Why schools need a training needs assessment before positive handling training
A school asks for positive handling training. That is common enough. The harder question is whether the school has first identified what training it actually needs.
The 2026 DfE guidance says staff likely to use restrictive interventions should receive appropriate training specific to the school’s requirements. That phrase matters: specific to the school’s requirements.
A generic course may be convenient. It may even be well delivered. But if it does not reflect the school’s pupils, staff roles, incident history, SEND profile and physical environment, it may not solve the problem leaders think it will solve.
This is why a training needs assessment should come before training design.
Professor Chris Cushion’s work around coaching and authentic practice has strongly influenced our approach at Dynamis. The basic point is simple: skills transfer better when training resembles the performance environment. If staff are trained in tidy scenarios that bear little resemblance to their corridors, classrooms, playgrounds or SEND spaces, we should not be surprised when transfer is weak.
A useful training needs assessment for schools should examine seven areas.
- Incident patterns
What is actually happening? Assaults on pupils? Staff injuries? Self-injury? Absconding? Classroom evacuations? Damage to property? Serious disorder? Near misses?
- Locations and times
Where and when does risk appear? Transitions, lunch, transport, playground, reception, corridors, specific rooms, off-site provision?
- Pupil needs
What SEND, trauma, communication, medical, sensory or emotional needs shape the risk profile?
- Staff roles
Who is present first? Who responds? Who is expected to lead? Who records? Who communicates with parents? Which staff are currently underprepared?
- Current policy and recording
Does the school policy match the 2026 guidance? Are records specific enough to show necessity, proportionality, welfare and aftercare?
- Existing competence and confidence
What do staff already do well? Where do they hesitate? Where are they overconfident? Where do they lack a shared language?
- Governance and review
Who reviews the data? What patterns are reported to governors? How does the school know training is working?
Without this assessment, training can become a shopping exercise: “We need a half-day course,” “We need restraint training,” or “We need something for behaviour.” Those may be true. But they are not yet precise enough.
The assessment may reveal that the school does not primarily need physical intervention training. It may need a clearer first-minute de-escalation standard, better transition planning, improved SEND support plans, parent communication protocols, or role-specific training for lunchtime supervisors.
Equally, it may reveal that physical intervention training is necessary for a defined group of staff because risk is foreseeable and current preparation is inadequate.
Good training needs analysis prevents both under-training and over-training.
It also protects staff from being sent on the wrong course. Classroom teachers may need practical de-escalation and safe positioning more than formal holding skills. Behaviour support staff may need both. Senior leaders may need decision-making, governance, recording and parent communication. Governors may need data oversight rather than operational training.
A one-size-fits-all model rarely respects those differences.
There is also a financial argument. Schools are under pressure. Training days are expensive, not only because of provider fees but because of cover, time and disruption. A proper assessment helps leaders spend limited resources where they reduce the most risk.
For MATs, the issue becomes more important. A trust-wide programme should create consistency, but not pretend every school has identical risk. The right model may be shared definitions, shared recording, shared governance standards and then role-specific training adapted to each setting.
A practical first step is to gather the last year of incident records and ask:
- What keeps happening?
- Who is involved?
- Where is it happening?
- What harm was being prevented?
- What alternatives were tried?
- What training need appears repeatedly?
- What changes after incidents?
If the records cannot answer those questions, the first training need may be better recording.
I hope the above helps. Positive handling training should not begin with a catalogue. It should begin with reality. What is happening in your school, who is exposed to risk, what decisions are staff making, and what capability do they need to keep pupils and colleagues safe?
This guide on why schools need a training needs assessment before positive is part of our ongoing work with schools and academies.