical environment (neighborhood), the community. Interventions do not include school because for young children going to school is not their choice. It is based on the family process. There are some studies of groups in school that support attendance, however they tend to be for older children. School factors that might affect attendance are a school's relationship with families. This has not been studied in ways that pass muster. Family involvement in schools has been shown to support attendance, but non-involvement is seen as a family issue. A schools ability to meet a child's mental health needs might also qualify as a "school factor" but again this is usually seen as a child's individual factor. There are lots of descriptive studies on what school SW should do to assist a child with poor attendance but little research. Timothy B. Zuel, PhD IV-E Scholar University of Minnesota, School of Social Work Here is Anita Larson’s added information: Our more recent publication on this study follows up on these same children years later and in the discussion section we at least mention some of the community factors that can have an influence on outcomes. We reocognize the holistic nature of the child's school life and the perspective of child welfare is only viewing things from that lens. We ran some log odds on racial groups, too that might be more satisfying to readers. A version of this second report will be appearing in an upcoming issue of NASW's Children & Schools, but I have not heard which issue. This is not my area, so at this point I will bow out. Susan J. Wells From: bounce-5850305-12990613@list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-5850305-12990613@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of D F MCMAHON Sent: May 20, 2010 8:44 PM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Subject: RE: Educational Neglect I just looked at that briefly and am puzzled by the racial disparities (which the study notes). For example, African American kids account for 44% of educational neglect findings but 24% of maltreatment findings. What might this mean? Proportionately less educational neglect by maltreating white parents means proportionately more other types of maltreatment--physical/sexual abuse, emotional abuse, etc--among the victim population? White parents may maltreat their children but, by golly, they will make sure they get to school? On the assumption that abuse and neglect in general would impact school attendance relatively equally (e.g. chemically dependent white parent would be just as likely to not get kids to school as chemically dependent minority parent) schools (cited as the primary source of educational neglect reporting) are more likely to report educational neglect by minority parents than white parents? (Musing about the possibility that "maltreated" minority kids are much more likely to want to be at home with their families vs in school, compared to "maltreated" white kids) Or, given that minority kids constitute a disproportionately larger part of the maltreatment victim population, could disproportionately large reporting of educational neglect explain that disproportion? --if so, maybe more likely for African-American children. Awhile since I have seen the breakdown for Minnesota but aware that it is one of the states where Native American children have a highly disparate representation in child welfare population (which is not really the case in, say, SW states such as NM, AZ and about which I have a personal theory). The study also discusses historical development of child protection and truancy statutes in Minnesota, in particular the shift over time from viewing truancy as the child's pathology to viewing it as also possibly due to other factors--"i.e." family/parent. Of course, no reference to environmental factors such as the school environment as a factor. (Bewildering to me why that factor is so consistently left out of these discussions!) Sheri McMahon ND ________________________________ Subject: RE: Educational Neglect Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 08:53:05 -0700 From: Susan.Wells@ubc.ca To: child-maltreatment-research-l@list.cornell.edu The CASCW at the University of Minnesota has done some work in this area. Child Protection and Educational Neglect: A Preliminary Study Tim Zuel and Anita Larson, June 2006 Susan J. Wells Professor, Joint Appointment Psychology and Social Work University of British Columbia Okanagan Arts 333 3333 University Way Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7 Canada phone: 250-807-8163 fax: 250-807-8439 From: bounce-5843087-12990613@list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-5843087-12990613@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of AJack10970@aol.com Sent: May 19, 2010 9:02 AM To: child-maltreatment-research-l@list.cornell.edu Subject: Educational Neglect I have been away from the research field in recent years and would so appreciate a guide to the mast recent literature on educational neglect. amjackson

