Teachers’ Perspectives on Their Role in Responding to Child Neglect

Abstract

Although teachers are arguably in the best position to recognize signs of child neglect in its earliest stages, there is a notable gap in research examining their perspectives. In this study, we examined how Jewish and Arab in-service and pre-service teachers in Israel perceive their role in responding to child neglect, their attitudes toward it, and what this role should consist of. Focus groups were conducted with 107 participants across two groups: (a) 10 with in-service Jewish and Arab teachers; and (b) seven with pre-service Jewish and Arab teachers. Overall, teachers acknowledged their central role in identifying, reporting, and intervening in cases of child neglect and were strongly committed to doing so. Nevertheless, they also conveyed their hesitance: They were overburdened with too many other tasks, and such work extended beyond their professional responsibility/expertise. A major obstacle to teachers’ inclination to engage in such cases was lack of knowledge and the complete absence/inadequacy of training provided in pre-service teaching programs and on-the-job training for in-service teachers. Importantly, teachers suggested several ways that schools could contribute to child neglect responses, including attending to children’s emotional needs and counterbalancing negative experiences of unresponsive/rejecting parenting; adopting a whole-school approach to the handling of neglect that would encompass all school staff (e.g., cafeteria workers, bus drivers) and even other pupils; and supporting and educating parents through improved communication and establishing collaborative relationships based on trust. This study calls for a broader view of teachers’ role in responding to neglect that would extend beyond the detection and reporting of child neglect to the implementation of whole-school trauma-informed practices and the fostering of teacher–parent partnerships. A prerequisite for such initiatives is providing teachers with proper training and supervision that would prepare them for their role.

Introduction

Child neglect, generally understood as a lack of adequate supervision, protection, and provision of basic needs such as food, medical care, or education (World Health Organization, 1999), constitutes the most commonly reported and complex form of child maltreatment, posing a significant global health and social problem (Kobulsky et al., 2020). In 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, & Children’s Bureau (2023) estimated that neglect was involved in 76% of child maltreatment cases there, and accounted for 86% of all maltreatment-related deaths. Globally, the prevalence of child physical neglect is estimated to be 16.3%, and emotional neglect 18.4% (Stoltenborgh et al., 2013). Comparable rates have been observed in Israel, the current study’s setting, with 18% and 17% of a national sample of over 12,000 adolescents reporting physical and emotional neglect, respectively (Lev-Wiesel et al., 2018). Child neglect inflicts harm comparable to physical or sexual abuse, resulting in severe and long-lasting impairments across multiple domains (Stoltenborgh et al., 2013) including cognitive deficits, mental health problems, and physical health problems (e.g., sexually transmitted infections, heart disease; Kobulsky et al., 2020). Despite its significant prevalence and severe consequences, child neglect remains under-researched (Laajasalo et al., 2023). This is particularly true regarding the crucial role of teachers in addressing child neglect, where empirical evidence and evidence-based practices remain extremely limited (Bullock et al., 2019). Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the perspectives of in-service and pre-service teachers regarding their and their school’s role in responding to child neglect.

Teachers’ Role in Responding to Child Neglect

Multiple professions with child-care responsibilities, including social workers, healthcare professionals, and law enforcement, contribute to the identification and response to child neglect and abuse (Gilbert et al., 2009). Accordingly, these professionals are assigned a special reporting duty and are mandated by law to report suspected cases of maltreatment in many countries across the world, including the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Israel (Goldman, 2007; Mathews & Kenny, 2008). Teachers, however, are arguably in the best position to identify such cases and provide initial responses, given the significant amount of time children spend daily in school due to mandatory attendance policies (Moon et al., 2017). The low student–teacher ratios in primary and secondary education (13–14 students for every teacher on average across OECD countries; OECD, 2025) and the sustained daily interactions teachers have with children during different parts of the day and the school year provide teachers with unparalleled opportunities to observe ongoing patterns of parental omissions of care that are indicative of neglect (e.g., inadequate clothing, poor hygiene, hunger, missed healthcare appointments, frequent absences) (Authors, forthcoming). Teachers also form close relationships with children, witness parent–child interactions and can detect behavioral changes in children (e.g., underachievement, social withdrawal) marking maltreatment (Tener & Sigad, 2019). Indeed, globally, teachers submit more child neglect and abuse reports to child protection agencies than any other professional group (Gilbert et al., 2009).

Teachers’ responsibility to identify child neglect stems from their unique observational position as well as neglect’s significant impact on academic performance, learning, and attendance (Adelman & Taylor, 2014). Indeed, it is widely recognized that children cannot effectively engage in learning if their basic needs are unmet (e.g., Baginsky, 2008; Perfect et al., 2016). In their systematic review of child neglect sequelae among school-aged children, Maguire et al. (2015) found that children who experienced neglect displayed lower IQ levels, poor reading and mathematical skills, and ADHD-related symptoms, such as impulsivity, inattention, or hyperactivity.

