KCSIE consultation February 2026: What are the proposed changes?

This is a consultation. A lot can and almost certainly will change between now and September, so there is no need for school staff to panic and rush into making changes. However, this document does give an indication of the direction of travel for what safeguarding in schools will look like from September 2026 and beyond. More importantly, taking part in the consultation allows school staff (and others) to express their views and we need the voices of those active in schools. Even if you don’t respond to every question, it is important to contribute and shape what is happening.

This year’s consultation has hit the news because folded into it is the government's proposed guidance on supporting gender questioning children in schools. This has effectively created two pieces of guidance in one and has to some extent obscured the other changes included (or in some cases not included) in the guidance. In this blog, I am going to try and highlight some of the key changes to the guidance. I am going to separate the main changes and then turn to the information on gender questioning children as a separate point. Throughout, these are my personal views and I may have missed things in my reading of the document.

Layout

Firstly, this is a very long document- 200 pages. I am not sure how it can be made shorter, but it is a big ask for DSLs to read and take all of this to heart. But the sheer length illustrates the growing demands and range of issues that a DSL is expected to hold responsibility for and take the lead on. This is partly recognised when we are told that the DSL in addition to the ‘appropriate status, authority’, ‘needs the skills and experience within the school or college to carry out the duties of the post’. While this begins to recognise the role is becoming more and more specialised, there is little to suggest how this should be supported or managed. It is notable that one of the omissions in the proposed guidance is about supervision for DSLs.

Beyond that, there are some significant structural changes.

• Removal of Annexe A: This was a ‘red herring’ of a document; supposedly to be read by staff who had no direct contact with children. There are very few of these and safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility. From September 2026 all staff will be required to read the whole of Part 1 of KCSIE.

• There is a reduction in the number of Annexes. The information from Annexe D on homestays has been moved into Part 3 on Safer Recruitment.

  
  

We now just have

• Annexe A: the additional safeguarding information to be read by staff with direct contact with children.

• Annexe B: the role of the DSL

• Annexe C: DBS regulations

• Annexe D: changes

Language and definition changes

These are often very telling about the thinking behind the guidance. The key changes I have identified are:

• On page 5, the document is explicitly linked with the EYFS documentation.

• Early Help is replaced by Community Based Family Help. This brings KCSIE in line with WTSC (Working Together to Safeguard Children). Implicit within the description in paragraph 13 and elsewhere is the implication that DSLs (and possibly others) in schools can and will be asked to take on the role of lead practitioner for these cases (paragraphs 61 and 65). There is also an extension in paragraph 17 of those who might benefit from this level of support to include ‘those repeatedly removed from the classroom, experienced multiple suspension, on part time timetable, risk of exclusion and in AP or PRU’. Also a language change: ‘those at risk of being radicalised into terrorism’ rather than ‘radicalised and exploited’.

• In several places, there is additional information about modern slavery. This is added to the triumvirate of abuse, neglect and exploitation in paragraph 18. It is linked with child sexual exploitation in paragraphs 35-41 and it is given its own section in Annexe A, as well as links in the sections on CCE, CSE and county lines. There are also several references to the National Referral mechanism and the role of the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian.

• Addition information in the definition of teenage relationship abuse (TRA) is added in paragraph 20 and includes physical, sexual, emotional abuse, stalking, criminal exploitation (including financial exploitation). This is also the focus of a ‘seeking views’ question in the consultation.

• The definition of emotional abuse in paragraph 25 is expanded to include verbal abuse.

• Child on child abuse is consistently extended with the addition of (including harassment and violence).

• In some places, notably under the section on PSED and when talking about a culture of zero tolerance in paragraph 153, faith-based prejudice is added under racism and derogatory behaviour or other forms of physical violence and conflict. This is a helpful addition, particularly where schools are facing issues of antisemitism and Islamophobia but sadly is not consistent.

• A note makes clear that when the document is talking about the data protection laws, this includes the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 in addition to Data Protection Act 2018, the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). Thankfully, this saves them all being listed every time they are referred to.

• The language of nudes and semi-nudes is largely dropped in place of the much clearer self-generated intimate images and videos.

• The term honour or faith based abuse is used in place of so-called honour based abuse.

• The definition of rape is clarified and the reference to oral sex removed from it.

  
  

  Key changes

Child on child abuse (including harassment and violence)

This divides into 2 parts: the information within Part 5 on child and child harassment and violence (the order of this title has been changed!) and within the wider document.

