The Department for Education (DfE) has published new guidance for schools entitled Restrictive interventions, including use of reasonable force, in schools. This will come into force from April 2026 and will replace the DfE’s Use of Reasonable Force guidance of 2013.

The restrictive interventions guidance remains non-statutory. However, page 14 of the document contains statutory guidance from the DfE, issued under section 93A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006.

This is in relation to the legal requirement of the governing body or proprietor of a school in England to have regard to the recording and reporting of each significant incident, involving the use of force by members of staff.

The substantive changes from Use of Reasonable Force are explored below. We recommend that this briefing is read alongside the new guidance.

NASUWT is concerned that several outstanding issues that we raised during the consultation process in developing the new guidance have not been addressed.

These are set out in a later section of this briefing.

Substantive changes

1. Scope of the guidance

The updated guidance covers a much broader set of restrictive interventions, which has expanded the information it provides to schools.

Previously, the guidance was largely focused on physical restraint. The newly published document, however, incorporates practices such as seclusion

2. Mandatory recording and reporting

The restrictive interventions guidance sets out the new legal duty for all schools to record and report every significant incident involving restrictive practices. This covers recording and reporting the use of force and recording and reporting the use of seclusion and non-force-related restraint.

The guidance sets out what details must be recorded as a minimum.

With regard to reporting, it is now a legal requirement for governing bodies of maintained schools and the proprietors of other schools to ensure that a procedure is in place for reporting each significant use of force to the parents of the pupil involved.

This is expected to be as soon as is practicable after the incident, with a commitment to it being no later than the same day.

Two exceptions apply to this legal requirement:

• the pupil is aged 20 or over; and

• it appears to the staff member that it would be likely to result in serious harm to the pupil. In this instance, the staff member must report the incident to the local authority within whose area the pupil is ordinarily resident.

3. Revised/clarified definitions

The new guidance has reviewed and broadened the definitions of reasonable force that were in the previous framework.

The updated version clarifies that reasonable force is one type of restrictive intervention and subsequently provides more detailed definitions of restrictive intervention.

There is also now clear advice on seclusion and its use. The guidance states that seclusion should ‘only be used as a safety measure to protect others from harm when a pupil is experiencing high levels of emotional or behavioural dysregulation’.

It makes clear the distinction between seclusion and removal from the classroom, which is set out in the non-statutory Behaviour in Schools guidance. See more on our Advice on the DfE’s Behaviour in Schools Publication page.

The updated guidance also draws greater distinction between restrictive practice and normal physical contact. It is made clear that schools should not have a ‘no contact’ policy.

4. Advice on how schools can minimise the need to use restrictive interventions

The new guidance includes stronger emphasis on preventing the need for restrictive interventions, including the use of de-escalation techniques and positive behaviour support plans tailored to individual pupils.

5. Specific focus on pupils with SEND and the staff who work with them

There is a greater focus in the 2026 guidance on supporting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and other vulnerable groups.

This includes understanding triggers, adjusting plans before force is considered and utilising staff who know individual pupils well.

6. Clearer expectations on governing bodies and school leaders

The guidance makes clear that the governing body of a maintained school and the proprietor of other schools must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the school’s procedures for recording and reporting the use of force and seclusion and restraint are complied with.

There is also a stronger emphasis and expectation on governing bodies/proprietors reviewing the data on restrictive interventions, to ensure that school leaders are fulfilling their obligations and requirements.

Positives of the Restrictive Interventions, Including Use of Reasonable Force, in Schools guidance

NASUWT welcomes the improvements that have been made to the guidance on restrictive interventions, including use of reasonable force, in schools. We also recognise the DfE’s efforts to set clear boundaries and provide new definitions of what constitutes reasonable force, restrictive interventions and restraint.

We welcome the clarification that settings should, as part of their recording and reporting, include any relevant needs of the pupil involved, including whether they have a special educational need or disability.

The recording of incidents plays an integral role in ensuring schools meet their legal duties. Recording enables better monitoring and leads to a true understanding of where restraint is being used on a sustained basis, particularly for those pupils with SEND or other protected characteristics.

This will demonstrate instances where the needs of these children and young people are not being met and allow schools to seek support and make amendments where appropriate.

NASUWT has stated in previous representations to the DfE that there should be no automatic presumption that parents should be informed of all incidents where restraint has been used.

NASUWT casework and member engagement activity has shown that reporting incidents to parents may place some pupils at risk of significant harm.

All guidance should therefore set out the importance of evaluating these risks before any disclosure is made.