Challenges in Responding to Child Neglect

Despite their crucial role, concerns persist regarding teachers’ preparedness to effectively intervene in child neglect cases and fulfill their safeguarding responsibilities (e.g., Melkman, 2024). One major obstacle lies in insufficient knowledge of child neglect identification and reporting procedures (e.g., McKee & Dillenburger, 2012; Schols et al., 2013; Walsh et al., 2013). Dinehart and Kenny’s (2015) assessment of 137 early childhood education providers in Florida revealed that many educators, even those with prior child maltreatment training, lacked clarity regarding legal reporting obligations and procedures for suspected neglect and abuse. These deficiencies have often been attributed to the limited training on child maltreatment offered to pre-service and in-service teachers, the absence of national standards, and the omission of these topics from mandatory teacher education curricula and certification frameworks (e.g., Walsh et al., 2023). Thus, although teachers are generally aware of the signs of child neglect and abuse, and contribute the greatest number of reports to child-protection agencies, they are also responsible for failing to report most cases (Gilbert et al., 2009), with estimates of under-reporting varying between 11% (Feng et al., 2010) and 36% (Greco et al., 2022).

The significant challenges teachers face in identifying and reporting child neglect have prompted debate regarding the appropriateness of assigning them a legally mandated role, particularly given its divergence from their core responsibilities of nurturing and educating students (Goodman, 2021). Teachers already contend with extensive demands related to students’ academic and socioemotional well-being, contributing to high levels of burnout and attrition (Adelman & Taylor, 2014; Goodman, 2021). Although the existing literature addresses aspects of teachers’ roles in responding to child neglect, research providing detailed insights into teachers’ perspectives remains limited (Alazri & Hannah, 2020). Existing studies shows that teachers’ views in this respect vary greatly, and that although some school personnel consider reporting a part of their professional responsibility, others do not (Alazri & Hannah, 2020). A mixed-methods study of Taiwanese kindergarten teachers (Feng et al., 2009, 2010) indicated that, beyond legal obligations, teachers viewed reporting as aligned with their professional responsibilities to uphold justice and morality, protect students from harm, and advocate for their well-being. Walsh et al. (2012) also found generally positive attitudes toward reporting among Australian teachers, although when teachers’ confidence in the system was lower, their concerns about the consequences of reporting were higher, thereby diminishing their commitment to reporting. Studies conducted in Great Britain (Bullock et al., 2019; Sharley, 2020) and the Netherlands (Gubbels et al., 2021; Schols et al., 2013) revealed that educators viewed their primary role as academic instruction and were hesitant to intervene in matters they considered beyond their educational remit. Accordingly, the detection and handling of child neglect and abuse was seen as primarily the responsibility of other professionals, such as healthcare workers or child protective services. This perception sometimes results in reluctance to address or report suspected neglect (Bullock et al., 2019; Schols et al., 2013).

When examining teachers’ perspectives on their role in responding to child neglect, it is essential to consider not only the views of in-service teachers but also those of prospective teachers. Research indicates that pre-service teachers form relatively stable beliefs about the teaching profession well before entering the classroom, and that these beliefs often persist throughout their preparation and into their early teaching careers (Fajet et al., 2005). Moreover, since beliefs and attitudes toward child neglect are shaped by broader cultural frameworks and social identities (Nadan & Korbin, 2018), it is equally important to explore the perspectives of teachers from diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds. Such an inclusive approach allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how teachers’ professional and cultural contexts influence their interpretations and responses to child neglect.

In light of the foregoing, and given the gap between the recognized importance of teachers’ role in addressing child neglect and the lack of studies exploring their attitudes/perspectives, in the current study, we examined the perspectives of Jewish and Arab in-service and pre-service teachers in Israel, specifically focusing on two key questions: (a) Should teachers/schools play a role in responding to child neglect? (b) If so, what should that role entail (i.e., what actions should teachers/schools take to address child neglect)?

The Study Context

Israel’s mandatory child abuse and neglect reporting law requires professionals, including teachers, to report suspected cases to child protection officers or law enforcement; failure to comply can result in up to 6 months’ imprisonment (Penal Code Amendment #26, 1989). Complementing the legal mandate, educators receive specific guidelines for identifying and addressing child abuse and neglect (Director General’s Circular, 2008). These guidelines include consulting school counselors to determine reporting procedures and in-school support for affected pupils, and informing parents or refraining from informing them when there is reason to suspect that a family member perpetrated the abuse. Notably, education teams were the main source of child maltreatment reports in Israel in 2020 (Israel National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect/INCC, 2021).

