Teachers’ Perspective of Their Alliance with Students and Detection of Child Maltreatment

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study is to explore variables relating to teacher–student relationships, and their association with the detection of child maltreatment in secondary schools (12–18 age range), given that child and adolescent abuse is under revealed and underreported, and teachers play an important role in identifying and detecting it. Method: 662 teachers from secondary schools from different autonomous communities in Spain answered a self-administrated questionnaire. Results: This study revealed that while theoretical knowledge of the issue goes hand-in-hand with a higher self-reported ability to recognize cases among students, the same does not hold true of the teachers’ real detection capacity. Nonetheless, a relationship of trust with students and addressing child maltreatment in the classroom contributes to a better real detection capacity by teachers, relating this information to the possible existence of a teacher–student alliance. Discussion: We propose a trust-constructed relationship between both agents, named the teacher–student alliance. Prospective: These results point to the need for further research into the association and characteristics of teacher–student alliances on the identification in schools of cases of child maltreatment.

1. Introduction

Detecting and addressing child maltreatment in Spanish classrooms are a fundamental challenge for schools and for the protection of students (Benítez et al. 2005).

UNICEF (2024a) estimates that 6 in 10 children—400 million children all over the world—under 5 years of age regularly suffer physical punishment (330 million of them) and/or psychological violence at home by caregivers. In addition, 20% women (650 million) and 14% men report having been sexually abused during childhood (UNICEF 2024b). In Spain, 21,521 cases of child maltreatment were reported in 2021, with an observed increase in recent years (Fierro Monti 2021; Ministerio de Sanidad 2024). What is more, most child maltreatment cases go unreported, and they remain hidden (Finkelhor 1984). Nonetheless, approximately 25% of all minors in Spain suffer from maltreatment (cipher just considering maltreatment within the family), with fewer than 10% of these cases being reported (Del Moral Blasco 2019).

1.1. Child Maltreatment

Child maltreatment is conceptualized in this study aligned with the following definition made by The World Health Organization:

Child maltreatment is the abuse and neglect that occurs to children under 18 years of age. It includes all types of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect, negligence and commercial or other exploitation, which results in actual or potential harm to the child’s health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of responsibility, trust or power (WHO 2025).

Among the consequences of child maltreatment are disorders in affection and attachment relationships, poor academic performance, worse cognitive development, emotional problems… and, especially in adolescence, drug use, aggressive behavior problems, self-harming and suicidal behaviors, etc. (Cantón Duarte and Cortés Arboleda 2007; WHO 2022).

Usually, maltreated children are nurtured within a family style called neglectful–abuser, where insecure attachment styles are generated. For this reason, minors develop a strong insecurity when establishing relationships with other people, due to the harmful foundation they have had (Crittenden and Ainsworth 1989). Moreover, Finkelhor and Browne’s model, which serves as a framework for explaining the consequences of child abuse, shows that victims experience a sense of betrayal, leading to feelings of disillusionment and mistrust. Finkelhor and Browne’s (1985) Traumagenic Dynamics Model conceptualizes child abuse as a process that generates four primary trauma-related outcomes: traumatic sexualization, betrayal, powerlessness, and stigmatization. Traumatic sexualization refers to the shaping of a child’s sexuality in inappropriate ways; betrayal involves the child’s realization that someone on whom they depended on has caused them harm; powerlessness reflects the child’s sense of helplessness and loss of control; and stigmatization refers to the feelings of shame and guilt associated with the abuse. In this study, particular attention is paid to betrayal and powerlessness, as these dynamics are especially relevant for understanding the difficulties maltreated students may face in trusting and disclosing abuse to adults, including teachers. Furthermore, having been betrayed, generally by a reference figure, and on whom they are often dependent due to their age, generates a strong distrust of other people in subsequent situations. Added to this, the helplessness of which they are victims (as their volition and sense of efficacy are undermined) causes their social skills to greatly diminish (Finkelhor 1984; Finkelhor and Baron 1986). As a result, it is crucial to forge a relationship of trust with individuals in order to identify situations of abuse (Díaz-Aguado 2001; Fierro Monti 2021).

It is therefore shocking that 45% of the people to whom the minor finally manages to ask for help do nothing (López Sánchez and Campo Sánchez 2006), reinforcing this lack of trust in the persons of reference for the minor, and leading to deep pain, confusion, and hopelessness. Consequently, it is necessary to act against child maltreatment and lack of response; it is the responsibility of the entire society and especially of those closest to the minor, such as their teachers.

