Use of Reasonable Force in Schools in 2026: A Headteacher’s Guide to the New Duties

From 1 April 2026, the rules governing the use of reasonable force in schools changed for the first time in over a decade. If your school's behaviour policy, incident recording system or staff training still reflects the 2013 guidance, it's very likely out of date - and for the first time, parts of this area are backed by a statutory duty rather than good practice.

This guide sets out what actually changed, why now, what the law requires, and what it means practically for headteachers and governing bodies who are ultimately accountable for getting this right.

At a glance: the new duties from 1 April 2026

Use of reasonable force in schools: what changed in April 2026

The Department for Education has replaced its 2013 guidance, Use of reasonable force in schools (reviewed in 2015), with a new document titled Restrictive interventions, including use of reasonable force, in schools. The shift is more than a rename.

A wider scope: "restrictive intervention"

The 2013 guidance focused narrowly on physical force. The 2026 guidance introduces "restrictive intervention" as a wider umbrella term, covering reasonable force, restraint, and - for the first time - seclusion, including situations where a pupil is restricted from moving without any direct physical contact at all.

Recording and reporting is no longer discretionary

Under the old guidance, informing parents about a use-of-force incident was described as good practice - the decision was left to individual schools, and there was no requirement to keep a formal record. Under the new guidance, schools must have a procedure in place for recording every significant incident involving force, seclusion or restraint, and it's a legal duty rather than a recommendation.

Parents must now be told "as soon as practicable" - in practice, the same day - with limited exceptions, set out below.

Seclusion is formally defined and regulated

This is arguably the least well understood part of the guidance. Seclusion is defined broadly as confining a pupil away from others by physically obstructing their way of leaving, securing the space so they can't leave, or causing them to believe they'll be punished if they do. Under that definition, a pupil separated and prevented from leaving during a dysregulated moment counts as seclusion - whether or not the school calls it a "quiet room," "reflection space" or anything else. That triggers the same recording and reporting duty as physical force.

New expectations for pupils with SEND

Schools are now expected to co-produce behaviour support plans with pupils with SEND and their parents, and to carry out individualised risk assessments wherever there's an identified risk of needing a restrictive intervention.

The legal underpinning

The underlying power for staff to use reasonable force hasn't changed - that's still section 93 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. What's new is section 93A, under which the recording and reporting duty is issued as statutory guidance, alongside The Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2025, which specifically covers seclusion and non-force restraint. The guidance applies to maintained schools, academies, alternative provision academies, independent schools, maintained nursery schools, pupil referral units and local authorities.

From April 2026, what must schools do for each significant use of force?

Two things, and both are now legal duties rather than good practice.

Record it.

The governing body or proprietor must ensure a procedure is in place for recording each significant incident in which a member of staff uses force on a pupil, covering what led up to it, the type and degree of force used, and why it was judged necessary at the time. The full list of what a record needs to contain is set out in the next section.

Report it to parents.

There must also be a procedure for reporting each significant use of force to the parents of the pupil involved as soon as practicable after the incident, and schools should endeavour to do this no later than the same day.

There are two exceptions to informing parents: where the pupil is aged 20 or over, and where it appears to the staff member that doing so would be likely to result in serious harm to the pupil. In that second case the duty doesn't simply fall away - the incident must still be reported to any parent it can be reported to without resulting in significant harm, or, if there are none, to the local authority.

For use of force, the duty sits under section 93A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Seclusion and non-force restraint are dealt with separately, under The Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2025, which carry the same recording and reporting expectations.

What a compliant incident record must contain

Records should capture who was involved, when and where the incident happened, what led up to it, why force or restraint was necessary, the type and degree of force used, how long it lasted, whether anyone was injured, and what post-incident support followed.

Building this into a structured incident form - rather than relying on free-text write-ups after the fact - is the difference between a record that can actually demonstrate necessity and proportionality later, and one that can't. It's also what allows the governing body to do what the guidance now expects of it: interrogate patterns across incidents, not just review them one at a time.

Why has this guidance been introduced now?

This didn't appear out of nowhere. It follows a 2021 inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into restraint and seclusion practices in schools, and a 2023 DfE call for evidence. Government consulted publicly on draft guidance in February 2025.

The final publication was actually delayed from an original September 2025 target, because midway through the process government decided to legislate a specific, standalone duty covering seclusion - not just physical force - which meant redrafting the guidance to reflect it. That decision reflects something worth noting for anyone drafting policy: seclusion had, until now, existed in a genuine grey area, with no explicit national requirement to record or report it at all, and practice varying widely between schools.

The current landscape: why this matters right now

This isn't a theoretical compliance exercise. The data on pupil violence and behavioural incidents in England's schools makes the guidance's timing make sense.

A 2025 NASUWT survey found that two in five teachers had experienced physical abuse or violence from a pupil in the previous year, and more than four in five felt that violent or abusive pupil behaviour had increased. DfE suspension data shows a marked post-pandemic rise in physical assault on an adult being cited as the reason for suspension or exclusion.