Examining teachers’ roles in responding to neglect requires acknowledging Israel's unique ethnic and religious diversity, which significantly influences child neglect prevalence and professional responses (Ben-Arieh & Haj-Yahia, 2006). Israel’s population comprises various ethnic and religious groups, with Jews (approximately 75%) and Arabs (21%) constituting the largest groups. The Arab community is characterized by cultural conservatism, a patriarchal hierarchy, strong community ties, and strict religious norms (Haj-Yahia, 2000). It also experiences systemic inequality and has disproportionately high poverty rates, increasing its vulnerability to child neglect (Miaari et al., 2024). To reflect Israel’s diversity, we collected data from both Arab and Jewish communities (see section “Participants”).

Methods

Participants

The study drew on 17 focus group discussions with 107 participants from northern and central Israel, representing two professional groups: (a) 10 focus groups with in-service Jewish (6 groups, n = 36) and Arab (4 groups, n = 23) teachers; and (b) seven focus groups with pre-service Jewish (3 groups, n = 22) and Arab (4 groups, n = 26) teachers. The age range for in-service teachers was 25 to 58 years, whereas pre-service teachers, aged 23 to 43 years, were in their third and final year of graduate studies and possessed at least 1 year of field experience. The focus group method was selected for its suitability in facilitating the collective construction of knowledge while maintaining participants’ connection to their social context (Robinson, 2020).

Participants were recruited through individual outreach to in-service teachers and through teacher education colleges for pre-service teachers, using a letter describing the research goals and procedures. One study author and one research assistant facilitated focus group sessions, which lasted 60 to 90 min and aimed to foster unrestricted, open discussion regarding educators’ experiences with child neglect. The focus group guide addressed the following content categories: (a) professional responses to neglect cases (e.g., Do you believe it is the schools’ role to intervene in such cases?); (b) educators’ coping strategies for neglect cases (e.g., How do school staff intervene to support children exposed to neglect).

The focus group discussions were conducted in participants’ native language (Arabic or Hebrew), recorded, and subsequently transcribed in Hebrew. Representative quotes were translated into English and then back-translated to Hebrew to ensure the translation authentically captured the participants’ meanings.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021). First, the researchers thoroughly acquainted themselves with the transcripts. They then conducted an open coding process, initiated to uncover participants’ perspectives on their role in addressing child neglect (Roulston, 2010). Subsequently, the open coding process was consolidated, merging diverse codes into meaningful themes. A comparison was made between the various professional (in-service and pre-service teachers) and ethnic (Jewish and Arab) subgroups to uncover differences and similarities in perceptions.

To enhance the study’s rigor, each author independently analyzed the data, followed by a collaborative review of emerging themes and patterns. Disagreements were resolved through team discussion until consensus was reached (Guion et al., 2011). Systematic documentation of all stages was performed to enable the examination and verification of the researchers’ conclusions and the reliability of the findings (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Additionally, one author maintained a field diary that offered contextual insights and supported reflective analysis during the data examination process.

Ethical Approval

The study received approval from the researchers’ universities’ ethics committees. All necessary institutional permissions were secured, and ethical guidelines were strictly adhered to, ensuring participants’ anonymity and the confidentiality of their data. Recordings and transcripts from group sessions were securely stored in a locked file on a password-protected hard drive. To protect participants’ privacy, numbers were used for direct quotations.

Results

The thematic analysis results are organized and presented in relation to the two research questions: (a) Should teachers/schools have a role in responding to child neglect? (b) What do teachers believe they/the schools should do to address child neglect? The identified themes were generally shared across the in-service and pre-service teachers, as well as across the Jewish and Arab participants. Group differences, when present, are described below.

Should Teachers/Schools Have a Role in Responding to Neglect?

Although most participants expressed a strong commitment to responding to child neglect, and viewed this task as an inherent part of their role as teachers, others disagreed, with discussions revolving around three main topics: (a) responsibility, (b) opportunity, and (c) capacity.

Responsibility

Moral and Professional Responsibility

One central though contested issue was whether it was the responsibility of teachers, and schools more generally, to deal with cases of child neglect, with participants’ views ranging from a firm belief that schools had a professional and moral responsibility to intervene to a complete rejection of this role. Many participants did believe that schools had a moral responsibility to protect the children under their care: “I think anyone who can help should, because we all have a part [to play]. If not me, then who? Otherwise . . .it [the case] will fall between the cracks… They [the children] should not be abandoned” (Jewish pre-service teacher, 16). As this quote demonstrates, participants believed that educators had a moral obligation to intervene when they detected signs of neglect. Participants further asserted that as professionals who worked with children, and who had ample opportunity to identify signs of neglect, they had a special responsibility to support these children: “It’s really about taking responsibility as a professional who is with the children and can take note of these things” (Jewish pre-service teacher, 22).

