Level III Training on Safeguarding & Child Protection in School Leaders

On September 6, 2026, IEN organized a training for academic coordinators, curriculum leaders, and administrators from GEMS in Lalitpur, Nepal. Building on the earlier Levels I and II, the session focused on the practical, legal, and operational aspects of safeguarding and child protection in schools.

The session opened with a discussion on safeguarding as an educational and institutional responsibility. Ram Tiwari, the Director of IEN facilitated the training to consider how safeguarding is practiced in everyday school life and whether students and staff feel safe to raise concerns. The first session focused on national legal provisions, particularly the responsibilities of institutional heads under Section 57(2) of the Act Relating to Children, 2018. The participants discussed the legal responsibilities of school leaders and the consequences when appropriate protection systems are not in place. They were also reminded that child protection is a statutory responsibility and requires clear systems, procedures, and accountability within schools.

The discussion also addressed the challenges faced by teachers and other school staff. Participants spoke about the increasing administrative responsibilities placed on educators, difficult interactions with parents, and changes in student behavior and needs. The discussion recognized that safeguarding systems also need to consider the safety and wellbeing of staff.

Participants then worked with the Knowledge, Attitude, Skills, and Resources (KASR) Triangle to assess the school’s safeguarding readiness. They discussed the difference between Denial, where the absence of complaints is taken as an indication that the school is safe; Compliance, where policies exist but may not be actively used; and an Embedded Culture, where safeguarding is part of everyday practice and people can raise concerns without fear of retaliation.

During group work and presentations, participants identified several areas where safeguarding concerns may be more difficult to monitor. These included transition periods between classes, cafeterias, staircases, school transport, and digital communication channels. Participants also shared experiences from their own school settings. One homeroom teacher discussed the emotional pressure experienced by teachers working with senior students, including situations involving peer mockery, verbal harassment, and allegations against teachers. The discussion considered how schools can provide appropriate support to staff while also ensuring that student concerns are taken seriously.

Another coordinator shared an incident involving an aggressive parent who entered the school with political cadres and made threats following a disciplinary inquiry. The example led to discussion about how school leaders can respond to external pressure while maintaining appropriate procedures and protecting staff.

Participants also discussed situations where parents may find it difficult to recognize or accept their child’s neurodivergent needs or behavioral difficulties. Social expectations, stigma, and concerns about how a child’s behavior may be perceived can affect communication between families and schools. Participants considered the importance of working with families while keeping the child’s needs at the centre of the response.

The afternoon session focused on the 5R + Review Model: Recognize, Record, Report, Respond, Refer, and Review. Facilitators discussed appropriate ways of responding when a concern is raised and highlighted several common responses that can interfere with effective listening, such as giving immediate advice, asking unnecessary questions, comparing the situation with personal experiences, or responding with superficial sympathy.

Participants practiced active listening approaches that involve remaining calm, avoiding defensive responses, acknowledging the person’s concerns, recording their words accurately, and following the appropriate reporting process. The importance of the critical first-hour protocol was also discussed.

The session also clarified the difference between matters that can be addressed internally and those that require statutory referral. Minor disputes and interpersonal conflicts may be addressed through restorative approaches where appropriate. However, serious physical violence, sexual harassment, and severe exploitation require referral to the relevant authorities and should not be handled solely through internal school procedures.

The protection of educators was also discussed. Participants considered the need for schools to maintain appropriate Staff Welfare and Incident Files alongside student records. Such systems can support documentation, follow-up, and staff protection when teachers face harassment, threats, or allegations.

The final sessions focused on governance, institutional systems, and sustainability. Participants considered whether a school’s safeguarding system would continue to operate if its Designated Safeguarding Lead were to leave. The discussion focused on the need to embed safeguarding in the school’s policies, procedures, leadership structures, and institutional knowledge rather than relying on one individual.

Participants identified several areas where school leadership and management can strengthen safeguarding systems. These included allocating an annual budget for child protection, conducting background checks during staff recruitment, and developing safeguarding handbooks in both Nepali and English. The need to ensure that non-teaching staff, bus drivers, and other support personnel also understand safeguarding responsibilities was highlighted.

The training also addressed “Care for Carers” and the need for schools to provide appropriate support to staff who regularly deal with challenging or distressing situations. Staff wellbeing was discussed as an important part of maintaining effective safeguarding practices.

The training concluded with each participant writing and signing a personal safeguarding pledge. The commitments included listening without bias, maintaining confidentiality while following required procedures, documenting concerns accurately, and responding appropriately when a concern is raised.

The participation of 17 school leaders provided an opportunity to examine safeguarding at both individual and institutional levels. The discussions throughout the day reinforced that effective safeguarding requires clear policies, informed staff, reliable reporting systems, appropriate follow-up, and shared responsibility across the school community.