Given these data, it is essential to gain a better insight into the identification and notification of child maltreatment. Environments close to the victim and the people who form part of them—such as schools and teachers—play a particularly important role in the detection of signs of these abusive situations (Monjas 1998; WHO 2017).

1.2. The Importance of Teachers in the Child Maltreatment Detection Process

Teachers are key agents in the identification and detection of child maltreatment, given their educational role and direct contact with students and their families (Díaz-Aguado 2001; Monjas 1998). We propose that teachers, as professionals and adults, be able to understand and identify what is happening to the child/adolescent. Indeed, the negative school consequences of child maltreatment have been reported by numerous researchers (McGuire and Jackson 2018; Panlilio et al. 2018; Slade and Wissow 2017), being that many of these indicators are therefore symptoms that could be evident to teachers, unlike other signs that are more difficult to identify by other people (Mathews et al. 2016).

Nonetheless, teachers are far below reporting the child maltreatment levels that exist in the reality of their students, also in Spain (Vila et al. 2019). In countries such as the United States, teachers are considered “mandated reporters”-that is, professionals who are legally required to report suspected cases of child maltreatment, a mandate that has been in place since 1963 (McTavish et al. 2017). In this context, teachers have been identified as the social agents who reported the highest number of child maltreatment cases in 2005 (VanBergeijk and Sarmiento 2006). This legislation was expanded to other countries, and in Australia, the reported cases have multiplied by 3.7 since the entry into force of this legislation (Mathews et al. 2016), although improvements can be applied to the guide for teachers and other required reporters for its better functioning (VanBergeijk and Sarmiento 2006).

In Spain, this role is not legislated, but we wish to highlight the broad legal support that supports teachers, for their mandatory notification in case of suspicion: the Spanish Constitution, in its article 39, or Law 1/1996, on the Legal Protection of Minors. In addition, numerous technical and legal frameworks of notification systems and protocols can be found, developed by each Autonomous Community, with the aim of reforming and updating national provisions.

In any case, there are always multiple views regarding how teachers should report child maltreatment and how it relates to them (VanBergeijk and Sarmiento 2006).

Despite this fact, there is a substantial difference in the theoretical knowledge that teachers hold on the subject of child maltreatment, with a general deficiency in this regard (Prous Trigo 2021; Sainz et al. 2020; Vila et al. 2019). This shortcoming also extends to teachers’ knowledge of the procedures to follow when initial signs of child maltreatment are identified (Linares 2022). Both these circumstances have led to calls for more specific teacher training on how to deal with these situations, given its confirmed influence on the detection of maltreatment (Mathews et al. 2016).

At the same time, there are also differences in how tutors address the subject of child maltreatment with students. These differences range from the time dedicated to working on this issue to the way in which it is presented to students, with some efforts to approach the issue in a rigorous way in schools (Benítez et al. 2005; McGuire and Jackson 2018; Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad 2014).

In addition to the above, teachers’ perceptions of their own professional performance are an important factor in predicting their motivation and learning curve, serving as a mediator between thought and behaviors (Ministerio de Sanidad 2024). Hence, by analyzing these perceptions, an important insight can be gained into teachers’ visions of how to tackle certain situations in schools.

Thus, we believe that it is important to investigate the association of the above factors on child maltreatment detection in schools, paying particular attention to certain characteristics of teachers and the formation of a teacher–student alliance so that the findings can serve as a guide in providing adequate means for teachers to detect possible cases of child maltreatment.

1.3. Teacher–Student Alliance Proposed

In this context, teacher–student relationships are an essential factor in identifying and mitigating situations of maltreatment, when going through a decisive rapport that goes beyond the mere transmission of knowledge. Going on in this idea, we named it the “teacher–student alliance” (as therapeutic alliance used by psychologists), which is very influential in efficient results in psychotherapy (Safran and Muran 2000).

In this study, the teacher–student alliance is proposed as a space of trust, sensitivity, and commitment, where students feel safe enough to share their experiences and where teachers can contribute to the development of their students. In cases of child/adolescent maltreatment, teachers with a good teacher–student alliance could help to identify and notify the maltreatment of their students.

This research study delves into the intricate web of relationships that are formed in school environments, emphasizing the crucial importance of close ties between teachers and students as a determining factor in the early detection of signs of child maltreatment. As trusted figures and guides, teachers play a key role in creating an environment where students feel secure enough to express their concerns and experiences (Puerta Climent and Colinas Fernández 2007).