This view, regarding their role in this context, seemed related to participants perceiving themselves as the children’s “second parents” (Jewish teacher, 21). As one pre-service teacher explained: “The school comes second after the parents. The school and its teaching staff should care about and for these children” (Arab pre-service teacher, 20).

Some participants argued that the school’s role was not only to attend to children’s academic needs but also their emotional well-being: “The school’s role is to improve the pupils’ mental and emotional state by helping solve their problems” (Arab pre-service teacher, 9). Moreover, participants highlighted the negative academic ramifications of child neglect, providing a further rationale for schools to be involved: “Indeed, because child neglect affects pupils and their achievements and concentration in school, it’s natural for the school to care [for the child]” (Arab pre-service teacher, 18).

Limited or Secondary Responsibility

In contrast, other participants, while acknowledging some obligation to respond when noticing signs of neglect, viewed teachers’ responsibility as more limited: “You can’t involve teachers in these cases” (Arab pre-service teacher, 2). As one teacher said:

I would go to the school counselor for them to help the child, to give the child emotional and moral support, because I myself can’t help the child anymore. There is a limit to me as a teacher, or as a student at a teacher training college. (Arab pre-service teacher, 1)

These educators acknowledged a limited role in responding to signs of child neglect, suggesting that addressing such issues was beyond their responsibility and should be handled by other professionals. Other participants stressed that although the school could offer guidance, the primary responsibility for addressing child neglect rested with the parents: “I mean, as much as we want to be there for them [the children], the parents have to be there for them. . .it’s their responsibility, not ours” (Jewish pre-service teacher, 8).

Child Neglect Falls Outside the School’s Scope

Lastly, some participants felt that it wasn’t the school’s role to attend to non-academic issues and, as child neglect “is not a learning problem” (Arab teacher, 2), addressing it was beyond their responsibility: “I don’t think it’s [the school’s] job. Schools have the ability to help, but it’s not within their scope” (Jewish teacher, 12).

Opportunity

Extended Daily Contact as an Opportunity to Intervene

Another salient issue highlighted by many participants was the unparalleled opportunity that teachers and schools, more generally, had to identify signs of neglect, given the long hours teachers spent with their pupils, enabling them to observe children’s behaviors throughout the school day: “The responsibility to identify them is on us. We are with them the longest; we are with them, we see them, we are supposed to see” (Jewish pre-service teacher, 6). As another teacher explained:

Children spend half their day at school, so we [teachers] see them a lot, talk to them a lot, see their behavior with other pupils in the class, in the playground, during lessons, etc. All this provides us with signs of how to help them. (Arab teacher, 22)

Participants noted that their extended time with pupils allowed them to observe changes in mood, behavior, or appearance that could indicate neglect: “I saw a boy who was usually happy and bouncy and never kept his mouth shut, and then suddenly, I saw him quiet and tired” (Jewish pre-service teacher, 16).

Structural Constraints

However, some participants argued that high pupil-teacher ratios and heavy workloads limited their ability to notice signs of neglect and/or respond to them:

It’s clear to us that the school staff cannot reach every child, and usually, the neglected children need a push or someone to take care of them. The staff can only sometimes reach them because they have so many tasks to fulfill. They’re also teachers and have to prepare lessons and take care of all their pupils. (Arab pre-service teacher, 26)

These concerns highlight the tension between teachers’ potential to identify neglect and the practical constraints imposed by their workload.

Capacity

Arguments Supporting Schools’ Capacity to Intervene

A third substantial issue in terms of responding to child neglect revolved around the staff’s capacity to handle such cases. In fact, schools’, and more specifically, teachers’ capacity to effectively respond to child neglect proved to be the most contested issue. An argument in favor of taking an active role was that the schools’ centrality in children’s lives provided them with a unique vantage point in terms of their influence on children and families: “School is an integral part of a pupil’s life. . . Sometimes, one word from us as teachers can encourage and help the pupil” (Arab pre-service teacher, 23). Second, participants argued that schools had on-site professionals including school counselors, psychologists, and pastoral care workers, specially trained to handle such situations: “The school needs to help pupils and find a solution to the problem because the school has a team that specializes in dealing with such problems” (Arab pre-service teacher, 7).

