Safeguarding Software for Schools: How to Build a Connected Safeguarding System

Safeguarding software. Sounds like it should describe one fairly straightforward tech solution, right?

Unfortunately for both you and me, it's not so simple. In practice, schools, software providers, and vendors use the term interchangeably to refer to everything from safeguarding recording systems to anonymous reporting tools to attendance, filtering, online monitoring, and case management systems. They all support student safety; they also all do quite different jobs. This makes it confusing to understand safeguarding software for schools. One system is designed to record concerns. Another is built to help students report something anonymously. Another works to identify worrying online activity. Another may manage referrals, actions and case histories.

No single platform covers the entire safeguarding process, even when marketed as an all-in-one solution.

The key is knowing what each of these digital tools does, what role it plays in your existing safeguarding policies, who needs access to what (and who doesn't), and how to use the technologies in tandem to streamline effective safeguarding practices.

This guide looks at the main types of safeguarding software used by schools, where each fits, where gaps tend to appear, best practices, and what a connected safeguarding eco-system should actually look like.

What is safeguarding software for schools?

Safeguarding software for schools is a broad term for digital tools used to help identify, report, record, manage and respond to concerns affecting student safety and wellbeing. There are several categories of safeguarding software, each designed to address a different aspect of safeguarding in schools. This can make the procurement process a bit of a nightmare. 

Picture this:

You are looking for a real-time monitoring solution that helps identify student access to harmful content.

You search for the best safeguarding software for schools, book a demo, sit through 30 minutes of polished slides, and then realise the vendor is selling you a case-management platform.

Useful? Possibly.

The thing you were actually looking for? Not really.

If that has happened to you, you are not the first, and you likely won't be the last. 

'But what's the problem if I end up with a quality case management system instead of a monitoring solution?' you may be thinking.

Well, apart from the fact that one is for incident recording and the other is for detecting potential risks, schools in the UK are now legally required to have the right filtering and monitoring tools in place, review these solutions yearly, and make sure the right staff know how to use them for their role. Telling the Governor, "But I bought the best safeguarding software featured on Google," is not going to cut it when the yearly review rolls around.

While it may seem overly complicated, costly, and a right pain in the backside, schools need to see the bigger picture: to manage student safeguarding, you need multiple systems working together for the best possible outcomes. It's no longer just about a whole-school approach, but also about a whole-infrastructure approach.

So, let's break down the different types of safeguarding tools and the role they play in helping schools manage safeguarding.

Filtering tools: Blocking access to harmful content and online threats

Filtering software controls which websites, applications, and content categories students can access. It is the primary proactive tool to stop students from being exposed to inappropriate or harmful content.

This may be handled by the school firewall, a secure web gateway or a specialist content filtering platform. Features and coverage can vary depending on the product, license and configuration. 

Examples: Fortinet FortiGate, Palo Alto Networks, Sophos Firewall, SonicWall, WatchGuard, Linewize Filter and Smoothwall Filter.

What to look for

Custom access policies: Filtering software should let schools apply different filtering rules by year level, user, device, location or time of day rather than applying blanket rules across all student groups.

Coverage across the school environment: Check whether the filtering tools cover all the devices and networks the school actually uses, including school-owned devices, BYOD, guest networks and remote access where applicable.

Best practice

Review policies and exceptions: Filtering categories, allow lists, block lists and exceptions should be reviewed regularly. Websites, apps and student behaviour change, and old rules can quickly become ineffective or unnecessarily restrictive.

Review blocked activity: Filtering is preventative. It controls access but does not explain why a student attempted to access the content. Repeated attempts to access self-harm, extremist or adult material may still need a safeguarding review, even when every attempt was blocked.

Align filtering with risk assessments: Filtering policies should reflect students' ages and needs, the school's technology environment, and the potential risks identified through safeguarding and online safety risk assessments. Furthermore, according to KCSiE, 'filtering should not unreasonably affect teaching, learning or school administration, and should not prevent students from learning how to assess and manage risk themselves'.

For a more detailed look at the responsibilities, workflows and common gaps involved, read our guide to filtering and monitoring in schools.

Hot tip: Your firewall may already be your content filter

Most modern school-grade firewalls include web filtering and application control features. With the right licence and configuration, your firewall may already be controlling access to harmful or inappropriate content at the network level.

That does not automatically mean the school meets KCSIE or the DfE filtering and monitoring standard. You still need to confirm that the filtering is appropriate for your pupils' age and needs, covers the relevant users and devices, does not unreasonably restrict teaching and learning, and is reviewed regularly.

Before buying another filtering product, check what your existing firewall can already do. The missing piece may be configuration, reporting or the process around it.

Our guide to what your school firewall can and cannot tell you about online safety explains what is already visible in firewall data, where the limitations sit and how schools can make better use of the information they have.

