DfE Restrictive Interventions – Action Plan for School Leaders

by Russell Bielby | May 23, 2026 | Health and Safety, News, Social Care

The Department for Education (DfE) recently updated (from April 1st 2026) its guidance on ‘Restrictive Interventions, including the use of reasonable force in schools‘.

The 2026 DfE guidance on restrictive interventions places a sharper focus on lawful decision-making, accurate recording, prompt parent communication and governance oversight. For school leaders, the key question is no longer simply whether the school has a positive handling policy. The more important question is whether the school can evidence that every restrictive intervention was necessary, proportionate, welfare-informed, properly recorded and reviewed for learning.

The revised framework reinforces that any use of force must never be used as a form of punishment, discipline or to secure compliance. Instead, it places clear emphasis on prevention, early intervention and de-escalation, alongside the development of positive handling plans for pupils identified as higher risk. Schools are also now expected to ensure that all significant incidents involving the use of force are formally recorded and communicated to parents or carers in a timely and transparent way.

1. Review Your Positive Handling and Restrictive Intervention Policy 

School leaders should review their policy definitions and ensure the policy clearly explains the difference between:

• Appropriate physical contact
• Reasonable force
• Restraint
• Seclusion
• Non-physical restraint
• Significant use of force

A policy that only refers to ‘positive handling’ may miss wider restrictive practices, including incidents where no direct physical contact occurs. For example, seclusion or preventing a pupil from leaving a space may still fall within restrictive intervention expectations.

2. Clarify the Legal Test: Necessity, Proportionality and Welfare

Staff should be trained to apply three practical questions before, during and after any restrictive intervention:

• Was the intervention necessary?
  • Was action needed to prevent a greater harm?
• Was it proportionate?
  • Was the least restrictive option used for the shortest possible time?
• Was the pupil’s welfare considered?
  • Were the pupil’s age, SEND, trauma history, communication needs, medical needs and dignity taken into account?

This test should sit at the heart of staff training, behaviour support plans and post-incident reviews.

3. Avoid Blanket ‘No-Contact’ Policies

The guidance does not support a blanket no-contact approach. Appropriate physical contact may be necessary in everyday school life, including first aid, guiding a pupil, comfort, support during distress or preventing immediate danger.

The safer approach is not “no contact”. It is lawful, proportionate and role-specific contact, supported by clear training, policy and reporting systems.

4. Strengthen Same-Day Recording Procedures

Schools should be able to record significant use of force, seclusion and relevant restraint incidents promptly, ideally on the same day. Incident records should capture:

• Who was involved
• When and where the incident happened
• What led up to the incident
• What de-escalation was attempted
• Why the intervention was necessary
• What type and level of force or restriction was used
• How long the intervention lasted
• Whether anyone was injured
• What post-incident support was provided
• How SEND, medical, communication or welfare needs were considered

Structured forms in Child Protection Online Monitoring System (CPOMS) or another safeguarding system are likely to be more reliable than long free-text narratives alone.

5. Inform Parents Promptly Where Required

Schools should check that their reporting process makes same-day parent communication workable. The uploaded guidance summary highlights that parents should usually be informed promptly, including in some cases involving seclusion or non-force restraint.

This applies even where the intervention was anticipated in a behaviour support plan. A plan may explain the agreed response, but it does not remove the need to record and report relevant incidents.

6. Treat Seclusion as a Serious Restrictive Intervention

Seclusion should not be confused with “time out”, a reflection room or a behaviour sanction. If a pupil is contained away from others and prevented from leaving, or believes they cannot leave, leaders should consider whether the school’s seclusion procedures apply.

School leaders should ensure seclusion is:

• Necessary for safety
• Supervised
• Used for the shortest possible time
• Ended as soon as the risk reduces
• Recorded accurately
• Reported to parents promptly where required
• Reviewed afterwards

7. Review Behaviour Support Plans After Incidents

After a restrictive intervention, schools should review whether the pupil’s behaviour support plan, risk assessment or individual support arrangements need updating.

Useful review questions include:

• What triggered the incident?
• Could earlier support have reduced the risk?
• Were reasonable adjustments effective?
• Does the pupil need a revised support plan?
• Is there a pattern in time, location, staffing or transition points?
• What can be changed to reduce future restrictive interventions?

8. Meaningful Restrictive Intervention Data for Governors

Governors and proprietors should not only ask whether a policy exists. They should receive termly information that helps them interrogate practice and reduce risk.

A useful governance report should include:

• Number of restrictive interventions
• Number of seclusion incidents
• Number of significant use of force incidents
• Whether parents were informed promptly
• Patterns by pupil, year group, location, time or trigger
• Whether pupils with SEND are over-represented
• Staff training needs
• Changes made as a result of incident reviews

Used properly, this data should help schools reduce the need for restrictive interventions over time.

Restrictive Interventions in Schools: Action Plan for Leaders

We have put together a seven point action plan for school leaders when reviewing their response to the 2026 DfE guidance:

1. Update policy definitions and legal references.
2. Clarify the difference between appropriate contact, reasonable force, restraint and seclusion.
3. Build structured recording fields into CPOMS or the school’s incident system.
4. Make same-day parent reporting practical and consistent.
5. Review behaviour support plans after relevant incidents.
6. Train staff in necessity, proportionality, welfare and de-escalation.
7. Provide governors with regular (termly) meaningful data they can properly analyse and question.

To find out more about our staff training, please visit our Positive Handling in Schools online training course product page for more information.

Conclusion

Positive handling in schools is not simply about responding to behaviour incidents, it is about preventing escalation, protecting wellbeing, and ensuring legal and professional accountability in every decision. With the updated guidance from the Department for Education and increasing behavioural pressures across schools, staff training is no longer optional. It is a core safeguarding requirement.

The aim of the DfE’s recent guidance on restrictive intervention is not simply to have a policy that mentions the 2026 guidance.

The aim is to have a working system that supports staff in real situations, protects pupils’ welfare, informs parents appropriately and creates a clear record of why decisions were made.