Manpower Shortages and Bureaucracy

Other participants, however, highlighted a number of factors that they felt seriously challenged schools’ ability to address child neglect. First, they stated that schools suffered from manpower shortages, particularly of specialized staff with the appropriate skills/expertise to effectively respond to such situations: “The entire school counseling and emotional inclusion system is lacking; there is a lack of workforce, time, and inquiries, and the bureaucracy is plodding. By the time you submit a report, welfare officer, visit, etc. . . . It takes a long, long time” (Jewish teacher, 24).

Insufficient Training and Feeling Unprepared

Second, there was a general consensus that teachers themselves were ill-prepared to deal with such sensitive situations. Indeed, many teachers and pre-service teachers said there was no training in child neglect issues in pre-service graduate studies, in teacher certificate programs, or in on-the-job training for in-service teachers: “I studied for four years and never learned anything concerning child neglect or even, for example, had a conversation or meeting in which the subject was raised. Not at all” (Jewish pre-service teacher, 1). These accounts underscore a significant gap in teacher training, leaving educators feeling unprepared to address child neglect. Importantly, participants stressed that even in cases where such training was provided, it was not sufficient to prepare them for the complexity of identifying child neglect or responding effectively:

Even if they prepared us, nothing compares to what happens here at school. . . [The training] doesn’t touch the root of the matter, [and it] certainly doesn’t prepare you as a teacher for the day when you first meet a child who has experienced neglect, and you return to your home, to your bed, to all the things that are so intrinsic to your feeling safe. (Jewish teacher, 13)

Parental Lack of Cooperation as a Limiting Factor

Furthermore, several participants reported feeling powerless when confronted with such cases, claiming that schools were quite limited in what they could do to support neglected children without the cooperation of parents:

We have to deal with the situation and try to get the system to do something, but in the end, the parents are the ones who count. They are the authorities, and whatever they decide is what will happen. . . .We are a fraction of the child's life. Ultimately, the parents are 90% of what shapes the child. (Jewish teacher, 5)

As another teacher said:

In the end, you [the educator] can do nothing. . .you get to a situation where nothing will suffice; it won’t help anymore to talk, without action. A parent will say, “Okay, we’ll make a change, we’ll sort it out,” but they don’t sort it out, they neglect it, it doesn’t interest them, and it’s like you know, you get to the point where there’s a barrier. (Jewish pre-service teacher, 4)

What Roles Should Teachers/Schools Play in Addressing Child Neglect?

Building upon the question of whether schools should respond to child neglect, the second major theme concerned the specific roles and actions that teachers and schools should undertake. This theme encompassed three subthemes: (a) Monitoring and identifying signs of neglect; (b) Reporting to child protection agencies; and (c) Creating support for children and parents to mitigate the effects of child neglect.

Monitoring and Identifying Signs of Neglect

Role of Multiple School Actors

First and foremost, participants highlighted the important role educational staff had in monitoring and identifying signs of neglect: “The school should always intervene; there is constant surveillance and continuous contact” (Jewish teacher, 13). Participants stressed that all school personnel (not only teachers) had a role in such efforts:

It could be the teacher, counselor, intern, or student in training. Even the cleaning and maintenance worker could talk to the child and recognize that he suffers from neglect. (Arab pre-service teacher, 23)

Additionally, some participants said that other pupils could also help teachers notice children displaying potential signs of neglect: “Children of the same age can see things that sometimes we can’t see because we’re so busy. It’s crucial to hear them” (Arab teacher, 20).

Building Trust and Conducting Home-Visits

As participants explained, because neglect was often difficult to detect, it was important for educators to have regular conversations with their pupils and establish trust; children might then feel comfortable confiding in them and disclosing neglect. Similarly, the importance of having periodic meetings with parents was also noted. In particular, home visits were consistently highlighted as a valuable means of becoming acquainted with children’s living conditions, enabling teachers to detect signs of adversity or neglect that would otherwise go unnoticed. One teacher said:

At the beginning of the year, it is customary to make home visits. Well, there were houses I went into, and I just restrained from crying. . . and then you understand what the child will be like at school during the year. (Jewish teacher, 25)

Of note, home visits as a strategy to monitor children’s situations were mentioned by Jewish but not Arab pre-service or in-service teachers.

Reporting to Child Protection Agencies

Following Formal Reporting Protocols

Participants emphasized that educational staff play a prominent role in reporting cases of suspected child neglect. Although reports are ultimately to be filed with child protection services, in line with the working protocols of Israel’s Department of Education (Director General’s Circular, 2008), participants acknowledged that teachers were supposed to report first to the school counselor and principal. Participants agreed that these formal protocols ensured critical and effective processes of information-sharing, risk assessment, and decision-making: “Don’t forget, either, what intervening means. Even if you’re just reporting, just passing it on, it’s also an intervention. You also took part, you also tried to do something that would help” (Jewish teacher, 9).