Outside of Part 5

• A key change is the explicit inclusion of misogyny as

  • A form of harmful sexual behaviour (this is also noted in Part 5)

  • A form of child-on-child abuse

  • Part of online safety risks students face

  • Something requiring a zero-tolerance culture (paragraph 185)

• Further paragraph 185 talks about the risks involving the use of AI and deepfakes within consensual and non-consensual sharing of self-generated intimate images.

• The guidance also highlights the times when children are at greatest risk from this (para 29-24) and from serious violence (para 48-51) as being immediately after school. Also staff responsibilities to report concerns in and out of school and that there are issues for both the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) that need to be considered. Further that child on child abuse is preventable. There is a need to recognise behaviours and indicators of risk and provide timely support. Though there are no details of how.

  
  

Part 5: Child and child harassment and violence

This part has been substantially re-ordered with some re-writing. Even the title has changed from sexual violence and harassment to harassment first. This reflects an approach based on Hackett’s Continuum. This is a key document for understanding of these issues and that there occur on a continuum from developmentally normal to problematic and harmful. Here the continuum from Harmful Sexual Behaviours (HSB) to harassment to violence is considered. The issue of HSBs is embedded across this part of the guidance. This makes good sense making this section clearer and more workable. Moreover, it gives it a firmer academic and theoretical framework. The language is also clearer. There is much less ‘it is important to’ and more just stating what we need to know and do.

It also emphasises that schools should not be working in isolation (paragraph 541) but with other agencies. Paragraphs 568-574 outline how they can work with Universal services and community based Early Help assessments and services. Paragraph 575-585 talks about referrals to other services including the Families First Partnership Programme (FFP).

Mental  health

The information on Mental health has been strengthened and moved from Annexe B (as was) to Part 1 (para 44-47).

• There is clarification that safeguarding concerns about mental health needs could include self-harm, suicidal ideation or risk of suicide. Also, that these could be an indicator that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering abuse, neglect or exploitation.

• A reminder that only trained staff should attempt diagnosis and that education staff’s role is to observe. There is a short list of potential warning signs (para 45).

• If a member of staff believes the concern is a safeguarding concern, they should speak to the DSL. But this does not remove the need for a medical or emergency response (para 47).

• Mental health needs are picked up again in the section on children potentially at greater risk of harm (starting on page 57). Here it is highlighted that:

• Mental health problems can develop into safeguarding problems. This includes self-harm, signs of an eating disorder, suicidal ideation or suicide. (Para 219)

• Paragraph 220 identifies 4 key roles for education staff.

  • Promoting good mental wellbeing and preventing the onset of mental illness

  • Observing pupils and identifying early those who may be experiencing mental health problems or being at risk of developing one.

  • ensuring early targeted support is provided, and

  • liaison with/referral to specialist services where needed.

• The role of the mental health lead and that support should be available from mental health support teams (MHST). This is a programme being rolled out to schools (para 223).

• Paragraphs 224 and 225 contain new resources.

  
  

Online Safety

As well as the language changes around self-generated intimate images and videos, there is considerable recognition of the risks associated with AI, deepfakes and misogynistic influencers. Including in paragraph 153 about what should be taught in RSHE. Beyond this the key changes in this area are

• An updating of the 4 Cs (para 158) to include information about generative AI.

• More information about AI and the training available (para 610-161)

• Information about mobile phones. This fits with the latest government stance and states ‘All schools should be mobile phone-free environments by default; anything other than this should be by exception only.’ (para 163). This is a sneaky way of putting this into statutory guidance.

• There is also clarification with regard to filtering and monitoring that systems should be reviewed at least annually and that this should include checks that filtering is working appropriately on all internet-connected devices in all relevant locations, and a record should be kept of these checks (para 166).

• Improved clarity about Information security and access management (para 170-172)

• In Annexe A, the section on Cybercrime includes information on the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and that children can be involved in these actions without understanding the legal or ethical implications and scope of such crime.

The Role of DSL

There are two key additions in the role of the DSL which occur both within Part 1 and Annexe B

• A requirement for robust cover arrangements in case of DSL absence, including in cases of illness or leave. They suggest a confidential shared mailbox. It is important that messages do not get lost into emails that cannot be accessed by others.

• DSLs should consider sharing information about a pupil before transition to ensure ongoing support has been in KCSIE for some time. A new element of this information sharing is the addition of ‘in advance of the child leaving particularly where the information would support an assessment of risk to others in the school as well as the individual pupil.’ This is no doubt in response to the death of Brianna Ghey and others where children have moved between schools without the full information about the risks they may present being disclosed.

• Also finally the reference to Skype has been replaced with Teams!

