The role that teachers play in child protection work can sometimes be underestimated. While the literature recognises that teacher’s training in child development, the value base that underpins their work combined with the amount of time they spend with children in classroom places them in an ideal position to both monitor and record child protection concerns, it is an area of their work that is complex and a ‘nuanced’ process (Treacy & Nohilly, 2020; Nohilly, 2019; Walsh et al., 2006; Baginsky & MacPherson, 2005). Since 2017, following the full implementation of the Children First Act, teachers registered with the Teaching Council are legally required to report child protection. In the recent ‘Report of the Scoping Inquiry into Historical Sexual Abuse in Day and Boarding Schools Run by Religious Orders (O’Toole, 2024)’ it is acknowledged that child protection provisions in schools are ‘extensive’ and ‘complex’. “They require registered teachers and other school staff to have knowledge of the legislation and the procedures and processes laid out in the 202(5) Procedures, and to make sometimes very difficult judgement calls (O’ Toole, 2024, p.548)”.
Recently revised ‘Child Protection Procedures for Primary and Post-Primary schools (2025)’ were issued to schools and they confirm a welcome commitment to ongoing training for both Designated Liaison Persons (DLPs), teachers and school staff in relation to training; “all school personnel shall attend training in child protection as may be directed by the board of management…this training should be refreshed at a minimum every three years (Department of Education and Youth, 2025, p.92)”. This requirement is also explicitly stated for DLPs. In the 2025/2026 school year all schools will have a facilitated school closure day in the area of child protection- and this is the first time in the decades of continuous professional development in the Irish context that this opportunity is afforded to schools.
Many factors can impact on a teacher’s decision to report abuse. In research undertaken in the Australian context of teachers’ propensity to detect and report child abuse, Walsh et al. (2008), adopted a general judgement and decision-making model to investigate the matter. Within the model, teachers’ decision to report was conceptualized as a two-part process, in terms of detection and then reporting. At the detection or judgement stage, it is proposed teachers attend to the characteristics of the case, in terms of distinguishing signs and symptoms of abuse and its seriousness, frequency and impact on the child. At the reporting stage, it is proposed teachers either respond or do not respond to suspicions of abuse based on their own personal and school characteristics, their knowledge of child protection laws and procedures, their personal values and attitudes and their belief that reporting will have a positive outcome for the child. Whether they feel that the school environment will facilitate or impede reporting will also influence their decision. In terms of decision making, three groups of characteristics; case, teacher and school characteristics are regarded as most influential for teachers.
The exploration of professional development in child protection for teachers and school staff needs to be holistic and multi-component addressing both ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’ obstacles (Bourke & Maunsell, 2015). Exploration of legislation, procedures, categories, signs and symptoms of abuse address ‘explicit’ obstacles while implicit obstacles relate to our individual belief system and judgements relating to child protection work, a more complex and reflective piece to unpack. Historian Henry Adams regards that a ‘teachers influence affects eternity; you can never tell where their influence stops’ and in terms of their child protection influence, teachers need ongoing, developmental support in ensuring they are prepared for all aspects of this work.
References
Baginsky, M., & Macpherson, P. (2005). Training teachers to safeguard children: Developing a consistent approach. Child Abuse Review: Journal of the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, 14(5), 317-330.
Bourke, A., & Maunsell, C. (2015). ‘Teachers matter’: The impact of mandatory reporting on teacher education in Ireland. Child Abuse Review, 25(4), 314-324.
Department of Education and Youth. (2025). Child Protection Procedures for Schools 2025 [PDF]. https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/Child_Protection_Procedures_for_Schools_2025.pdf
Nohilly, M. (2019). Child protection training for teachers and mandatory reporting responsibilities. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 19(1), 7.
O’Toole, M. (2024). Report of the Scoping Inquiry into historical sexual abuse in day and boarding schools run by religious orders. Department of Education. https://edepositireland.ie/handle/2262/109903
Treacy, M., & Nohilly, M. (2020). Teacher education and child protection: Complying with requirements or putting children first?. Children and youth services review, 113, 105009.
Walsh, K., Farrell, A., Bridgstock, R., & Schweitzer, R. (2006). The contested terrain of teachers detecting and reporting child abuse and neglect. Journal of early childhood research, 4(1), 65-76.
Walsh, K., Bridgstock, R., Farrell, A., Rassafiani, M., & Schweitzer, R., (2008). Case, teacher and school characteristics influencing teachers’ detection and reporting of child physical abuse and neglect: Results from an Australian survey. Child abuse & neglect, 32(10), pp.983-993.