Due to the underreporting of child maltreatment, this kind of relationship must be reinforced in order to break the silence typical of these situations (Del Moral Blasco 2019).

Hence, it is crucial to explore which specific teacher characteristics influence the capacity to detect child maltreatment. An analysis of differences in how educators address the issue in the classroom, combined with more specific training to improve their theoretical knowledge, can also help substantially to improve procedural guidelines and interventions aimed at combatting such an important problem in a student’s development.

1.4. Context and Legislative Framework

This study is aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); specifically Goal 3, Good Health and Well-being, and Goal 4, Quality Education, as part of the 2030 Agenda (Instituto Nacional de Estadística n.d.). It addresses the role of certain school-related characteristics in improving the health and well-being of students in cases of child maltreatment.

It is also related to the child protection strategies developed by the European Commission (2024a, 2024b) that address the issue of child maltreatment, as a key factor for the healthy lives of children.

Different international organizations have also faced child maltreatment from different perspectives, proposing action protocols and standards that analyze situations of maltreatment from a global approach (Keeping Children Safe 2020; ONU 2006).

Furthermore, this study aligns with Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which requires States Parties to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social, and educational measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s), or any other person who has the care of the child (UNICEF Comité Español 2006). In Spain, this obligation is reflected in Article 12 of Law 26/2015, which explicitly mandates that any person, and especially professionals in close contact with minors, must report suspected cases of child maltreatment to the competent authorities.

In relation to the territorial scope of the sample used in the present study, the 2020 Spanish Education Act (the LOMLOE according to its acronym) (European Commission 2024a), which amends Article 1(k) of the previous act, explicitly states that students must be assisted in “recognizing all forms of maltreatment, sexual abuse, violence, or discrimination and in reacting to it” (p. 14). This amendment highlights the relevance and gravity of the problem. In response to international demands and the requirements of current Spanish legislation in the field of education, this research study addresses child maltreatment from the perspective of schools, emphasizing the role of teachers as a key agent in detection and reporting processes.

In addition to the contributions of local and international entities, the studies carried out by specialists in this field also provide concreteness and a guide to confront child maltreatment (Solís de Ovando 2021).

2. Materials and Methods

This is a descriptive qualitative research study since it aims to identify the reality of a certain situation and to gain an understanding of the phenomenon in question. Teachers are used as the direct source of the analyzed data, identifying and describing, in qualitative terms, the different ways in which they experience, understand, and perceive the phenomenon of child maltreatment in their professional role. Thus, the underlying methodology is a phenomenographic one (Prous Trigo 2021).

To ensure the quality and accuracy of the results obtained, this study complies with established criteria governing the rigor of qualitative research methodologies. Associations between variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square tests (α = 0.05) to determine statistical significance.

2.1. Sample

The target population consisted of teachers working in secondary schools (12–18 age range) in different autonomous communities in Spain (Europe). This study had a sample size of n = 662. Non-probability sampling was used, gathering all the school contact details from the official websites of various autonomous communities.

Table 1. Schools’ characteristics regarding legal nature and location.

Item	Response Type	Count (%)
Type of school where they teach	State	601 (91%)
	Private	4 (1%)
	Subsidized	57 (8%)
	Subtotal	662 (100%)
Location by autonomous community	Extremadura	102 (15%)
	Catalonia	85 (13%)
	Andalusia	108 (16%)
	Castilla y León	84 (13%)
	Canary Islands	135 (21%)
	Madrid	148 (22%)
	Subtotal	662 (100%)

outlines the main characteristics of the schools in which the teachers who participated in this study work.

2.2. Instrument

A self-administered questionnaire was made available through Google Forms, distributed via e-mail to the entire state, private, and subsidized secondary schools in the autonomous communities of Madrid, Andalusia, Extremadura, Castilla y León, Catalonia, and the Canary Islands. All the results reported by the schools were considered for this study.

In addition, this questionnaire was validated by 5 university professors and 5 independent secondary teachers who appreciate a very clear and easy-to-understand questionnaire, and also considered appropriate questions according to the objective of this research.

The variables that are analyzed in this study include theoretical knowledge of child maltreatment, the capacity and preparedness of teachers to address the issue, and their opinion of teacher–student relations (teacher–student alliances) in the detection of child maltreatment. The questionnaire is divided into three sections of questions (18 questions in total): the first section focuses on sociodemographic aspects (questions 1 to 4); the second section centers on theoretical knowledge, and the reporting and detection of child maltreatment (questions 5 to 12); and the final section explores the capacity and preparedness of teachers to address the subject with students (questions 13 to 18).

