Necessary, proportionate, shortest time: the decision test school staff need to practise
One of the most useful phrases in the 2026 DfE guidance is also one of the easiest to say and hardest to apply under stress: reasonable force must be necessary, proportionate, and used for the shortest time possible.
That is not just legal language. It is a decision-making tool.
The problem is that people rarely make their best decisions during a live escalation. A pupil is distressed. Other pupils are watching. A colleague is calling for help. The room feels smaller than it did two minutes ago. In that moment, “necessary and proportionate” can become a phrase staff remember after the event, rather than a standard they can apply during it.
That is why schools need to practise the decision test before it is needed.
Gary Klein’s work on decision-making under pressure is useful here. Klein’s research into naturalistic decision-making shows that experienced people often make fast decisions by recognising patterns, not by slowly comparing every possible option. That is helpful — but only if the patterns have been trained well. If the school has not trained the decision standard, staff may fall back on instinct, imitation or fear.
For school staff, the decision test can be taught as four practical questions:
- What harm am I trying to prevent?
- What less restrictive options are still available?
- If I intervene physically, what is the least force for the least time?
- What pupil welfare factors must shape my response?
That first question matters. Force is not used because a pupil is being rude, defiant or inconvenient. It is used, where lawful, to prevent injury, a criminal offence, serious damage to property or serious disorder. Staff need to be able to name the risk, not just the behaviour.
The second question is the prevention question. Have we created space? Changed staff? Reduced the audience? Used a known communication strategy? Offered a safe exit? Paused instruction? Used a behaviour support plan? In a fast-moving incident the answer may be “no, there was no time”. But where there is time, the school should expect staff to consider alternatives.
The third question is the physical standard. If force is necessary, it still has to be proportionate. That means the degree of force should match the risk. It also means the intervention should end as soon as the risk reduces. A hold that begins as necessary can become unnecessary if it continues after the immediate risk has passed.
The fourth question is the welfare lens. The guidance is clear that staff should consider vulnerabilities, trauma, SEND needs, medical factors, dignity and communication needs. This is not a soft extra. It is part of whether the decision was reasonable.
A simple example: two pupils both run towards a gate. One is a neurotypical Year 10 pupil laughing with friends. The other is a distressed autistic pupil with a known history of bolting when overwhelmed. The physical movement may look similar. The decision-making context is not the same.
Schools should therefore train staff to avoid “behaviour-only” thinking. The better question is not “What did the pupil do?” but “What risk was present, what did we know about this pupil, and what was the least restrictive safe response?”
There is also a documentation point. Incident records should show this decision-making. A useful record does not simply state “reasonable force was used”. It explains:
- what risk was being prevented
- what led up to the incident
- what de-escalation was attempted
- why the intervention was necessary
- what type and degree of force was used
- how long it lasted
- what welfare factors were considered
- what happened afterwards
That may look like paperwork. It is actually protection for everyone: the pupil, the staff member, the school and the family.
The key training mistake is to teach physical responses without teaching the decision test that governs them. That leaves staff with techniques but not judgement. In our world, that is a poor bargain.
A more defensible approach is to rehearse scenarios where staff must decide whether to intervene, not just how to intervene. Sometimes the right answer is to hold. Sometimes it is to create distance. Sometimes it is to swap staff. Sometimes it is to stop talking. Sometimes it is to let the behaviour pass while controlling the environment around it.
Good training does not make staff quicker to use force. It makes them clearer about when force is necessary — and when it is not.
For behaviour leads and head teachers, the practical next step is to audit your current training materials. Do they explicitly teach necessity, proportionality, shortest time and pupil welfare? Do staff practise applying those standards in realistic school scenarios? Do records reflect the same language?
If not, that is the work.
I hope the above helps. The phrase “necessary and proportionate” should not live only in policy. It should live in staff habits, scenario practice and post-incident review.