Draft KCSIE 2026: The proposed changes

This year's draft update includes some more significant changes and the much-heralded gender questioning children guidance.

Notwithstanding incremental increases year on year and the fact that many of the changes simply reflect updates to linked guidance or resources, the lack of time between publication of the final version and its implementation continues to present a real practical challenge for schools.

Schools will need to decide whether to front-load their preparations for the proposed changes or to wait and see what the final version requires. While still under consultation (until 22 April 2026), in recent years we have seen little change between drafts published and final versions. With this in mind, we are preparing September 2026 versions of policies based on the draft which we will review against the final version before implementation.

This article provides an overview of the proposed changes and what they would mean in practice if they are implemented as expected.

Structural shift: Annex A removed

Under the draft guidance, all staff, regardless of whether they work directly with children, will be required to read Part One in full. The shorter summary previously held in Annex A has been removed.

This represents a clear policy shift towards universal safeguarding literacy across the workforce. Schools will need to:

Adjust induction and training content and processes
Ensure that training is effective, and that staff understand what is required
Review safeguarding training records
Ensure systems can evidence full-staff compliance.

Inspection scrutiny is likely to focus on how schools verify this requirement and ensure that staff understand what is expected of them.

In addition, the former Annex D (homestay) has been moved into Part 3.

Gender questioning children guidance

The draft embeds guidance relating to the management and support for children questioning their gender directly into KCSIE. This integrates safeguarding duties, parental engagement expectations and requirements relating to single-sex spaces and sport within the core safeguarding framework.

The draft guidance clarifies expectations around biological sex-based provision in:

Toilets and changing facilities
Boarding accommodation
Single-sex sport (particularly regarding safety-based distinctions).

In practice, this will require schools to:

Update safeguarding and equality policies
Clarify decision-making frameworks.

We have considered the proposed changes relating to gender questioning children in more detail in a separate article.

A substantial rewrite of Part Five

Part Five (child-on-child sexual harassment and sexual violence) has also been significantly amended. It should be read alongside the earlier content on child-on-child abuse (including harassment and violence). It emphasizes the fact that it is a safeguarding issue for both victim and alleged perpetrator and that it is preventable.

The revised draft includes content on harmful sexual behaviour (HSB). Reference is made to The Hackett continuum model (HSB can progress on a continuum through to serious sexual violence) and there is a clear expectation that school and colleges should respond to all signs, reports and concerns of HSB with this in mind.

Arrangements for doing so should still be considered on a case-by-case basis. The DfE proposes to retain its acknowledgement that reports of this nature are complex and may require swift, difficult professional decisions to be made and its suggested focus on pre-planning, training and robust policies (a separate policy or procedure for dealing with child-on-child sexual harassment and sexual violence or HSB is not required but may be useful).

The proposed changes modernise the language used (which should be reflected in school and college policies), including reference to: “Self-generated intimate images and/or videos including those generated using AI” reflecting evolving online risks and technological developments.

Schools should anticipate the need to:

Update behaviour and safeguarding policies.
Review their systems for reporting and responding to HSB and abuse.
Enhance staff and pupil training on identifying and responding to low-level harmful behaviours.

Filtering, monitoring and online safety strengthened

The draft introduces an explicit requirement to conduct:

Annual effectiveness reviews of filtering and monitoring systems
Documented evidence of those reviews

There is also new content addressing the need for the safe use of generative AI in education, recognising emerging safeguarding and misinformation risks associated with AI. This signals a continuing move towards greater scrutiny of technical safeguarding controls and digital governance.

Other updates

Updated definitions (e.g. assault by penetration, confirmation that emotional abuse can include verbal abuse and CCE and CSE and their possible link with modern slavery).
Updated terminology (e.g. clarification that early help includes universal services and community-based early help; and the targeted early help level of Family Help and a new section on referrals to Family Help in Part 5).
An express acknowledgement that safeguarding issues may overlap.
An expanded list of examples staff should remain alert to and clarification of guidance about risk groups, including those with mental health and SEND-related vulnerabilities, young carers and safeguarding children with medical conditions).
Repeated references to misogyny as a safeguarding risk.
Updated data protection references, explained guidance on information-sharing and updates to linked education-specific ICO guidance.
Inclusion of trainee teachers in Part 4.
A new section on mobile phone policy.
The inclusion of an example single central record template that meets the statutory requirements of KCSIE.

Schools are strongly advised to review Annex D (the list of changes) in full when conducting gap analysis.

DSL cover and continuity expectations

The draft strengthens expectations regarding:

DSL availability
Deputy/cover arrangements
Continuity of safeguarding oversight

The DfE recommends the use of confidential shared mailboxes to facilitate effective cover. Schools with lean leadership structures or part-time DSL models should review cover resilience carefully.

Governance and inspection implications

Safeguarding will remain a key governance and inspection priority.

Proprietors are required to ensure that the school's safeguarding arrangements are effective and will need evidence to demonstrate that they are discharging their oversight function effectively. We would recommend that proprietors request a gap analysis and structured implementation plan for these anticipated changes with this in mind. Proactive governance oversight will be critical to mitigating regulatory risk associated with the changes.

The summary makes it clear that Section 3 of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) statutory framework should be read alongside KCSIE where children aged 0 to 5 attend school-based nurseries or reception classes.

What schools should do now

During the consultation phase, schools should:

Review the draft guidance in detail as it reflects the proposed direction of travel.
Consider whether to submit a consultation response and if so, do so before 22 April 2026.
Convene a senior group to identify the required actions in the event it is implemented in full.
Plan for a September 2026 implementation.