The Union therefore welcomes the clarification on this in the updated guidance.

This aside, NASUWT remains concerned that there are some clear gaps in the guidance, with important points remaining ambiguous or entirely lacking.

NASUWT’s concerns over the new guidance

Unclear terminology

We have been clear that no member of staff should be expected to use reasonable force, restraint or other restrictive practices until they are fully trained safely, and legally, to do so.

We called for the guidance to make an explicit statement on this within the definitions section, i.e. physical contact by a designated and trained member of staff. It is therefore disappointing that this has not been included.

Lack of national, standardised training

Although the DfE has acknowledged the calls for mandatory training standards, NASUWT does not agree with the decision to consider this as part of the next phase of the work programme on this policy area.

The need for a national, standardised training programme is urgent and needs to be addressed now, not at an unconfirmed point in the future.

The introduction of a national, standardised training programme on the use of reasonable force, restraint or other restrictive practices would ensure consistency and effectiveness.

It is unreasonable for schools to have to source this training on an individual basis, as opposed to a national provision, especially given the nature of the issues the training is expected to cover.

Furthermore, without scrutiny of this training, there is no quality assurance to guarantee schools are being trained appropriately in this critical issue, which could lead to risks when discharging these responsibilities.

On page 7 of the proposed guidance, there is a further reference to training. It states that training should support staff in assessing when the need ‘to use reasonable force and/or other restrictive interventions’ is reasonable.

Given the imperativeness of this, it further demonstrates the need for national, standardised training to ensure consistency when making judgements on the need to use force.

No examples on when to use force and/or other restrictive interventions

NASUWT has made clear that, given the importance of ensuring practitioners fully understand when the use of force is reasonable, providing examples may help to offer reassurance to schools that they are discharging their responsibilities in line with national guidance. It is unhelpful that this has not been actioned.

We also believe it would be beneficial for the guidance to include more information on the importance of utilising de-escalation techniques as a first response, to try to avoid the need to use restraint. To use these effectively, education staff must be trained.

This links back to our previous concern and is another reason NASUWT is calling for a standardised training programme on the use of reasonable force, restraint or other restrictive practices, which would ensure all trained individuals have the same knowledge and skills to seek to resolve a situation before it escalates.

Lack of support for staff when using professional judgement not to intervene

While NASUWT is clear that there are risks associated with the use of force, it is also important to recognise that staff can face legal and professional risk if they decide not to intervene in an incident.

In situations where harm is foreseeable, staff may later be challenged for failing to act in order to discharge their duty of care. The guidance does not take account of this potential risk for education staff.

Furthermore, the guidance does not provide reassurance or protection for staff who exercise professional judgement and conclude that physical intervention would be unsafe or disproportionate.

NASUWT is concerned that this puts staff in an invidious situation, driving fear and uncertainty when determining whether or not to intervene in a situation.

Not enough emphasis on employer responsibility

NASUWT does not believe the guidance places enough emphasis on employer responsibility, as opposed to individual judgement alone.

While the briefing refers to safeguarding and training gaps, we have stated previously, and maintain, that these should be explicitly connected to employers’ duties under health and safety law, particularly the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The guidance should make clear that employers have a legal obligation to take reasonably practicable steps to protect staff and pupils from foreseeable harm. This includes undertaking risk assessments (see our guidance Risk Assessment of Violent and Abusive Behaviour), planning for pupils whose behaviour may present risks and putting in place proactive mitigation measures.

These are systemic employer responsibilities, rather than decisions that should fall solely on individual teachers who are placed in difficult positions.

Lack of context for reasons for using seclusion

The guidance has made a clear distinction between seclusion and removal and identifies seclusion as a restrictive practice. We welcome this clarification.

Notwithstanding this, we maintain that the reasons for using seclusion need to be further contextualised. There are times when staff and pupils need to be protected from certain forms of behaviour, given the adverse impact they can have on them.

In these circumstances, protection is best provided by removing pupils from classrooms, particularly when staff and/or other pupils have been assaulted, subject to threats of assault or subject to serious verbal abuse.

We also called for more advice on the distinctions between appropriate and inappropriate use of isolation strategies. In particular, extended periods of withdrawal with no provision of support and no meaningful attempts to address the causes of the behaviour that led to their withdrawal are examples of poor practice.

This is of particular importance for children and young people with SEND. It is therefore unclear why this has not been included in the revised guidance on restrictive intervention.