  
  

Children potentially at greater risk of harm

This is an interesting section starting on page 57 covering a wide range of topics, ending with gender questioning children. Apart from gender questioning, which I consider in detail below, this section includes new information on:

• Children who are absent from education (para 213) This clarifies the link with guidance on CME and includes the information schools must provide to the local authority when removing a child from the school roll at standard and non-standard transition points. Additionally with how schools should be supporting local authorities with joint reasonable enquiries to help identify and support children missing in education. I had hoped that there would be something more either here or in the section that follows on Elective Home Education on the need to consider requests for EHE through a safeguarding lens, following the review following the death of Sara Shariff (Recommendation 3), but sadly not.

• Looked after Children and previously looked after children. Paragraph 235 clarifies the role of the Virtual School Head in relation to attendance and its role as a key factor in safeguarding. Virtual School Heads should work with local authorities to set and report on ambitious targets to improve the attendance of their cohort. This is a link to the new OFSTED priorities.

• SEND Two additional bullet points focused on children with physical needs have been usefully added to the list of additional vulnerabilities faced by children with SEND.

  • the need for intimate care or that these children are isolated from others.

  • that these children are more likely to be dependent on adults for care

There are 2 important new groups covered in this section:

Young carers 

There is much welcomed new information in paragraph 239 about schools needing to be alert to the needs of young carers, recognising that their caring responsibilities can impact on their attendance, attainment, behaviour and wellbeing. Also the importance of early identification and support.

Children with medical conditions (para 243)

While recognising that medical conditions (including allergies and conditions requiring delegated healthcare tasks) is not in itself an indicator that a child is at greater safeguarding risk. The links with safeguarding are highlighted as is the need for joint working with healthcare professionals.

Trainee Teachers

The confusion about the status of trainee teachers within the response to safeguarding concerns and allegations about adults is cleared up. They are firmly included in the information about concerns reaching the harm threshold and low level concerns and possible referrals to the DBS throughout Part 4, in paragraphs 74-74 and reiterated in paragraphs 180-183.

Serious Violence

This information has been expanded (para 48-51) to include:

• An explicit responsibility to report to the DSL where a child is carrying a weapon or expressed an intention to do so.

• Links with CCE- the child may also be a victim.

• The greater risk for those with disrupted education or history of offending.

• Increased risks at particular times of day, notably immediately after school.

• The importance of trusted adults and the need for evidence based support and use of ‘teachable moments’ to support those involved or at risk.

  
  

Operation Encompass

This is a bit of a muddle. It is listed as a change in Annexe B but is included in Annexe A. It would fit better in Annexe B as there is a lot of detail that is not relevant to the majority of school staff but is important for DSLs. In November 2025, a new statutory duty was placed on the police to notify a child’s education setting, and where relevant, local authorities, if they have reasonable grounds to believe a child may be a victim of domestic abuse. This includes children connected with the household even if they are not present. There is then a list of the information the referral should include. Hopefully, this might act to improve the detail and reliability of Operation Encompass referrals to schools.

Quick clarifications

• The role of the headteacher or principal in making referral to the LADO is highlighted in paragraph 75.

• Reasonable force Updated to reflect new restrictive practices guidance to come into force in April 2026.

• Alternative Provision Updated to reflect current guidance and reaffirm that the schools remains ultimately responsible for safeguarding when a child attends an AP, including safeguarding checks and that the provision is appropriate to meet the child’s needs.

• Safer recruitment:  The changes in part 3 are small and include:

  • The need to carry out a search (via an online search engine) rather than an online search (para 292).

  • Updated links in paragraph 304

  • A helpful new flow diagram about who needs a DBS and at what level on page 86 (not listed in Annexe D as a change)

  • A sample of a basic single central record. This is helpful apart from the fact most schools include additional information on their records (para 345)

  • Clarification about groups of visitors (para 369)

  • Useful guidance on supervision for those on work experience (para 398-402). The NSPCC have just produced information on this as well.

  • Information about homestays has been removed from the previous Annexe D.

• Children with family members in prison- new information on impacts and links.

  
  

Gender questioning pupils

This is the most controversial part of these proposals. The information is included in a specific section under the Children potentially at greater risk of harm section that begins on page 57 and sprinkled throughout the rest of the document. First, to consider the information outside the specific section which is focused on practical and logistical issues with guidance on:

• Sport (in Part 2 para 95-97). This is linked to governors’ responsibilities under the 2010 Equality Act. It considers issues of social transitioning and single sex sporting activities. It ends with the advice: ‘This means that the school or college would need to take into account all the relevant factors, including whether supporting social transition is overall in the best interests of the child, as well as considering the impact on other children and the aim of creating safe and fair environments for children to participate in PE.‘ (para 97)

