Restrictive Interventions: Guidance for Educational Settings

A total of 144 responses were received; 117 via the consultation booklet.

Respondents included school leaders (30%), teachers (19%), parents/guardians (18%), and others.

Breakdown of Respondent Types (from 117 questionnaire responses)

In terms of the key themes emerging from the previous consultation, there was broad support for statutory guidance.  Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that statutory guidance is needed, especially for consistency and safeguarding. However, most believed the draft required significant revision before implementation.

There were strong and often conflicting views with stakeholders disagreeing on almost every major point—for example:

• Some felt the guidance protected staff over children; others believed the opposite.
• Supportive spaces and supportive practices were interpreted inconsistently.
• Parents with lived experience often opposed restraint entirely, while staff emphasised practical safety needs.

There were significant concerns raised by Special Schools.  Special Schools consistently reported that the draft could not be implemented in its current form due to:

• High levels of daily crisis behaviour;
• Staffing and environmental constraints;
• Lack of specialist support from EA and health colleagues; and
• Excessive recording/administrative requirements.

There was confusion between “Restrictive” and “Supportive” practices.  Many worried the definitions are unclear or risk being misused with some respondents believing that the distinction creates unnecessary burden.  Others feared restrictive practices could be re‑labelled as “supportive” to avoid reporting.

There was some feedback on the lack of an outright ban to prohibit certain restrictive practices. A large proportion of respondents objected to:

• The absence of a ban on specific dangerous holds (e.g., prone restraint).
• The continued ability to use seclusion in crisis situations.
• Perceived misalignment with UNCRC expectations.

A significant portion of respondents objected to the draft because:

• 46–49% (depending on the question) felt the guidance did not go far enough in restricting the use of physical intervention.
• Many believed the absence of a ban on dangerous holds, such as prone restraint, created risk.
• Several respondents stated that allowing seclusion in crisis situations was unacceptable, with some calling for 100% prohibition of seclusion in educational settings.
• A notable group felt the guidance did not fully align with UNCRC expectations, with respondents emphasising that UNCRC requires restrictive practices to be used only as an absolute last resort and only to prevent immediate harm.

A number of respondents felt the draft guidance was not aligned with the Department of Health’s (DoH) regional policy, noting that:

• 34.2% disagreed that definitions were aligned with DoH and DoJ terminology, compared with 30% who agreed.
• Respondents highlighted that DoH uses a broader definition of restrictive practices, while DE’s definition is narrower and distinguishes “restrictive” from “supportive” practices.
• Many felt this difference could cause confusion or reduce consistency across sectors, especially where children are supported by both health and education services.

A number of respondents raised concerns around training and resources.  This included criticism focused on the lack of detail on training standards, schools’ inability to access consistent EA support and no additional funding or staffing capacity to deliver or comply with the guidance.

In summary, the consultation showed high support for statutory guidance, but limited confidence in the previous draft due to:

• Lack of clarity and consistency;
• Unworkability in special school contexts;
• Insufficient training/resources;
• Unclear definitions;
• Concerns over human‑rights alignment; and
• Strongly conflicting views on restraint, seclusion, and supportive practices.

Task and Finish Group

In light of this and at the Minister of Education’s request, a Task and Finish Group was established in December 2024, comprising education practitioners, health professionals, and children’s rights advocates, with the aim of revisiting the guidance, exploring the differing perspectives raised through the consultation, and working towards a revised version that better meets the needs of children and young people across the education system.

In the course of drafting the revised guidance, the Department engaged stakeholders through the Task and Finish Group. During the later stages of development, it became clear that the Department was unable to secure the breadth of cross‑sectoral engagement originally intended. In light of this, the Department considers it appropriate to proceed to public consultation to ensure that all relevant views could be captured in a transparent and inclusive manner.

A second consultation on this revised guidance, ‘Restrictive Interventions: Guidance for Educational Settings’ is therefore now being carried out to ensure the Department can gather a wider range of perspectives and provide all interested parties with an additional opportunity to contribute to the development of the guidance.

The purpose of the guidance is to provide clarity to educational staff on the use of restrictive interventions, particularly regarding the requirement to record and report serious incidents of physical restraint and all incidents of seclusion.

The guidance aims to reduce and minimise the use of restrictive interventions wherever possible, ensuring they are used only, in a proportionate, lawful, trauma‑informed and child‑centred manner.

The overall objective is to safeguard children and young people, promote their dignity and wellbeing, support inclusive practice, and ensure consistent standards across all educational settings.