Theoretical knowledge was addressed not by self-identification, but questioning about real data and documents used in its notification. Validated assessment tools were used in the development of the questions asked in the first part, such as RUMI (Unified Register of Suspected Cases of Child Maltreatment) developed by the Observatory of Childhood and the Spanish Ministry for Health, Consumer Affairs, and Social Welfare. The RUMI, established under Article 22 of Law 26/2015, serves as a unified information system shared by all Spanish autonomous communities, providing comprehensive data on reported cases of child maltreatment. In this study, RUMI was used as a validation tool by offering baseline figures for maltreatment notifications at the regional level, allowing for the assessment of teachers’ awareness of official reporting procedures and their familiarity with institutional mechanisms for child protection. This tool provides data on all maltreatment notifications (both confirmed and unconfirmed) that occur in Spain, and, for this study, the data have been used according to their distribution by autonomous communities. In addition to RUMI, several guides from different autonomous communities were also drawn upon with guidelines for action in suspected cases of child maltreatment detected in schools; i.e., from Madrid, Andalusia, Extremadura, Castilla y León, Catalonia, and the Canary Islands (Autonomous Community of Madrid 2021; Department of Employment and Social Affairs 2004; Panlilio et al. 2018; Prous Trigo 2021; Puerta Climent and Colinas Fernández 2007).

2.3. Data Analysis and Processing

To make the necessary calculations, the IBM statistical analysis program SPSS Statistics 25.0 was used. Pearson’s chi-square test (with a minimum significance level of 0.05) was used to determine the variables that displayed significant relationships.

3. Results

The data from the questionnaires submitted by the teachers were analyzed from four perspectives: the teachers’ theoretical knowledge of child maltreatment; whether they addressed the issue in the classroom; their self-reported capacity to detect child maltreatment and actual detection; and their perspectives of teacher–student alliances.

3.1. Teachers’ Theoretical Knowledge of Child Maltreatment

When the teachers were asked to identify the form in their autonomous community used to report suspected cases of child maltreatment detected in school, only 30% of them recognized it at the start of the questionnaire (

Table 2. Teachers’ knowledge of the report form and reported suspected cases.

Item	Answer	Count (%)
Do you recognize this document? (Shown the relevant autonomous community’s Child Maltreatment Report Form for use in schools)	It is from the Spanish Ministry of Justice’s digital reporting system for potential cases of child maltreatment	18 (3%)
	It is the autonomous community’s Child Maltreatment Report Form for use in schools	203 (30%)
	I do not recognize this document, and I do not know which organization it belongs to	441 (67%)
	Subtotal	662 (100%)
Are types of child maltreatment common in schools? Can you give an approximate number of suspected reported cases in your autonomous community according to RUMI (Unified Register of Suspected Child Maltreatment Cases)	Underestimated data (for the relevant autonomous community)	519 (78%)
	Real data	143 (22%)
	Subtotal	662 (100%)

). They were also asked whether they knew the number of child maltreatment cases registered in the child maltreatment reporting system for their autonomous community, also known as RUMI (Unified Register of Child Maltreatment Cases). It was observed that only 22% of the teachers could identify or were aware of this number (Table 2).

As for the age range at which child maltreatment typically occurs, only 29% of the teachers answered correctly (

Table 3. Teachers’ theoretical knowledge of aspects of child maltreatment.

Item	Answer	No. (%)
Do you know the age range at which child maltreatment occurs?	Between 0 and 12	130 (20)
	Between 10 and 18	20 (3)
	Between 6 and 14	103 (16)
	Between 0 and 18	189 (29)
	I do not know	220 (32)
	Subtotal	662 (100%)
Do you know the types of child maltreatment that exist? One of the most common classifications is…	Yes	525 (79)
	No	73 (11)
	Other response	64 (10)
	Subtotal	662 (100%)

). The survey went on to ask about the classification given by the World Health Organization (WHO), which encompasses a wide range of typologies. A high percentage of teachers, close to 80%, know about this classification. The study also sought to investigate whether teachers considered bullying and cyberbullying to be early forms of child maltreatment, with 79% responding affirmatively (Table 3).

Finally, it must be noted that only 4% (n = 22) of the teaching staff correctly answered all the questions regarding their theoretical knowledge of child maltreatment and the reporting of suspected cases (questions 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the questionnaire). It is not surprising that 74% of the teachers interviewed (490 teachers) believe that improvements must be made to boost their knowledge of the issue.

