For parents, the significance of this new guidance is a practical one. The guidance raises expectations around prevention, strengthens the requirement for transparency, and makes clear that where a restrictive intervention is used, the school must be able to justify its actions.
The guidance provides a framework for when intervention is justified. All school staff are entitled to use reasonable force to stop or prevent a pupil from, (a) causing injury to themselves or others; (b) committing a criminal offence; (c) damaging property, or (d) causing disorder among pupils at the school.
If intervention does occur, a school should promptly provide a written account of what took place. The guidance also reinforces the principle that intervention should be exceptional, properly considered and capable of being explained.
The objective of prevention and early intervention
A central feature of the new guidance is a shift away from reactive responses. The focus is on schools anticipating risk at an early stage, identifying triggers and putting in place effective de-escalation strategies before a situation escalates. Schools are expected to develop a consistent and informed approach, supported by appropriate staff training and a clear understanding of pupil need.
In practice, this requires forward planning. Schools should have a detailed understanding of each pupil’s profile, including behavioural patterns, known triggers and any relevant medical or developmental considerations. They should then use that information to implement appropriate support strategies and reasonable adjustments. Restrictive interventions should not sit within ordinary behaviour management practice. They are intended to be used only where genuinely necessary, and as a measure of last resort when other strategies have been insufficient.
Scope and legal status
The guidance applies across most educational settings in England, including maintained schools, academies, independent schools, special schools and pupil referral units. It is therefore widely applicable in practice, regardless of the type of setting in which a child is educated.
It is also important to distinguish between those parts of the guidance which are legally binding and those which are advisory in nature. Certain elements, particularly those relating to recording and reporting, impose clear legal obligations. Other aspects are non-statutory, but there remains a strong expectation that schools will follow them unless there is a clear and good reason not to do so. In practice, any departure from the guidance is likely to require clear justification.
A useful starting point is the language used. Where the guidance states that a school “must” take a particular step, this reflects a legal requirement. Where it states that a school “should” act, it is still setting an expected standard of practice for schools, even if some flexibility remains.
Key concepts and definitions
The terminology used in this area is not always applied consistently, either within schools or in communication with parents. It is therefore necessary to look beyond labels and focus on the substance of what has taken place.
Restrictive intervention is a broad term which encompasses any action that limits a pupil’s liberty or freedom of movement. Reasonable force refers to the use of physical intervention which is proportionate and applied only for as long as necessary in the circumstances. Restraint generally involves physically restricting a pupil’s movement, whether by holding or guiding them. Seclusion, by contrast, involves isolating a pupil in a space and preventing them from leaving, whether by physical means or by instruction.
Understanding these distinctions is important. It enables parents to engage with the school with a clear understanding and to avoid conflict, which can arise from the use of imprecise terminology.
When can force be used?
The legal framework governing the use of reasonable force has not changed. School staff may intervene where it is necessary to prevent a pupil from causing injury to themselves or others, committing a criminal offence, causing significant damage to property or creating serious disruption to the school environment.
However, the guidance reinforces the limits of this power. Force is not intended as a tool for routine behaviour management or to secure compliance with instructions in ordinary circumstances. Its use must be rooted in necessity and exercised with care, supported by appropriate training and a clear understanding of when intervention is justified.
In practice, this means that decisions made in real time should still be capable of later explanation to parents by reference to the risks that were present and the options that were considered by the school staff.
The governing principles: necessity, proportionality and welfare
Any use of restraint or seclusion must be assessed against three well-established principles. First, the intervention must be necessary. This requires the school to consider whether there is a less restrictive and equally effective alternative available. Secondly, it must be proportionate, meaning that the level of intervention is the minimum required to address the risk and is applied for no longer than necessary. Thirdly, the action taken must be grounded in the welfare of the pupil, taking proper account of their health, safety and individual circumstances.
These principles provide a clear framework for assessing what has happened. Where an incident occurs, it is reasonable for parents to expect a detailed explanation. This explanation should cover the nature of the risk identified, the de-escalation steps that were attempted, the precise form of intervention used and its duration, and the steps that will be taken to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence. A lack of clarity on any of these points will be justification for further enquiry by parents.
SEND considerations: a proactive duty
The guidance recognises that pupils with special educational needs and disabilities are more likely to be subject to restrictive interventions. This creates a heightened expectation on schools to engage in proactive and structured planning.
That planning should include identifying triggers, agreeing tailored strategies, and making reasonable adjustments in line with the Equality Act 2010, to avoid discrimination in schools. It should also involve regular review, particularly where incidents have occurred, to assess whether existing measures remain effective.
Importantly, this is an anticipatory duty. Schools are expected to take steps in advance to reduce foreseeable risks. A reactive approach which only responds after incidents arise is unlikely to meet the standard envisaged by the guidance.
Recording and reporting: greater transparency
Where a restrictive intervention is used, the school must make a clear written record. This record should set out the context leading up to the incident, including any relevant behaviour or triggers, the nature of the intervention itself, and any follow-up action taken, including support offered to the pupil.
Parents must be informed in writing as soon as practicable. In most cases, there is an expectation that this will occur on the same day. The information provided should go beyond a brief summary and should explain, in clear terms, why the intervention was considered necessary, what was done, and what the impact has been.
The same recording and reporting requirements apply to incidents involving restraint or seclusion. They must be both recorded and communicated promptly, with sufficient detail to allow parents to understand and, if necessary, raise questions about the school’s decision-making.
Exceptions to reporting
There are limited circumstances in which a school may decide not to inform a particular parent of an incident. These are narrow and are generally confined to cases where informing parents would risk serious harm to the pupil, or where the pupil is aged 20 or over.
Even in those circumstances, the expectation is not that the incident goes unreported. Rather, the school should ensure that appropriate reporting takes place, whether to another parent, a responsible authority or another relevant body, depending on the circumstances.
Practical steps for parents
If a restrictive intervention has been used in relation to your child, a structured response is important. The first step is to request the written record and review it carefully. It is important to understand precisely what was done, who was involved and the duration of the intervention, as well as the events leading up to it.
From there, the focus should move to prevention. Parents should seek a clear explanation of what steps the school proposes to take to reduce the risk of a similar incident occurring again. This may involve changes to support plans, behavioural strategies or environmental factors within the school setting.
In many cases, arranging a meeting with the school at an early stage will assist in resolving issues. This allows for a more detailed discussion with relevant staff, including senior leadership, the SENCO or safeguarding lead where appropriate. Communication by email is less likely to resolve concerns and may lead to digital warfare. This is to be avoided. It is in the interests of the child that there is a calm discussion between the school and parents. If concerns remain following that discussion, they should be set out clearly in writing and, if necessary, pursued through the school’s formal complaints procedures.
Our view
The 2026 guidance represents a meaningful development in how restrictive interventions are approached in schools. It places a stronger emphasis on prevention, reinforces the need for clear accountability, and provides greater clarity for parents on what they are entitled to expect.
For parents, the key is to remain focused on the underlying principles: whether the intervention was necessary in the circumstances, whether it was proportionate to the risk identified, and what steps the school is taking to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. These are the questions which underpin any effective challenge or discussion.
Where answers are unclear, incomplete or delayed, early and informed advice can make a material difference. Addressing issues promptly often leads to better outcomes and helps ensure that appropriate safeguards and support are put in place.
If you would like a fixed fee video consultation to discuss a specific situation, regarding safeguarding, restraints, seclusion or interventions, our education law team can provide clear, practical and commercially focused advice, tailored to your circumstances and in the interests of your child.