Is restraint training legally required in UK schools? What leaders should know

School leaders often ask whether staff must complete restraint training, especially when supporting pupils whose actions can escalate quickly. The answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no. In England, school staff have a legal power to use reasonable force in specific circumstances, but the law does not generally prescribe a specific training certificate that every member of staff must hold.

This article explains what the law says, what guidance expects from school leaders, and how to decide what training your setting needs. It is written for headteachers, DSLs, SENCOs, pastoral leaders and governors who want a practical, defensible approach.

What UK law actually says about using force in schools

In England, section 93 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 gives school staff a legal power to use reasonable force. This power can be used to prevent a pupil from hurting themselves or others, damaging property, or causing disorder.

The Department for Education’s advice also makes clear that force should never be used as a punishment, and that what is reasonable depends on the circumstances and must be proportionate to the harm being prevented.

Who has the power to use reasonable force?

The DfE advice states that all members of school staff have this legal power. It can also apply to people the headteacher has temporarily put in charge of pupils, such as volunteers or parents on a school visit.

When can reasonable force be used?

DfE advice gives examples such as removing a disruptive pupil from a classroom when they refuse to follow an instruction, stopping a fight, or restraining a pupil at risk of harming themselves through a physical outburst.

So is restraint training mandatory?

There is no single national law that says every school employee must hold a specific restraint or physical intervention certificate. The DfE advice explicitly says schools need to take their own decisions about staff training and that headteachers should consider whether staff require additional training to carry out their responsibilities.

In practice, this means that training becomes necessary when your risk profile requires it. If staff may need to use force to keep people safe, it is hard to justify leaving them without proper preparation, especially when incidents are foreseeable.

What guidance expects school leaders to have in place

Even where training is not written into legislation, guidance shapes what “reasonable” leadership looks like after an incident. The DfE advice emphasises leadership support for staff who use the power lawfully, and expects schools to decide how they record serious incidents and how they communicate with parents.

1) A clear policy and shared language

A written policy should describe when physical contact may be used, the principles of necessity and proportionality, and the steps staff must try first. Many schools describe this as a graduated response: prevention, de-escalation, and only then intervention when there is an immediate risk.

If you are reviewing or strengthening your approach, it can help to compare the content of your policy to the scenarios and examples in national guidance. This is also where your approach to physical intervention training should be referenced, so staff can connect policy to real practice.

2) Role clarity: who intervenes and who does not

Not every adult in a school will be the right person to intervene physically. A defensible approach is to identify roles where intervention is more likely (for example, pastoral teams, behaviour support, certain SEN roles, alternative provision staff, or staff supporting high-risk pupils) and prioritise training for those roles.

3) Recording, review, and learning

DfE advice describes it as good practice to speak to parents about serious incidents and to consider how best to record them, using professional judgement to decide what counts as “serious”. A recording process is not just for compliance; it supports learning, patterns, and better prevention planning.

When training is strongly recommended (even if not universally required)

Leaders often start with the legal question, but the safer operational question is: could we reasonably foresee staff needing to use force? If the answer is yes, training is the most straightforward control measure.

Common situations where training is hard to avoid

• Specialist provision or high-needs cohorts where pupils may bolt, self-injure, or become physically distressed.
• Alternative provision where staff routinely manage high-risk incidents and rapid escalation.
• Mainstream settings with individual pupils whose risk assessments identify a credible likelihood of harm to self or others.
• Transport, off-site learning, and trips where environmental risk factors are higher and response time is slower.

What “good” looks like in a school training plan

A training plan should not be built around techniques alone. It should connect to prevention, safeguarding and inclusion, and it should help staff respond consistently under pressure.

Start with prevention and de-escalation

Most incidents can be reduced through routines, relationships, and early support. Your training should reinforce:

• Recognising early signs of distress and escalation.
• Environmental and communication adjustments.
• Planned responses for known triggers and predictable flashpoints.
• Team roles, so staff do not crowd a pupil or escalate the situation unintentionally.

CTA: If you want a programme that keeps prevention at the centre, explore our restraint reduction training option and compare it to what your current policy and practice emphasise.

Decide what level of intervention is appropriate for your setting

Interventions should be proportionate and aligned with likely scenarios. For many schools, this means prioritising lower-level skills: safe guidance, disengagement, and short-duration holds that create safety and space.

Where higher-risk situations are credible, leaders may need a deeper plan that includes incident leadership, team-based responses, and clear post-incident processes.

Refreshers, supervision, and post-incident support

Skill fade is real. Refresher training, scenario practice, and supportive debriefs after incidents can improve safety. DfE advice notes that suspension should not be an automatic response when staff are accused of using excessive force; investigations should be thorough, speedy and appropriate.

How to make a defensible decision: a simple leadership checklist

Governors and leaders may want to evidence the thinking behind their approach. The following checklist can help you document why your plan is appropriate for your setting:

• Have we identified foreseeable risks (patterns, pupil needs, previous incidents, environment)?
• Have we described prevention and de-escalation steps clearly?
• Have we defined which roles are expected to intervene physically, and which are not?
• Do trained staff have access to appropriate support, supervision and debriefing?
• Do we record incidents consistently and use the data to reduce repeat incidents?