3.2. Addressing Child Maltreatment in the Classroom

From the answers to question 17, it was observed that only 29.9% of the interviewed teachers (n = 198) actively address the subject of child maltreatment in the classroom. This low percentage highlights the need to explore the reason why, as well as the potential implications for the well-being of students.

Upon closer analysis of the characteristics of those teachers who address the subject of CA in the classroom, a significant association with teacher–student trust was found (chi-square = 54.616, df = 6, p = 0.000;

Table 4. The association between teacher–student trust and addressing child maltreatment in the classroom.

Teacher–Student Trust	Addressing Child Maltreatment in the Classroom
	Yes	Sometimes	No	Total
Yes	80 (12%)	9 (1%)	83 (12%)	172
No	65 (10%)	25 (4%)	157 (24%)	247
Do not know	38 (6%)	3 (1%)	160 (24%)	201
Sometimes	10 (1%)	4 (1%)	28 (4%)	42
Total	193	41	428	662

Note: Expected frequencies and percentages are provided in parentheses. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to assess associations (χ²(6) = 54.616, p < 0.001). This association is statistically significant.

), showing that this group of teachers tends to have a higher relationship of trust with their students in comparison with teachers who do not tackle the issue.

The main reasons put forward by the teachers for the low child maltreatment reporting rate were as follows: limited relations between teachers and students outside the classroom, lack of time, and the workload (this reason was reported too to constrain the interaction outside the classroom) (

Table 5. Reasons for the low reporting of child maltreatment by teachers who address in the classroom.

Reasons for Low Reporting of CA by Teachers	Work on the Subject of Child Maltreatment in the Classroom
	Yes	Sometimes	No	Total
Lack of awareness	12	4	27	43
Limited interaction outside the classroom between teachers and students	58	11	182	251
Limited interaction outside the classroom between teachers and students due to a lack of time and the workload	62	4	134	200
Lack of interest in student issues	16	3	20	39
Lack of time due to workload	45	19	65	129
Total	193	41	428	662

Note: Number of teachers. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to assess associations (χ²(10) = 39.083, p < 0.001). This association is statistically significant.

). An analysis was made to check for a difference in the reasons given by those teachers who address the subject of child maltreatment in the classroom and those who do not (Table 5). The chi-square tests point to significant associations (chi-square = 39.083, df = 10, p < 0.05), and means that there is a different explanation for the low reporting of maltreatment between those who address child maltreatment in the classroom and those who do not. It is worthy to note that some differences lay in the reasons “lack of interest in student issues” and “lack of time due to workload” given (in percentage) by more teachers who work on child maltreatment in the classroom than teachers who do not address this issue in the classroom. And even more, the lack of time due to workload is the most common reason in teachers who only sometimes work on the subject of child maltreatment in the classroom.

The main reason that was given for a lack of teacher–student relations from the teacher perspective was “lack of trust of the students” (reason given by 36% of the teachers). These reasons can also be tied in whether child maltreatment is addressed in the classroom or not (chi-square = 25.415, df = 6, p < 0.05,

Table 6. Reasons for low student–teacher relations reported by teachers who address in the classroom.

Reasons for Low Student–Teacher Relations	Work on the Subject of Child Maltreatment in the Classroom
	Yes	Sometimes	No	Total
Lack of trust	73	12	154	239
Fear that they will not be believed	61	14	113	188
They do not want to interact with other adults; they prefer to relate to their peers	34	5	128	167
Other response	25	10	33	68
Total	193	41	428	662

). Most teachers who tackle the issue attribute a lack of relations to “students’ fear of not being believed”, followed by “not wanting to interact with other adults and preferring to relate to their peers”. In contrast, “not wanting to relate to adults” is the primary reason put forward by those teachers who do not address child maltreatment in classroom.

The results highlight the need to tackle identified barriers like the lack of close teacher–student relations and the low reporting rate of CA by teachers in order to improve the effectiveness of interventions in schools.

3.3. Detection of Child Maltreatment by Teachers

The teachers were asked to self-report their ability to detect a possible case of child maltreatment through question 12 of the questionnaire (

Table 7. Self-reported ability to detect a possible case of child maltreatment.

Item	Response Type	No. (%)
Does your training in child maltreatment provide sufficient preparation for detecting potential cases among your students?	Yes, it is more than sufficient	39 (6%)
	I lack training, but I can detect a potential case of child maltreatment	281 (43%)
	I need more continuous training on this subject	342 (51%)
Total		662 (100%)

). This revealed that 49% (340 teachers) believed they could detect cases of child maltreatment. However, only 35% of the teaching staff have detected at least one case in their professional life, i.e., 227 teachers (question 11).