In addition, our view is that pupils who have been withdrawn temporarily from a classroom must be given emotional and pastoral support to help them address the causes of their misbehaviour and other related issues they may face.

A core purpose of any such intervention should be to attempt to facilitate the reintroduction of pupils to classroom attendance as soon as possible.

Pupil and staff support

NASUWT agrees with the proposed guidance that pupils and staff involved in incidents where restraint or some other form of restrictive intervention has been used should receive emotional support and medical assistance where necessary.

It is also appropriate to invite settings to consider whether pupils involved in such incidents might benefit from trauma support. The guidance should also recommend that trauma support is made available to staff and we are unclear why this has not been specified.

NASUWT recognises the importance of debriefing and post-incident reviews for staff and pupils involved in these incidents. The inclusion of this in the updated guidance is welcome.

To add to this, NASUWT would expect that during such sessions for staff, it is vital that clear assurances are given to employees of the unequivocal support of their employer in making use of restraint or restrictive intervention in a way that meets the expectations of the setting and its legal responsibilities towards pupils and staff.

Little support for schools to meet safeguarding duties towards staff and pupils

When considering the reporting of behaviour incidents, NASUWT believes there is key information governing the protection of staff.

Where a decision is made to report an incident involving the use of restraint or some other physical intervention to parents, guidance must make clear that this responsibility falls to a member of the setting’s senior management team. It must not be the responsibility of the member or members of staff involved in the incident.

NASUWT casework has highlighted instances where members of staff have used restraint or force reasonably and lawfully, yet found themselves subject to reprisals from parents.

Given its duty of care to its employees, no setting should place a member of its staff in this position.

To protect members of staff further, in cases where parents are informed of the use of restraint, their names should not be disclosed to the parents. NASUWT would argue that the circumstances of the incident can be conveyed to parents without identifying the staff member or members involved.

This information has not been included in the guidance, despite our representations to the DfE.

Lack of clarity over maintenance of good order

NASUWT asserts that members of school staff in schools are not in place to act as police officers and therefore there should be no suggestion that their role is to use force to stop crime.

However, we also recognise that in exercising their duty of care, members of staff may have to intervene to restrain a pupil from behaving in a way that would be a crime.

We made clear that it would be helpful if the DfE set out what its intentions are in respect of the wider statutory framework. This will enable NASUWT and other stakeholders to represent their members’ best interests in the correct context. It is unsatisfactory that there is insufficient clarity on this.

Similarly, if schools are routinely having to use physical or non-physical interventions to maintain good order, there are clearly fundamental issues within the school that need to be urgently addressed.

We requested further clarity from the DfE on what is meant by linking the maintenance of good order to the use of force or restraint in the guidance.

We feel this is another issue that needs addressing as a matter of urgency.

Absence of a clear framework to assess safeguarding risks of parental notification

While we welcome the exemption of reporting to parents when there is a risk it may cause harm, we believe more detail should have been included. There is an absence of any clear framework or criteria for assessing when notification presents safeguarding risks.

This lack of clarity leaves staff exposed to complaint or challenge, while placing too much reliance on individual judgement.

Again, this is a failure to ensure that staff are fully protected and does not emphasise employer safeguarding responsibilities.

Uncertainty over why data is not collected or analysed nationally

We are unsure why the decision has been made not to collect or analyse restraint data nationally.

There are a number of consequences of this decision. These include the inability to monitor trends, identify disproportionality, particularly for pupils with SEND or protected characteristics, or detect wider safeguarding failures.

The benefits with regard to accountability and oversight would be significant, which is why it is confusing that this decision has been made.

Guidance remaining non-statutory

It is unclear why the guidance on restrictive interventions is non-statutory.

Given the importance of the matters addressed in this document for children and young people, their families and the workforce, the ability of guidance to secure effective practice across the system would be enhanced by placing it on a statutory footing.

Furthermore, statutory status would provide much-needed legal clarity, consistency of practice and protection for staff making high-risk professional judgements in complex and unpredictable situations.

Next steps

NASUWT will be continuing to raise with the DfE the concerns we have with Restrictive Interventions, Including Use of Reasonable Force, in Schools.

In addition, we will continue to advocate for a national, standardised training programme on the use of reasonable force, restraint or other restrictive practices.

NASUWT members should contact the Union if they have particular concerns about the restrictive interventions guidance, practice or policies in their school.

Furthermore, if any safeguarding concerns are raised about members or members are concerned that they might be, however minor these may seem, members must contact NASUWT immediately for further advice and information.

You should not try to address these issues without the support of the Union.