Who should be trained to use reasonable force in schools? Th: Who should be trained to use reasonable force in schools?
The 2026 DfE guidance makes a sensible but important point: schools should ensure staff who are likely to use restrictive interventions receive appropriate training that is specific to the school’s requirements.
That sounds straightforward. But in practice, many schools still make one of two mistakes. They either train too few people, leaving untrained staff closest to the risk, or they train almost everyone in the same thing, regardless of role, exposure or likely need.
The better question is not “Who can we afford to train?” It is “Who is likely to face foreseeable risk in this school?”
This is where a role-specific training needs analysis becomes essential. Atul Gawande’s checklist work is useful here because it reminds us that high-risk systems fail when obvious steps are left to memory or assumption. Training allocation should not be guesswork. It should be a structured decision.
Start with the school day.
Where do incidents happen? Classrooms? Corridors? The dining hall? Playground? Reception? Transport? SEND provision? Alternative provision placements? Which staff are present at those times? Which staff are expected to respond when a pupil escalates? Which staff are physically proximate when pupils are distressed?
In many schools, the people closest to the highest-risk moments are not always senior leaders. They are teaching assistants, pastoral staff, behaviour support colleagues, lunchtime supervisors, reception staff, site staff and classroom teachers.
That does not mean every person needs the same physical intervention training. It means everyone needs clarity appropriate to their role.
A useful model is three levels.
- Awareness training for all staff
All staff should understand the school’s restrictive intervention policy, the meaning of reasonable force, the importance of prevention and de-escalation, and how to summon support. They should know that force is never punishment and that records and reporting matter.
- Role-specific de-escalation and risk training for exposed staff
Staff who regularly manage behaviour, transitions, SEND support or high-arousal situations need more detailed practice. They should rehearse communication, positioning, reducing audiences, boundary-setting, exit planning and support roles.
- Physical intervention training for staff likely to intervene
Only staff whose role and risk profile make physical intervention foreseeable should receive properly designed physical skills training. That training should be lawful, least-restrictive, safety-led and specific to the school’s actual scenarios.
This structure helps avoid two poor outcomes: untrained staff improvising under pressure, and unnecessary physical-skills training being delivered without a clear operational need.
Professor Chris Cushion’s work on coaching and practice has influenced our approach at Dynamis because it emphasises that learning transfers when practice resembles the performance environment. A generic training day may tick a box, but if it does not match the school’s actual flashpoints, staff may still struggle when the corridor fills and the situation changes quickly.
Schools should therefore ask providers to explain how training content is matched to:
- pupil age and needs
- SEND profile
- incident history
- staff roles
- building layout
- supervision arrangements
- known flashpoints
- reporting systems
- leadership response
If training does not connect to those realities, it is not yet specific enough.
There is also a safeguarding point. Staff likely to use restrictive interventions must understand pupil welfare: trauma, communication, disability, medical vulnerabilities, dignity and reasonable adjustments. Physical competence without welfare judgement is not enough.
For head teachers, the practical test is simple: if a serious incident happened tomorrow, could you explain why the staff member present had the level of training they had? Could you explain why other staff did not? Could you show that the decision was based on foreseeable risk rather than convenience?
Training allocation is a risk-management decision, not a diary-management decision.
A school should also review training after incidents. If records show that a lunchtime supervisor is repeatedly present during high-risk playground incidents, that may indicate a training need. If teaching assistants are consistently first on scene in SEND crises, they should not be left with only a policy briefing. If senior leaders are expected to attend every incident, the school should ask what happens in the first three minutes before they arrive.
I hope the above helps. The 2026 guidance does not require schools to train everyone in everything. It requires thoughtful, role-specific preparation for foreseeable risk. That is fairer to staff, safer for pupils and much easier to defend when decisions are reviewed.
This guide on who should be trained to use reasonable force in schools? th is part of our ongoing work with schools and academies.