Thus, a big discrepancy was observed between their perceived ability and their actual detection capacity (

Table 8. Comparison of self-reported ability to detect child maltreatment and actual detection.

Self-Reported Ability	Cases Detected by Teachers
	yes	no	other
My training is more than sufficient	23 (4%)	16 (2%)	0
I need more training, but I can detect a possible case of child maltreatment	104 (16%)	175 (26%)	2 (0.3%)
I need more continuous training on this subject	100 (15%)	241 (36%)	1 (0.15%)

Note: This association is statistically significant; chi-square = 16.181, df = 6, p = 0.003.

; chi-square = 16.181; sig. 0.003). Of the 49% who believed that they could detect a case (self-reported ability), only 20% had managed to identify one during their professional career. Hence, a total of 127 teachers reported that they had detected an actual case, while 191 considered themselves capable but had never detected one. These findings indicate that the teachers over-estimate their ability to detect child maltreatment when compared with the real number of detected cases.

We also investigated whether theoretical knowledge of child maltreatment (questions 6–9) influenced the teachers’ self-reported ability to detect a potential case (question 12) and their actual detection of cases (question 11;

Table 9. Relationship between the teachers’ theoretical knowledge of child maltreatment, their self-reported ability to detect a case, and their actual detection of cases.

Theoretical Knowledge of Child Maltreatment	Self-Reported Ability to Detect a Case *		Actual Detection of a Child Maltreatment Case
	I Am Capable of Detecting Maltreatment	I Lack Training and Could Not Do It	Subtotal	I Have Detected a Case	I Have Not Detected Any Case	Subtotal
A basic knowledge of child maltreatment	130 (67%)	73 (33%)	203 (100%)	93 (47%)	105 (53%)	198 (100%)
Needs information about child maltreatment	190 (41%)	269 (59%)	459 (100%)	150 (33%)	314 (67%)	464 (100%)
Subtotal	220	342	662	243	419	662

Note: For a teacher to be considered to have a theoretical knowledge of child maltreatment, questions 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the questionnaire had to be correctly answered. * This association is statistically significant; chi-square = 43.203; p < 0.001.

). The results show that although 67% of the teachers with a basic theoretical knowledge of child maltreatment consider themselves to have a good detection capacity, 41% of the teachers without a basic theoretical grounding also regard themselves as being capable (chi-square = 43.203; p < 0.001). However, no differences were found in the real detection rate according to the teaching staff’s level of theoretical knowledge.

Similarly, we also explored whether addressing child maltreatment in the classroom (question 17) leads to a higher self-reported and real detection capacity (

Table 10. The relationship between addressing child maltreatment in the classroom and teachers’ self-reported detection ability and actual detection of cases.

Classroom Work on Child Maltreatment	Self-Reported Detection Ability			Actual Detection of Child Maltreatment *
	I Can Detect It	I Lack Training and Could Not Do It	Subtotal	I Have Detected a Case	I Have Not Detected Any Case	Subtotal
Yes	118 (18%)	88 (13%)	206	112 (17%)	99 (15%)	211
No	200 (30%)	256 (39%)	456	117 (18%)	334 (50%)	451
Total	318	344	662	229	433	662

Note: * This association is statistically significant; chi-square = 8070.049; sig. 0.000.

). While 112 of the 211 teachers who actively deal with the subject of child maltreatment with their students have identified a potential case, only 117 of the 451 teachers who do not tackle the issue have managed to detect one (chi-square = 8070.049; sig. 0.000). However, no differences were observed in the two groups’ self-reported detection ability. These results highlight the importance of addressing the subject in class in the detection of cases.

Finally, we analyzed whether a relationship of trust between teachers and their students influences the former’s self-reported detection ability and their real detection of child maltreatment (

Table 11. The relationship between teacher–student trust and teachers’ self-reported detection ability and actual detection of cases.

Teacher–Student Trust	Self-Reported Detection Ability 1			Actual Detection of Child Maltreatment 2
	I Can Detect It	I Lack Training and Couldn’t Do It	Subtotal	I Have Detected a Case	I Have Not Detected Any Case	Subtotal
Yes	117	55	172	76	96	172
Sometimes	23	19	42	24	18	42
No	101	146	247	83	164	247
Unknown	79	122	201	49	152	201
Total	320	342	662	232	434	662

Note: This association is statistically significant; ¹ chi-square = 48.262, df = 6, sig. = 0.000 and ² chi-square = 26.688, df = 6, sig. = 0.000.