• Toilets (para 104-115) It states that schools must not allow children into toilets designated for the opposite biological sex. This includes where schools are responding to a request to support any degree of social transition for children who are questioning their gender. (Para 105). Schools must provide separate toilets for boys and girls aged 8 and over, except for toilets designed for use of one pupil at a time (Para 106). Schools should consider the provision of alternative toilets e.g. self-contained toilets for those children not wanting to use toilet designated for their biological sex. ‘These alternative arrangements should not compromise the safety, comfort, privacy or dignity of the child, or of other children.’ (para 108)

• Changing rooms and showers (para 112-114). This starts with Schools and colleges must not allow a child, aged 11 years or older at the start of the school year (e.g. Year 7 and above, except where children are out of year group), to undress in front of a child of the opposite biological sex, to comply with their safeguarding duties. When responding to a request to support any degree of social transition this must not include allowing access to changing rooms designated for the opposite sex (para 112). It continues with basically the same advice as with toilets.

• Boarding and residential accommodation (para 191- 196). This covers dormitories, tents or shared rooms on school trips. The bottom line is ‘To comply with their safeguarding duties, schools and colleges must not allow a child to share overnight accommodation with a child of the opposite biological sex. Responding to a request to support any degree of social transition must not include allowing access to boarding or residential accommodation designated for the opposite sex.’

  
  

This provides clarity that will, I think, be welcomed by schools even if they do not fully agree with it and may struggle with the practicalities.

While much of the remaining guidance may be helpful to schools and provide the much looked for clarity that has been lacking over a number of years, some of the language and implications are worrying and, in my view, misjudged. While for LGB children, it is recognised that “A child or young person being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not in itself a risk factor for harm; however, they can sometimes be vulnerable to discriminatory bullying,”  (para 244) the language for those who are questioning their gender is very different,  “Schools and colleges should remain aware of the potential vulnerabilities of children who are questioning their gender, including the possibility of complex mental health and psychosocial needs, for example relating to relationships with family, peers or their broader social environment, including discriminatory bullying.” (para 248). The implication is clear that these children are an inherent and a social based risk.

The guidance states that

• Accommodating social transition is an active intervention so schools and colleges should take a very careful approach (para 264).

• Schools should not initiate any action when children are questioning the way they feel about being a boy or a girl. (para 246). They should only act in response to a request from a child or their parents.

• Schools and colleges should consider adopting policies across school and college life that maintain flexibility and avoid rigid rules based on gender stereotypes (para 249).

• All decisions relating to social transitions should follow a policy, should be documented and a record kept (para 251). It should balance safeguarding, human rights and equality legislation and the best interests of the child and welfare and safeguarding of all children (para 254). This is reasserted in paragraph 268 where schools are asked to consider if policies place gender questioning a child or children at a disadvantage relative to other children.

• In the vast majority of cases, schools should work with the parents to determine the best interests of the child (para 257 and 260) including considering clinical and other professional evidence and advice. There is a recognition of the rare circumstances where involving parents or carers would constitute a greater risk to the child than not involving them, the school or college should involve their Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) to determine what action is needed to safeguard the child, before the parents are contacted or any decisions are taken (para 262). Involvement of parents only applies in cases where there is a request for social transition, if a child is just sharing feelings, staff should respect their confidentiality (para 263).

• Schools should be particularly aware of the safeguarding concerns with primary age children (para 258).

• Having the correct information about a child is important in the context of schools and colleges fulfilling their safeguarding duties, and they should make sure all relevant staff are aware of a child’s biological sex in all cases. Schools and colleges are legally required to record a child’s biological sex accurately wherever it is recorded (Para 273).

  
  

There are number of references (para 258, 275 and by implication in 273 above) to concerns about children who might be ‘living in stealth’. Meaning in particular those who socially transitioned before puberty, so staff are not aware of the biological sex, so may present safeguarding concerns. Personally, I find this language implying that children would seek to hide their gender by stealth with the implication of the intent to deceive or harm disturbing.

Finally, what is not included:

Despite its excessive length, there are several key things that are missing from the consultation version of KCSIE 2026.

• There is nothing about adultification or how the experience of racism impacts children and families. It is a pity that the recommendations and learning from the excellent CSPR report “It’s Silent”: Race, racism and safeguarding children” (March 2025) are not reflected here.

• There is little to indicate the forthcoming changes regarding mandatory reporting of sexual abuse.

• No indication of an update to ‘What to do if…’

• The need to consider requests for EHE through a safeguarding lens in line with the recommendation of the review into the death of Sara Sharif.

• Though there is a question on gaming in the consultation there is nothing as yet on it in the guidance and still nothing on the impact of gambling.