Online monitoring, reports and alerts: Identifying potential concerns

Online safety monitoring and reporting tools help schools identify searches, browsing, and viewing patterns, as well as attempts to access content that may indicate a safeguarding concern.

This could include searches related to self-harm, drugs or violence, extremist content, adult material or repeated attempts to bypass controls or access harmful content.

Some products monitor student device usage directly via an agent; however, this is often only viable on school-owned/managed devices. 

Other systems use data generated by the firewall or school network.

Examples: Fastvue Reporter for Education falls into this category, turning existing firewall data into reports, alerts, and user activity timelines.

What to look for

Real-time monitoring and alerts: The platform should notify the appropriate staff when high-risk activity may require early intervention.

User-level context: Reports should show who was involved, what happened, when it happened and whether the content was blocked or permitted.

Pattern and trend reporting: Your online monitoring solution should help staff distinguish an isolated event from repeated activity over several days or weeks.

Readable reports: Safeguarding and pastoral staff should be able to interpret the information without requiring in-depth knowledge of firewall logs.

Flexible reporting routes: The software should support streamlined reporting to the right authorised individuals, whether that is the DSL, Head of Year, pastoral team or IT.

Best practice

Define who receives what: Not every alert needs to go to every member of the school staff. Set clear ownership for urgent concerns, routine reports and technical issues.

Tune the system: Review alert categories, keyword lists, exclusions and thresholds. Too much noise makes it harder to act quickly when a serious concern arises.

Use context before reaching conclusions: Monitoring software can surface potential risks. It cannot determine a student’s intent or make a safeguarding decision. For example, one search for “signs of an eating disorder” could relate to homework, concern for a friend or the student’s own wellbeing. Repeated searches for specific methods, forums and concealment over several days create a different pattern. The software surfaces the activity; it is up to the staff to assess the risk. 

Record confirmed concerns in the right system: Where activity requires further action, the concern, decision and response should be recorded in the school’s safeguarding recording system rather than remaining only in the monitoring platform. Monitoring has the greatest impact when it complements existing safeguarding policies.

Review effectiveness: Check whether alerts reach the right people, whether reports are opened, and whether the process leads to informed decisions.

Required under KCSIE: Monitoring software is required under KCSIE as part of a school or college’s duty to have appropriate filtering and monitoring systems in place. Schools should understand how the monitoring works, who reviews the information and how safeguarding concerns are escalated when identified.

Anonymous reporting tools: Giving students another way to raise concerns

Anonymous reporting tools allow students to report cyberbullying, harassment, harmful sexual behaviour, online abuse or other concerns without having to approach a member of staff directly.

These tools are designed to do exactly what they say: allow students to anonymously report concerns, particularly when a student is embarrassed, worried about retaliation, or fears they may not be taken seriously.

Examples: Tootoot and SWGfL Whisper.

What to look for

Simple student reporting: Students should be able to report concerns quickly and easily

Anonymous or confidential options: The software should be clear about whether reports are fully anonymous, confidential, or linked to a verified student account.

Clear routing: Only authorised individuals should have access to these systems. Reports should be sent directly to the named safeguarding staff or your DSL, not to a general inbox.

Urgency controls: The system should help staff quickly distinguish between student safety risks that require immediate attention and low-level concerns that can be addressed through the normal pastoral process.

Best practice

Make it visible: Students need to know that the system exists, how to access it, who receives reports, the process for dealing with reports, and how and when anonymity may limit the school's ability to address concerns. An anonymous report stating that “something happens near the changing rooms after sport” may alert the school to a potential pattern, but provide too little information to identify the pupils involved. Students should understand both the protection anonymity offers and the limits it can place on an investigation.

Do not rely on the software alone: Anonymous reporting should complement existing safeguarding policies, trusted adults and other student reporting routes.

Set response expectations: Make it clear when reports are reviewed and what students should do if they or somebody else are in immediate danger.

Monitor concerns over time: Repeated anonymous reports about the same location, peer group or type of behaviour may help the school spot trends that would otherwise remain hidden.

Safeguarding recording systems: Creating a clear record of known concerns

A safeguarding recording system provides schools with a centralised information hub for documenting known concerns, actions, referrals, and outcomes.

These systems are central to consistent safeguarding record-keeping; they give DSLs and authorised staff a centralised place to build a chronology around a student and a clear audit trail for external agencies when needed.

Examples: CPOMS and MyConcern are examples of safeguarding recording tools.

What to look for

Centralised tracking: The system should bring together concerns, actions, case histories, and other sensitive information so authorised staff can gain a holistic picture of what's happening for a student over time.