). It was observed that a higher relationship of trust goes hand in hand with a higher self-reported ability (chi-square = 48.262, df = 6, sig. = 0.000) and increased detection of child maltreatment (chi-square = 26.688, df = 6, sig. = 0.000).

We also wished to gain an insight into the reasons for the underreporting of child maltreatment cases, as indicated by various studies. The teachers were asked why there was so little reporting of child maltreatment (question 10), with a lack of teacher–student relations accounting for 40% of the responses and a lack of time, due to the teachers’ workload, accounting for 27%, as shown in Figure 1 (left).

3.4. Teacher–Student Alliances from the Teachers’ Perspective

Asked for the teachers’ perceptions of the relationship of trust that is forged with students in order to discuss child maltreatment or any other aspect of the students’ personal lives (question 16), the results reveal that only 25% of the teachers (n = 128 out of 662) believe they have built up sufficient trust to address these issues. In contrast, 31% of the teachers did not believe that enough trust existed and 32% replied that they did not know. In this way, 74% of the teachers believe that improvements must be made to strengthen communication links with their students, and only 17% do not see this as being necessary (question 14).

When the reasons why teachers believe that students do not share their problems with them were analyzed (question 13), 45% pointed to a lack of trust as the main reason, followed by fear (27%), and a preference for interacting with their peers rather than with adults (25%) (Figure 1, right).

Table 12. The relationship between teacher–student trust and the perceived reasons for a lack of teacher–student rapport.

Good Teacher–Student Relations?	Reasons for a Lack of Teacher–Student Rapport
	Lack of Trust	Fear of Not Being Believed	Do Not Want to Interact with Adults, Prefer to Interact with Peers	Other Responses	Total
Yes	59 (9%)	55 (8%)	37 (6%)	21 (3%)	172
No	94 (14%)	65 (10%)	56 (9%)	32 (5%)	42
Do not know	69 (10%)	56 (9%)	68 (10%)	8 (1%)	247
Sometimes	17 (2%)	12 (2%)	6 (1%)	7 (1%)	201
Total	239	188	167	68	662 (100%)

Note: This association is statistically significant; chi-square 23.237; sig. 0.006.

illustrates how building or not building a relationship of trust with students affects the teachers’ perceptions of why they assume students fail to interact much with their teacher. Teachers who forge a relationship of trust cite both fear and a lack of trust as reasons for a low rapport, while teachers who fail to build up trust do not consider fear to be a reason. The differences between both groups of teachers are statistically significant (Table 12; chi-square 23.237; sig. 0.006).

Likewise, we explored whether addressing the issue of child maltreatment in the classroom was related to the amount of trust built up by the teacher with their students, finding that 42% of the teachers who deal explicitly with this issue in class believe that their students confide in them enough to make their problems known, as opposed to 19% who believe that they have a relationship of trust but do not address the subject with their students (Table 4).

4. Discussion

The results of this study offer insight into teachers’ perceptions and actions in schools with regard to the issue of child maltreatment. This allows conclusions to be drawn that can be used to help define plans of action to improve data on the prevention of child maltreatment and to facilitate the reporting of cases in schools.

The potential role of theoretical training in dealing with child maltreatment for teachers was analyzed as a specific variable that could relate to their capacity to detect possible cases. Our findings regarding teachers’ theoretical knowledge of child maltreatment, their perception of their awareness of the issue, and the training they had received coincide with the results of previous studies (Cantón Duarte and Cortés Arboleda 2007; Mathews et al. 2016; Ministerio de Sanidad 2024), according to which although theoretical knowledge improves a teacher’s perception of their ability to detect cases (Liébana Checa et al. 2015), surprisingly, it does not lead to an improvement in their actual detection capacity (Table 9). This highlights the need to review and improve the procedural guidelines of child maltreatment detection plans even after teachers have acquired basic theoretical knowledge. It is even possible that the theoretical knowledge they acquire might lead teachers to “let their guard down” since they over-confide in their perceived capacity to detect cases (Table 9).

As for factors related to the actual detection of child maltreatment by teachers, this research study reveals that actively addressing the issue in the classroom is associated with a 27% increase in the detection of cases (Table 10). Despite this, it does not guarantee successful detection as only 52% (112 of 211) of the teachers who tackle the subject in the classroom have detected at least one case.