Channel 4 News' FactCheck team found reports of violent injuries to school staff rose by nearly a fifth in a single year - over 800 attacks leaving staff injured seriously enough to require formal reporting. A BBC South East investigation, using Freedom of Information requests, found 440 staff injuries caused by violence reported to the Health and Safety Executive across Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and Oxfordshire between 2019/20 and 2023/24, with suspensions for pupil assaults on adults across Kent, Surrey and Sussex alone rising from 4,365 in 2022/23 to 5,504 in 2023/24.

Perhaps most striking, the Telegraph reported that 3,599 children in reception and nursery classes were excluded in the 2022–23 academic year for attacking teachers - a reminder that this isn't only a secondary school issue, and that early intervention matters as much as crisis response.

There's also a wellbeing dimension driving the seclusion-specific duty: research published in the British Educational Research Journal, reported via Schools Week, found that around one in twelve pupils were placed in isolation weekly, for an average of 8.5 hours a week - with associated harm to pupils' sense of belonging and relationships with staff. That's part of why seclusion, not just force, now carries its own statutory recording duty.

What the guidance says about training providers

There's no accreditation scheme or approved-provider list mandated by the guidance - this is worth knowing, because it means the responsibility for choosing the right training sits squarely with the school, not with a national kitemark.

What the guidance does make clear, repeatedly, is the standard training needs to meet: it should be adequate, safe, lawful, preventative, tailored to the school's actual context, and aligned with the guidance's own principles - necessity, proportionality, welfare, least restrictive practice, and a firm emphasis on de-escalation before physical intervention.

That last point matters more than it might first appear. A generic list of physical techniques isn't sufficient on its own. A lunchtime supervisor, a SEND teaching assistant, a cover teacher and a member of SLT face genuinely different flashpoints, and the guidance's expectation is that training reflects that - not a one-size-fits-all course delivered once and forgotten.

It's also worth being direct about something the guidance addresses head-on: a "no contact" policy is not a safe way to sidestep these duties. Appropriate physical contact - first aid, guiding a pupil, preventing them running into danger, comforting a distressed child - remains a normal and necessary part of school life. Staff who are left uncertain about where the line sits are less safe, not more, and so are the pupils in their care.

Benefits of choosing the right training provider

For pupils. De-escalation-first, trauma-informed training genuinely reduces how often restrictive intervention is needed at all. Training that's built around individual SEND needs - rather than a generic technique set - reduces the risk of disproportionate use of force against the pupils most likely to be affected by it, and protects dignity and welfare by design rather than as an afterthought.

For staff. Confidence under pressure reduces injury risk, for staff and pupils alike - directly relevant given the injury data above. A clear, well-practised judgement framework (necessity, proportionality, welfare) reduces the hesitation the guidance itself warns against, and gives staff a legally defensible basis for the decisions they make in the moment.

For parents. Prompt, honest, well-evidenced reporting builds trust rather than eroding it. A school that can demonstrate a proportionate, trauma-informed approach - backed by records that actually show the reasoning behind a decision - is far less likely to see a difficult incident escalate into a formal complaint.

The consequences of getting it wrong

Legal and accountability exposure. A failure to meet the section 93A recording and reporting duty is a compliance failure the governing body has to answer for. Weak or missing records make it genuinely hard to evidence that force was necessary and proportionate if a decision is later challenged.

Safeguarding and inspection scrutiny. Governing bodies are expected to actively interrogate incident data - patterns, triggers, disproportionate impact on pupils with SEND, and what it reveals about training needs. An inability to produce this at inspection is itself a red flag, regardless of how any individual incident was handled.

Legal precedent shows scrutiny is real even for lawful practice. In the John Smeaton Academy case, a High Court judge found the school's isolation practice technically lawful - but still described it as "stigmatising" and "deliberately under-stimulating." That's a useful reminder that meeting the letter of the guidance and meeting its spirit aren't automatically the same thing, and that practice under scrutiny needs to hold up to more than a compliance checklist.

Cost to staff. The injury and compensation data above isn't abstract - councils have paid out real sums to staff injured through inadequate preparation, and staff retention suffers where confidence and safety aren't in place.

Reputational risk. This is now an active, national news topic - the BBC, Channel 4, the Telegraph and Tes have all covered it substantially in the past year. Schools that get this visibly wrong are exposed to more than a single parent complaint.

What headteachers should do now: a six-point checklist

1. Audit your behaviour policy against the 2026 guidance. If it references the 2013 document, or doesn't mention seclusion, restrictive intervention or the section 93A duty, it needs revising.
2. Map where seclusion might already be happening under another name. Quiet rooms, reflection spaces, sensory rooms, corridors - if a pupil is prevented from leaving, it's in scope, whatever it's called.
3. Put a structured incident recording process in place. A form that captures the who, what, why, degree, duration, injuries and post-incident support - not free-text write-ups after the fact.
4. Agree your same-day parental reporting process - who contacts parents, how, and how the narrow safeguarding exception is applied and documented when it's used.
5. Review behaviour support plans for pupils with SEND. Are they co-produced with pupils and parents? Is there an individualised risk assessment wherever restrictive intervention is a foreseeable possibility?
6. Review your staff training against the guidance's standard - adequate, safe, lawful, preventative, tailored to your context, and de-escalation-first. If it was last refreshed under the 2013 guidance, it almost certainly falls short of at least one of these.