Communicating With Parents and Ensuring Follow-Up

Another avenue of intervention involved teachers sharing the school’s concerns with the parents, keeping them informed, and telling them that they had in fact made a report of child neglect: “It’s crucial to update the parents and share with them what’s happening at school with their child” (Arab pre-service teacher, 22).

Importantly, participants mentioned that once schools had made a report to child protection agencies, the process was not complete, and it was essential for educators to continue following up, monitoring progress, and making sure such cases were properly handled.

Creating Support for Children and Parents to Mitigate the Effects of Child Neglect

Emotional Support for Children

Participants further discussed the important role of teachers and schools in supporting these children and their families. They highlighted the provision of emotional support for children, material aid for children and families, and working collaboratively with parents and educating them.

Attending to children’s emotional needs was one dominant strategy that emerged. Participants spoke about the importance of listening to children, providing them with a safe space to express themselves, and showing them that educators were emotionally available to them:

I too, as a prospective teacher, must listen to these children who suffer from neglect because they need someone to listen to them . . .I hear. This is the beginning, this is the first step to listening, and from here, we begin to listen more and more. (Arab pre-service teacher, 24)

Participants argued that these children often felt rejected and unloved, and that in order to counterbalance their negative feelings/perceptions, it was their role as educators to provide children with unconditional acceptance:

I asked her, “Why don’t you take your hair off your face? You have beautiful eyes and a beautiful face!” . . . The next day she came and stood in front of the classroom with her hair up and said to me in a confident voice, “Good morning, teacher.” I felt. . . that previously she hadn’t been noticed or told nice things. Someone may have said nice things, but not in a way that made her feel she existed. (Arab teacher, 23)

As demonstrated herein, many of the participants noted that neglected children felt invisible, and educators, therefore, felt it was their role to validate these children’s value and very existence. They therefore tried to give them the love/attention they lacked:

“Maybe it’s obvious, but it’s constantly holding the bond with the girl and being steadfast, and this is a girl who pushes because she doesn’t get love, because she lacks love. I show her how much I love her, constantly remind her that I love her. I think that’s important.” (Jewish teacher, 3)

Providing Material Aid

Participants also stressed that expressions of neglect were often physical—for instance, inadequate provision of food and clothing, or neglected personal hygiene. Many participants described cases where the school or individual teachers supported children and families by providing them material aid in the form of food, clothing, school equipment, or waiving various school fees:

. . . it was even making him sandwiches because we realized that there was no one to do that for him in the morning. Coupons for buying clothes. We went and bought him clothes! It's about constantly being in touch with the parents to see what else is needed and how we can help. (Jewish teacher, 10)

Such engagement was, however, a contested issue, and several participants argued strongly against teachers offering material aid, viewing it as a breach of professional boundaries: “A lot of times, we get into the role of parents. And we’re treading dangerous territory by bringing food and clothes to school just because we want to help” (Jewish teacher, 5).

Working With Parents: Support, Communication, and Education

Establishing better working alliances with parents and fostering regular and open communication with them was another issue that emerged. Teachers indicated that more time was needed for educators and parents to meet, bond, and talk about the child: “There needs to be more support for parents. There needs to be more support for the family… There needs to be more of an understanding. . . to create a language that brings the sides together… and you don't fight each other” (Jewish pre-service teacher, 4). As this last quote demonstrates, participants expressed concerns over educational staff’s tendency to marginalize and exclude parents when dealing with the issue of child neglect.

In fact, although collaborative work with parents was seen as a central facet of teachers’ response to neglect, many teachers perceived it to be a considerable challenge. This matter was highlighted among the Arab focus groups as well as the Jewish groups, though to a lesser extent. Specifically, in-service and pre-service teachers talked about their fears of hurting or embarrassing parents: “It’s not easy to come to the parents and tell them they’re neglecting their kids, meaning that you're telling them explicitly, ‘You’re neglectful parents’” (Arab teacher, 3). Teachers also expressed their fear of getting parents and families in trouble by reporting neglect: “What if you go to the police, and in the end they open a case for parents who don’t even have the means to provide for their child, but who do go to work and who do their best?” (Jewish teacher, 23).

Finally, participants argued that in many cases, neglectful parenting seemed to result from parents’ lack of basic child rearing knowledge, and that schools could contribute by educating parents on child development, children’s needs, and the negative consequences of neglecting these needs: “The school must intervene to prevent the spread of the phenomenon [child neglect]. It must educate the parents and explain the dangerous consequences and serious problems that may arise due to neglect” (Arab pre-service teacher, 10).

