Given the length of time children spend in school and opportunities to observe them there, literature on child protection universally allocates a crucial role to schools (Gilligan, 1998; Laskey, 2008; Buckley & McGarry, 2011; Walsh et al., 2011; Nohilly, 2019b; Treacy & Nohilly, 2020). In Ireland, this view has been further emphasised by the multitude of high profile reports, inquiries and cases that investigated child abuse and questioned the responsibility of schools withrespect to child protection and safeguarding (CPS). In response to the culmination of such discourse, the expectations placed on schools and school personnel for CPS expanded very significantly in 2017 when the Children First Act 2015 was enacted. Together with its auxiliary policies and procedures, this legislative change has positioned schools and school personnel as being at the fulcrum of CPS work. Despite this, there is no national research to reveal the perspectives of school communities towards their CPS responsibilities or to reveal what, in their view, are the factors that enhance and impede schools’ capacity to protect and safeguard children. This study addresses this gap in the literature. Using a mixed-methods but primarily qualitative case study, the researcher sought the views of principals, chairpersons and teachers during three phases of data collection using questionnaire and focus group methodology. From the participants’ perspective, this study identifies the factors that enhance and impede schools’ capacity to protect and safeguard children. These findings underscore the efficacy of the ‘Child Protection Procedures for Primary and Post-Primary Schools 2017’ (Department of Education and Skills, 2017a) and the introduction of Mandatory Reporting as factors that have enhanced the safety and protection of children. Conversely, this research identifies a range of factors which, according to participants, limit schools’ capacity to protect children from harm. These factors, which are categorised by the researcher into micro, meso and macro-level impediments, include: issues applying the ‘Threshold of Harm’ principle; the influence of fear on CPS action; the relationship between socio-economic factors and risk posed to children; the bureaucratisation of CPS work; as well as issues relating to children’s services and the Child and Family Agency, Tusla. In addition, the researcher, after reflecting on the findings of this study and considering them in relation to their context, history and the relevant literature, problematises another issue. That is, the pervasiveness of an adult-centric orientation of CPS practice whereby the needs of the individual ‘being’ child become a peripheral and secondary goal within the school’s CPS system.