How this maps to Stand2's approach

Stand2's training has always been built around five principles: Safety First, Prevention Before Intervention, Ethical Decision-Making, Least Restrictive Practice, and Trauma-Informed and Context-Led practice. Looking at the 2026 guidance closely, these map directly onto what the DfE is now asking schools to demonstrate - the necessity/proportionality/welfare test, the de-escalation-first hierarchy, and the emphasis on individualised, SEND-aware practice were all built into this framework before the guidance existed. The one genuinely new element - the statutory recording and reporting duty - is a procedural competency rather than a philosophical one, and it's built into our schools-focused delivery as a dedicated module alongside the practical judgement work.

There's a reason the guidance stops short of prescribing a specific course or accrediting providers: every school's risk profile is different, and training that ignores that fails the guidance's own "tailored to context" test. A mainstream primary where the realistic need is early de-escalation is not a secondary school with identified higher-risk presentations, and neither is an alternative provision setting where physical intervention is a foreseeable part of some staff members' roles. That's why Stand2's programmes are tiered rather than one-size-fits-all:

• De-escalation (Level 1) - awareness and communication skills to recognise warning signs early and defuse before an incident develops. For most school staff, this is the foundation the guidance's prevention-first hierarchy expects.
• Conflict Management & Personal Safety (Level 2) - for roles carrying a foreseeable risk of harm, adding the situational awareness and decision-making frameworks to manage conflict safely and defensibly.
• Physical Intervention (Level 3) - for settings with higher-risk behavioural presentations, built around safe, proportionate, legally defensible responses with de-escalation and least restrictive practice at every stage.

The right combination depends on your setting, your pupils, and which staff hold which risks. The quickest way to see where your school sits is our Course Finder - tell it a little about your organisation and its needs, and it will suggest the most appropriate starting point. From there, we'd have a conversation about your context, and where the risk and complexity warrant it, that can extend to a full training needs analysis and a review of your policies and procedures against the new guidance - which, if your documents haven't been touched since before April 2026, is the practical place to start.

Use of reasonable force in schools: frequently asked questions

Is the use of reasonable force in schools still lawful in 2026?

Yes. The power under section 93 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 is unchanged - staff can still use reasonable force to prevent a pupil harming themselves or others, damaging property, or seriously disrupting good order. What's changed is that significant incidents must now be recorded and reported.

Does a "non-force" incident, like seclusion without physical contact, still need to be reported to parents?

Yes. If the incident falls within the regulations' definition of seclusion or non-force restraint, it must be recorded and reported - it can't simply sit in an internal log.

If an incident was already anticipated in a pupil's behaviour support plan, does it still need individual recording?

Yes. A behaviour support plan can explain what staff are expected to do in a given situation, but it doesn't remove the duty to record and report each relevant incident individually.

Is a "no contact" policy a safe way to avoid these duties?

No. The guidance is explicit that appropriate physical contact remains part of normal, safe school life, and that avoiding all contact leaves staff uncertain and pupils less protected, not more.

Do training providers need to be accredited under the new guidance?

No formal accreditation or approved provider list is mandated. The standard schools should apply is whether training is adequate, safe, lawful, preventative, tailored to the school's context, and aligned with the guidance's own principles.

How soon must parents be informed after a significant incident?

As soon as practicable after the incident, and schools should endeavour to do this no later than the same day. There are two exceptions: where the pupil is aged 20 or over, and where the staff member judges that informing a parent would be likely to result in serious harm to the pupil. In that second case the incident must still be reported - to any parent it can be reported to without resulting in significant harm, or, failing that, to the local authority.

Does this guidance apply to independent schools and academies, or just maintained schools?

It applies broadly: maintained schools, academies, alternative provision academies, independent schools, maintained nursery schools, pupil referral units, and local authorities.

Sources referenced:

• Department for Education, Use of reasonable force in schools (GOV.UK)
• Browne Jacobson, Force, seclusion and restraint in schools: New rules from April 2026
• Winckworth Sherwood, An overview of the new guidance
• Schools Week, Schools to face legal duty to record seclusion use
• BBC News, Pupil attacks on South East teachers 'horrifying', says union
• Channel 4 News FactCheck, Attacks on teachers reported by schools rise by a fifth
• The Telegraph, Children as young as five attacking their teachers
• Legislation.gov.uk, Education and Inspections Act 2006, s.93

This article reflects our understanding of the April 2026 DfE guidance and related legislation at the time of writing. It's intended as a practical briefing for school leaders, not legal advice - for a decision on a specific incident or policy, schools should take their own legal or governance advice.