Discussion

In the current study, we set out to explore teachers’ perspectives on their role in responding to child neglect by analyzing 17 focus groups, comprising a total of 107 pre-service and in-service teachers in Israel. Although teachers are arguably in the best position to detect signs of neglect at an early stage and provide initial intervention, their perspectives have seldom been explored in this context. The current analysis provides several important understandings regarding the way teachers perceive their role, their attitudes toward it, and their challenges.

First, study participants had a strong sense of commitment to their role of identifying, reporting, and intervening in cases of child neglect. They acknowledged the pivotal place they had in children’s lives and the unparalleled opportunity they and other school staff were afforded to monitor children’s situation over time, identify potential signs of neglect, and provide timely intervention. Furthermore, in spite of the challenges involved, many of the participants felt that teachers and schools had a professional as well as a moral responsibility to handle cases of neglect to the best of their ability. These findings are encouraging and join similar expressions of a sense of commitment and responsibility toward child maltreatment responses reported previously in several studies (e.g., Feng et al., 2010). This finding is of particular importance given evidence showing that the degree to which teachers will intervene in such cases and report them to child protection agencies is largely determined by their attitudes and commitment to their role (e.g., Alazri & Hannah, 2020).

Not all participants shared the same opinion, and some expressed hesitance in dealing with child neglect, echoing previous findings showing that teachers view their role as being primarily academic instructors and are reluctant to assume duties related to child abuse and neglect intervention (e.g., Bullock et al., 2019; Gubbels et al., 2021). Indeed, as Adleman and Taylor (2014) argued, the call for schools to do more about child abuse and neglect intervention “ignores the reality that schools are not in the health and social service business; their mission first and foremost is to educate” (p. 162).

A major obstacle to teachers’ ability and inclination to engage in such cases was a lack of knowledge and training. The limited attention given to child protection and safeguarding issues in initial training programs is well recognized internationally (Walsh et al., 2023) and has been tied to a reduced capacity to identify cases of maltreatment and to report them to the designated authorities (Alazri & Hannah, 2020). An additional concern is that when teachers do decide to report their suspicions, they may be more likely to make erroneous reports, which could subject families to the trauma of investigation by child protection agencies and clog the investigative system (e.g., Goodman, 2021).

An important contribution of this study lies in the teachers’ delineation of the ways in which they can effectively respond to child neglect. The reporting of a suspected case is just the beginning of the child protection process, which subsequently involves treatment, rehabilitation, strengthening the family, and preventing future neglect (Crosson-Tower, 2003). However, traditionally, schools’ and teachers’ role in addressing child neglect has been perceived to end with reporting, and scant attention has been given to other forms of intervention (Alazri & Hannah, 2020). As revealed in the current study, there are many other services and ways that schools can support children and families (Crosson-Tower, 2003). These findings align with studies pointing to the critical role played by communities in the prevention of child neglect in their provision of both formal and informal support systems that mitigate risk factors and enhance protective factors in children’s lives. Research consistently demonstrates that social cohesion, neighborhood trust, and accessible resources significantly contribute to the well-being of families and reduce the likelihood of neglect (e.g., Melton & McLeigh, 2020).

Participants highlighted several key components that could guide school responses. First, teachers spoke of the need to address children’s emotional needs and counterbalance negative experiences of unresponsive or rejecting parenting by providing them with a nurturing environment. In support of these notions, evidence shows that for young people at familial risk, a close and secure teacher–student relationship acts as a protective factor that buffers against the negative consequences associated with maladaptive parenting (Melkman, 2024). Investing in building relationships and trust with pupils contributes to another important related goal of schools, which are increasing children’s tendency to seek help from their teachers when exposed to experiences of maltreatment (Yablon, 2017).

Second, participants suggested the importance of adopting a whole-school approach to cases of child neglect, highlighting the potential salience not only of teachers but also of all school personnel in forming meaningful relationships with students and contributing to the monitoring and identification of at-risk students (Thomas et al., 2019). This notion is in line with the “systems of care approach” (the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, Schools Committee, 2017), encompassing all individuals within programs and agencies that are in contact with young people. Importantly, participants noted that other pupils can also contribute to schools’ response to maltreatment and assist teachers in observing signs of neglect among their peers. It has been previously suggested that students first tend to seek help from informal agents (e.g., friends and peers), and only afterward will they approach a source of formal help (e.g., teachers or counselors) (Gross-Manos et al., 2023).