Here are responses to comments of D F McMahon from Tim Zuel and Anita Larson. They are not on the listserv so in the interest of time, I forwarded the comments to them and asked if they would like to respond. Here is what Tim Zuel sent: Yes the racial disparity was significant for ed neglect reporting. Some of this is responsible for pulling the overall CW disparity rate for MN to a higher rate. I would consider this theory at this point since there is not enough data over the subsequent years to prove that ed neglect reporting disparity continues. Only approximately half the counties in the state even reported ed neglect in the 2000/2001 school year. I am sure some of the disparity rests with majority culture professionals reporting minority children. I am also guessing that the urban counties have a higher disparity due to higher minority populations in inner city schools and better reporting standards for school professionals. I found that there is little research on the effect of schools in young truants. A recent meta-analysis of truancy interventions (Stuphen, R., Ford, J., & Flaherty, C. (2010). Truancy Interventions: A Review of the Research Literature. Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 20, No. 2, 161-171) shows that among all evaluations with rigor, there is little involving young children and those that are present usually do not involve school. I again theorize that this is due to a young child's sphere of influence being the immediate family and in some cases the physical environment (neighborhood), the community. Interventions do not include school because for young children going to school is not their choice. It is based on the family process. There are some studies of groups in school that support attendance, however they tend to be for older children. School factors that might affect attendance are a school's relationship with families. This has not been studied in ways that pass muster. Family involvement in schools has been shown to support attendance, but non-involvement is seen as a family issue. A schools ability to meet a child's mental health needs might also qualify as a "school factor" but again this is usually seen as a child's individual factor. There are lots of descriptive studies on what school SW should do to assist a child with poor attendance but little research. Timothy B. Zuel, PhD IV-E Scholar University of Minnesota, School of Social Work Here is Anita Larson’s added information: Our more recent publication on this study follows up on these same children years later and in the discussion section we at least mention some of the community factors that can have an influence on outcomes. We reocognize the holistic nature of the child's school life and the perspective of child welfare is only viewing things from that lens. We ran some log odds on racial groups, too that might be more satisfying to readers. A version of this second report will be appearing in an upcoming issue of NASW's Children & Schools, but I have not heard which issue. This is not my area, so at this point I will bow out. Susan J. Wells From: bounce-5850305-12990613list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-5850305-12990613list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of D F MCMAHON Sent: May 20, 2010 8:44 PM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Subject: RE: Educational Neglect I just looked at that briefly and am puzzled by the racial disparities (which the study notes). For example, African American kids account for 44% of educational neglect findings but 24% of maltreatment findings. What might this mean? Proportionately less educational neglect by maltreating white parents means proportionately more other types of maltreatment--physical/sexual abuse, emotional abuse, etc--among the victim population? White parents may maltreat their children but, by golly, they will make sure they get to school? On the assumption that abuse and neglect in general would impact school attendance relatively equally (e.g. chemically dependent white parent would be just as likely to not get kids to school as chemically dependent minority parent) schools (cited as the primary source of educational neglect reporting) are more likely to report educational neglect by minority parents than white parents? (Musing about the possibility that "maltreated" minority kids are much more likely to want to be at home with their families vs in school, compared to "maltreated" white kids) Or, given that minority kids constitute a disproportionately larger part of the maltreatment victim population, could disproportionately large reporting of educational neglect explain that disproportion? --if so, maybe more likely for African-American children. Awhile since I have seen the breakdown for Minnesota but aware that it is one of the states where Native American children have a highly disparate representation in child welfare population (which is not really the case in, say, SW states such as NM, AZ and about which I have a personal theory). The study also discusses historical development of child protection and truancy statutes in Minnesota, in particular the shift over time from viewing truancy as the child's pathology to viewing it as also possibly due to other factors--"i.e." family/parent. Of course, no reference to environmental factors such as the school environment as a factor. (Bewildering to me why that factor is so consistently left out of these discussions!) Sheri McMahon ND ________________________________ Subject: RE: Educational Neglect Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 08:53:05 -0700 From: Susan.Wellsubc.ca To: child-maltreatment-research-llist.cornell.edu The CASCW at the University of Minnesota has done some work in this area. Child Protection and Educational Neglect: A Preliminary Study Tim Zuel and Anita Larson, June 2006 Susan J. Wells Professor, Joint Appointment Psychology and Social Work University of British Columbia Okanagan Arts 333 3333 University Way Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7 Canada phone: 250-807-8163 fax: 250-807-8439 From: bounce-5843087-12990613list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-5843087-12990613list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of AJack10970aol.com Sent: May 19, 2010 9:02 AM To: child-maltreatment-research-llist.cornell.edu Subject: Educational Neglect I have been away from the research field in recent years and would so appreciate a guide to the mast recent literature on educational neglect. amjackson