Incident reporting: Staff should be able to record the facts, immediate actions, and the voice of the child clearly and consistently. This means, wherever possible, capturing the child's own words, especially during a disclosure, rather than summarising, correcting or interpreting what they meant. The record should clearly distinguish between what the child said, what the member of staff observed, and any subsequent professional assessment.

Role-based access: Sensitive information should be visible only to authorised individuals with a clear safeguarding reason to access it.

Clear audit trails: The system should record who viewed or changed a record, when it happened, and what action was taken.

Best practices

Record facts, not assumptions: Use objective language and include the child’s exact words where relevant, particularly if they disclose abuse, harm or fear. Avoid translating their account into adult language or adding conclusions they did not express. Record what was said, what was observed, the context in which it occurred and the immediate action taken.

For example, instead of:

Sophie disclosed that she was being emotionally abused at home.

A stronger record would be:

Sophie said, “Dad tells me I ruin everything and that everyone would be happier if I weren’t there.” She was crying and looking at the floor as she spoke.

The second version preserves the child’s voice and separates the disclosure from the staff member’s interpretation.

Record concerns promptly: Delays increase the risk of important details being forgotten or separate concerns remaining disconnected.

Keep the chronology complete: Include actions, decisions, referrals and outcomes, not just the original incident report.

Review low-level concerns together: One concern may appear minor. Several concerns across different members of staff may indicate a developing pattern.

Limit access appropriately: Access should reflect role and need. A centralised information hub should not mean everybody can see everything.

Case-management software: Managing actions, referrals and outcomes

Case-management software supports more complex or ongoing safeguarding work after a concern has been identified.

It helps staff assign actions, manage referrals, store documents, track decisions and follow the case through to an outcome. In many schools, these functions are included within the safeguarding recording system rather than purchased as a separate platform.

Examples: CPOMS StudentSafe, Tes MyConcern and Child Protect.

What to look for

Action management: The platform should allow you to assign responsibility quickly, set deadlines, and define follow-up actions so that tasks do not disappear after the initial concern is reported.

Case chronology: Staff should be able to see the full history of decisions, actions, and outcomes without having to search across multiple systems.

Escalation controls: The system should make it clear when a case needs senior review or external intervention.

Best practice

Agree on ownership from the start: Every case should have a named person responsible for coordinating actions and reviewing progress.

Keep actions specific: Record exactly what needs to happen, who will do it and by when.

Close the loop: Do not treat a referral as the end of the process. Record the response, any follow-up and the outcome.

Avoid duplicate case records: Where several systems are involved, agree on which platform holds the official safeguarding record.

Review permissions regularly: Staff roles change. Access to sensitive case information should be updated when responsibilities change.

Information-sharing tools: Moving safeguarding information securely

Information-sharing tools help schools transfer relevant safeguarding records to local authorities, social care, police, health services, other schools and external agencies.

This is often a function within a safeguarding recording or case-management platform rather than a standalone category of software. The important capability is secure, controlled sharing with a record of what was disclosed, to whom and why.

Examples: CPOMS Engage, CPOMS secure school-to-school transfer and Tes MyConcern secure record transfer.

What to look for

Secure transfer: Sensitive information should be protected in transit rather than sent through informal or unsecured channels.

Recipient controls: The system should help confirm that records are being shared with the correct authorised individuals.

Disclosure records: Schools should be able to see what information was shared, with whom, when and why.

Access controls: Only authorised individuals should be able to view, download or forward sensitive information.

Compatibility with other systems: The tool should fit alongside the school’s existing safeguarding system and document management processes.

Best practice

Share with a clear purpose: Staff should know why the information is being shared and how it supports student safety.

Share only what is necessary: Information sharing should be proportionate to the safeguarding concern. For example, a receiving professional may need the child’s disclosure, relevant chronology and actions already taken. They are unlikely to need an unrestricted export of every pastoral note the school holds.

Record the decision: The school should maintain a clear audit trail of what was shared and the reason for sharing it.

Follow data protection policies: Data protection law supports necessary information sharing for safeguarding, but schools still need an appropriate lawful basis, secure handling, and clear accountability.

Do not let uncertainty cause inaction: Where a child may be at risk, staff should seek advice rather than allowing confusion about data protection to prevent appropriate information sharing.

The common thread

The best safeguarding software is usually not a single all-in-one solution (if indeed such a unicorn exists!).

Filtering tools control access. Monitoring identifies potential risks. Student reporting tools provide another route for concerns to enter the school. A safeguarding recording system maintains the official record. Case-management software helps manage actions and referrals. Attendance and pastoral systems provide context. Information-sharing tools help relevant details reach external agencies securely.

Each tool supports a different stage.

The goal is not to force every safeguarding function into one platform. It is to ensure the school’s digital tools complement existing safeguarding policies, fit its own processes, and help the right people see the right information at the right time.