Restrictive interventions and seclusion in schools

The Department for Education has published revised guidance on the use of reasonable force and other restrictive interventions in schools, replacing the 2013 Use of reasonable force guidance. The new framework, which comes into force in April 2026, reflects a clear policy shift towards prevention, safeguarding and transparency, alongside legally enforceable duties on recording and reporting the use of force and seclusion. While the guidance applies to all schools, its implications are particularly acute where pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) are involved. 

Legal status and statutory duties

Although much of the guidance remains non-statutory, it is now underpinned by secondary legislation. Governing bodies and responsible bodies must have regard to statutory guidance issued under section 93A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and comply with The Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2025. In practice, failures in recording, reporting or governance may carry legal, regulatory and reputational consequences, including adverse findings during Ofsted inspections. 

When can reasonable force be used?

A central legal principle remains unchanged but is now restated with greater clarity: all members of school staff have a legal power to use reasonable force, but only in strictly limited circumstances. Force may be used solely to prevent injury, criminal behaviour, property damage or serious disorder, and must be proportionate, reasonable and applied for the shortest possible time. It is unlawful to use force for the purpose of punishment. Where these thresholds are misunderstood or applied too broadly, schools may face allegations of safeguarding failures, discrimination, negligence or breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998. 

Clarifying restrictive intervention and seclusion

The revised guidance seeks to address long-standing concerns about ambiguity by introducing clearer definitions of key terms, including restrictive intervention, reasonable force, restraint and seclusion. Seclusion is now expressly defined as a non-disciplinary safety measure, to be used only where a pupil is experiencing acute emotional or behavioural dysregulation and poses a risk of harm. It must never be implemented through threat of punishment or used as a disciplinary response. Importantly, incidents of seclusion are now subject to mandatory recording and parental reporting duties. 

Recording and reporting: new legal requirements

Despite these improvements, some uncertainty remains. The guidance defines a “significant incident” as one where the use of force goes beyond ordinary physical contact, yet also refers elsewhere to “significant use of force” without defining that phrase. This overlap risks inconsistent interpretation, particularly when schools are deciding whether an incident must be recorded and reported. From a risk-management perspective, a cautious and inclusive approach to recording is advisable. 

From April 2026, schools will be under a legal duty to record every significant incident involving the use of force, and every incident of seclusion or restraint, and to report those incidents to parents in writing as soon as practicable, and usually no later than the same day. Schools are also expected to analyse data to identify any disproportionate use of restrictive interventions, particularly in relation to pupils with SEND or other vulnerabilities.

Implications for pupils with SEND

Inadequate record-keeping or delays in communication are likely to attract heightened scrutiny in complaints, inspections or litigation. The guidance places particular emphasis on pupils with SEND, recognising that behaviour which challenges may be a response to distress, sensory overload, anxiety or communication difficulties rather than wilful misconduct. Schools are expected to identify triggers, provide early support and work collaboratively with pupils, parents and professionals to develop behaviour support plans. These expectations align closely with duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments and avoid discrimination. 

Training, governance and accountability

Although the guidance does not mandate national training standards, it makes clear that staff who are likely to use restrictive interventions should be adequately trained in both preventative strategies and lawful application. Governing bodies and responsible bodies are responsible for ensuring that policies, procedures and training are effective, current and properly overseen. 

What schools should do next

The revised framework represents a material shift in accountability for schools. Now is the time to review policies, strengthen training, and ensure recording and reporting systems are robust and legally defensible. 

Gemma Nicholas is a Senior Associate at RWK Goodman.