The relationship of trust between teachers and their students is also related to an increase in the real detection capacity of child maltreatment cases. As seen in Table 12, 46.72% of the teachers who built up a relationship of this kind with their students have detected a case, compared to 33% of those teachers who did not manage to build up trust. In other words, a teacher–student relationship of trust boosts the capacity to detect cases of child maltreatment by approximately 14%.

A link was also found between the above two variables involved in the increased detection of child maltreatment: teacher–student trust and addressing child maltreatment in the classroom (Table 4). We hypothesize that there could be a common underlying factor to both variables (e.g., a concern for student issues) or it could be due to the personal characteristics of the teacher (close involvement in their work, a strong interest in people, extroversion, etc.).

The results therefore point to the need to strengthen teacher–student alliances to improve communication on sensitive issues such as child maltreatment, considering the perceptions and reasons cited by the teachers in this study. It would be interesting to predict which teacher’s characteristics are related to detection of child maltreatment.

These results are in line with the proposals of the Barnahus Model (Pereda 2021; Lind Haldorsson 2021; Consejo de Europa 2024), as well as the reports derived from its implementation in the different autonomous communities of Spain (Save the Children 2019; Save the Children and Fundació “la Caixa” 2020).

Teacher–Student Alliances

The teacher–student alliance proposed in this study is advocated as a key strategy in the improved detection of child maltreatment. Nowadays, our results show that 88% of 1160 students regard their teacher to be a reference figure (in press). However, a lack of trust of students (40%) and a heavy workload of teachers (30%) are seen as obstacles by teachers in building a deeper relationship with students. It must be noted that only 8% of them attribute this problem to a lack of interest in a teacher–student alliance.

Teacher–student alliances based on a relationship of trust, sensitivity, and commitment could facilitate the early detection and reporting of cases of child maltreatment. This could have a significant impact by putting an early stop to the harmful effects of child maltreatment and by providing crucial support to the sufferers (Monjas 1998; ONU 2006) through the figure of a teacher who is easily accessible to students. Furthermore, the teaching community has demonstrated a high interest in building this kind of alliance.

Study Limitations. This study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design limits causal inferences about the relationship between teacher–student alliances and detection capacity. Second, the reliance on self-reported data may introduce social desirability bias. Third, the sample, while substantial, is confined to Spain, which restricts generalizability to other cultural contexts. Finally, the qualitative questionnaire, though validated, did not capture longitudinal changes in teachers’ detection behaviors.

Future Research Additions. Future studies should (1) employ mixed-methods designs to triangulate self-reported data with observational measures of teacher–student interactions; (2) investigate institutional barriers (e.g., workload and administrative support) that hinder trust-building; (3) explore how cultural differences influence the formation of teacher–student alliances in multinational samples; and (4) develop and test training programs focused on practical skills for fostering trust and addressing maltreatment in classrooms.

5. Conclusions

Our analysis of teachers’ ability to detect cases of child maltreatment reveals a discrepancy between their perceived and real detection capacity. It also highlights the importance of actively addressing child maltreatment in the classroom and of building a teacher–student relationship of trust in the detection of cases, while no link was found between the teachers’ actual detection capacity and their theoretical knowledge of child maltreatment.

In conclusion, this study emphasizes the importance of a relationship of trust between teachers and students as a key factor in the detection of child maltreatment. Establishing such trust requires intentional and sustained efforts on the part of educators. Effective strategies include demonstrating consistent emotional availability, engaging in non-judgmental and empathetic communication, and integrating trauma-informed practices into daily classroom interactions. Moreover, teachers can foster trust by establishing supportive classroom norms, clearly communicating their own trustworthiness, and showing respect and genuine care for students’ well-being. Institutional measures—such as reducing teacher–student ratios and providing specialized training in empathetic listening, child protection, and reporting procedures—can further facilitate the development of these trusting relationships.

Future research should prioritize identifying which specific teacher characteristics (e.g., communication styles, commitment, and professional credibility) and school policies most effectively foster trust-building in teacher–student alliances. Additionally, intervention studies are needed to evaluate whether training programs targeting these relational and trauma-informed practices improve detection rates and reporting behaviors among teachers.

This study provides actionable insights for the design of interventions and policies aimed at the prevention and early detection of child maltreatment in schools. By focusing on strengthening teacher–student alliances and addressing both individual and institutional barriers, educational systems can contribute to creating safer and more protective environments for children and adolescents.