Another critical element widely acknowledged across all focus groups concerned the school’s/teacher’s relationship with the parents, and the establishment of good working alliances. Nevertheless, discussing such sensitive issues with parents aroused much apprehension and reluctance among teachers, deterring them from them doing so. Indeed, communicating with parents is generally perceived by teachers as a stressful task that requires skills and training that teachers often lack, particularly when sensitive or conflictual topics need to be discussed (Grenny et al., 2022). Interestingly, home visits were highlighted as a valuable means of enabling teachers to detect signs of adversity or neglect that would otherwise go unnoticed. Indeed, home visits by educators have increasingly been used as a tool to build relationships with parents, particularly in low-income neighborhoods (Sheldon & Jung, 2018) and have been found to lead to more positive relationships with parents and a better understanding of the child and the child’s home environment (Soule & Curtis, 2021).

Finally, the differences between the focus groups, or lack thereof, should be noted. Overall, the perspectives of teachers across the different professional levels and ethno-cultural identities were very much alike. This finding is encouraging, suggests a common and deep-rooted understanding and acknowledgment of teachers’ responsibility in such cases, and is in line with previous studies that have similarly revealed shared perspectives toward child neglect among Arab and Jewish youth (Gross-Manos et al., 2023). Although this finding might be explained by the changes Arab society has undergone in the last decades (Azaiza, 2013), it should also be said that the aspect of communicating with parents (as a central though challenging element of teachers’ response to neglect) was slightly less dominant in the discourse of the Arab focus groups. Relatedly, home visits were mentioned by Jewish but not Arab pre-service and in-service teachers. These findings may reflect a greater reluctance of Arab teachers to engage with parents surrounding these issues as a result of feeling caught between their mandated reporting responsibilities and their desire to maintain positive working relationships with parents. Although this tension is shared by many teachers, it is particularly pronounced in small or close-knit communities—such as the Arab community—where teachers often maintain multiple social connections with pupils’ families (Turner et al., 2019).

Limitations

Despite the study’s multiple merits, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the sample comprised Jewish and Arab pre-service and in-service teachers in Israel; therefore, generalizations to other national or sociocultural contexts should be made with caution. For example, the experiences of the teachers in this study were rooted in the educational and child protection policies and services enacted in Israel and should be interpreted accordingly. Second, it was beyond this study’s scope to investigate important contextual factors likely to influence teachers’ attitudes and responses to child neglect, including child’s grade, type of school (e.g., special education vs. mainstream), or school’s socioeconomic composition. All of these factors present promising avenues for further research. Third, various educational staff members, such as school counselors and principals, and other non-teaching staff, may also have important roles in addressing child neglect but were not included in this study. Future studies could include their perspectives as well. Finally, future studies should also include the perspectives of additional stakeholders, such as parents or child protection workers, as they would likely offer different and insightful views.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

The study highlights the education system’s considerable potential to contribute to the prevention and treatment of child neglect. However, realizing this potential requires a deliberate policy decision as it entails a significant shift in priorities and allocation of resources. First, for teachers to be able to perform their safeguarding role effectively, they must be better educated and trained in understanding child neglect and its consequences, recognizing its signs and responding in ways that promote resilience and recovery during their pre-service and in-service education. To address persistent gaps in teacher training (Walsh et al., 2023), national standards should be established to regulate both the quantity and content of child abuse and neglect training; further, the integration of this training as a formal prerequisite for teacher certification should be considered. Trauma-informed educational practices and policies provide one useful framework to improve the social, emotional, and academic functioning of children exposed to early adversity (Thomas et al., 2019), fostering close teacher–student relationships (Woodbridge et al., 2016), and increasing the likelihood that children will seek help from teachers when they experience neglect, abuse, or other adversities.

Second, given the need for consensus within schools implementing maltreatment prevention and trauma-informed programs (Thomas et al., 2019), a whole-school approach should be adopted, encompassing all school staff that works with children (the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, Schools Committee, 2017). Programs should also incorporate students and provide them with knowledge and skills to recognize neglectful situations and disseminate messages about appropriate help-seeking in such events. Indeed, such school-based education programs have been effective in increasing children’s knowledge and protective actions (Walsh et al., 2018).

Third, schools must recognize that making progress in this area is largely dependent on the parents and the ability of teachers to form collaborative relationships with them. To this end, teachers should be provided with the skills to manage difficult conversations with parents. Home visits, a promising evidence-based practice, should also be encouraged, particularly in low-income areas (Sheldon & Jung, 2018). Unfortunately, teachers receive only minimal training in effective communication and family engagement skills (Graham-Clay, 2024), and there is an urgent need to address these gaps as part of teacher training programs. It is the authors' hope that this research will serve as a catalyst for collaborative efforts among educators, policymakers, and child welfare professionals to create more supportive and protective environments for children, ultimately working toward the eradication of child neglect globally.