Building your decision-making evidence (what to document)

If you ever have to justify why training was provided, who received it, and what staff did in the moment, your documentation can make the difference between clarity and confusion. It also helps new staff understand the boundaries of safe practice.

Risk assessment and pupil planning

Where a pupil has a known pattern of distressed behaviour that can become physical, it is good practice to document what the likely risks are and what preventative adjustments are in place. This could include communication supports, sensory adjustments, predictable routines, and agreed staff responses when early signs appear.

For pupils with SEND, DfE advice notes the importance of understanding the pupil’s needs and making reasonable adjustments. A practical way to evidence this is to show how individual plans connect to staff training and the physical environment.

Scenario mapping: when might staff need to act?

Many schools find it helpful to map a small set of realistic scenarios and decide how staff should respond. For example:

• A pupil tries to leave the site and there is an immediate risk near a road.
• A fight starts in a corridor during a busy transition.
• A distressed pupil begins throwing objects in a classroom.
• A pupil attempts to self-injure using an item in reach.

For each scenario, identify the least intrusive options first, the point where physical intervention might become necessary, and how long any hold would be used for. This supports consistent decision-making and reduces the likelihood of staff improvising in unsafe ways.

Authorisation and competence in practice

Although all staff have a legal power to use reasonable force, many schools still define who is expected to use it in practice and who should call for support. That clarity protects staff who are less confident, and it supports safer teamwork.

Consider documenting:

• Which roles are part of the response team.
• How staff summon help (radios, on-call systems, agreed signals).
• What spaces are used for de-escalation and recovery.
• How you check that trained staff remain competent over time.

CTA: If you want to align training, policy and team response, our physical intervention training can support a consistent approach across your key staff groups.

What to avoid: common pitfalls that increase risk

Schools usually get into difficulty when practice is inconsistent or when staff are left to guess what is permitted. The following pitfalls are common:

• Over-reliance on a few individuals, leading to fatigue and higher risk decisions.
• Unclear thresholds, where staff either intervene too soon or leave it too late.
• Techniques without context, meaning staff learn a hold but not how to prevent needing it.
• Poor handovers between lesson staff, support staff and leadership during an incident.
• No structured debrief, so the same triggers and patterns repeat.

Addressing these does not just reduce incidents. It also improves staff confidence and helps pupils experience school as predictable and safe.

Recording and learning: turning incidents into prevention

DfE advice describes it as good practice to record serious incidents and to speak with parents about them. Many schools go further and use the data to reduce future incidents. A simple way to do this is to review incidents termly and look for patterns in:

• Times of day (transitions, end of day, lunch).
• Locations (corridors, playgrounds, entrances).
• Antecedents (task demands, noise, peer conflict).
• Effective de-escalation strategies (what worked, what did not).

This analysis helps you adjust staffing, environments and routines. It also helps ensure physical intervention remains rare and time-limited.

Frequently misunderstood points

“Ofsted requires BILD Act certification”

Ofsted expects schools to keep pupils safe and to act lawfully, but it does not require a specific training certificate such as BILD Act certification as a blanket rule. What matters is whether your approach is safe, proportionate, and underpinned by sound policy, training and oversight.

“If staff have a power to use force, they must use it”

DfE advice describes this as a power, not a duty, meaning staff have discretion. However, schools also have duties of care, so leaders need to ensure staff can act safely when action is necessary.

“Any physical contact counts as restraint”

The DfE advice distinguishes between everyday contact and reasonable force used to control or restrain. Schools should define terms clearly in policy so staff can apply them consistently.

Practical steps for schools reviewing training now

If you are reviewing your approach, start with your highest-risk times and places: unstructured times, transitions, transport, and incidents involving known high-risk pupils. Combine that with your incident data and staff confidence feedback.

Then create a plan that prioritises the staff most likely to need skills, and a whole-school baseline of prevention and de-escalation.

CTA: If your setting also supports pupils in wider safeguarding contexts, our children's services training resources may help you align school practice with multi-agency expectations.

FAQ

Does every teacher need restraint training?

Not necessarily. Many schools take a targeted approach based on pupil needs, role responsibilities and risk assessments. Leaders should be able to explain and evidence why their approach is sufficient for foreseeable risks.

What law allows teachers to use reasonable force?

DfE advice cites section 93 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 as the legal power for school staff to use reasonable force in certain circumstances.

When should parents be informed?

DfE advice describes it as good practice to speak to parents about serious incidents and to consider how best to record them. Schools should set out their approach in policy, taking account of the pupil’s needs and safeguarding context.

Can reasonable force be used for pupils with SEND?

DfE advice notes that force can be used, but the decision should take account of the individual circumstances and staff understanding of the pupil’s needs, alongside reasonable adjustments.

What should we record after an incident?

Many schools record what happened, what de-escalation was attempted, why intervention was necessary, what was used, duration, injuries (if any), and follow-up actions. Consistent records support learning and reduce repeat incidents.