Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026: the work schools and trusts need to do now

Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026 comes into force on 1 September 2026. Until then, KCSIE 2025 remains the statutory guidance schools and colleges must follow.

That does not mean the work should wait until September.

The summer window is the opportunity to understand what has changed, decide who owns each action and make sure the right arrangements are ready for the start of term.

Some of the changes are straightforward. Others reach across safeguarding, HR, recruitment, IT, governance and day-to-day practice. Taken together, they require more than a policy refresh.

A trust can have immaculate documents and still be unprepared. The question is whether staff know what is expected, the processes work, and leaders can evidence that they work.

The changes that matter operationally

Annex C contains the full schedule of amendments. The following areas are likely to create the most work for schools, academies and MAT central teams.

All staff must read Part One

Annex A, the condensed version previously used for some staff, has been removed. All staff are now expected to read Part One in full.

A new overview is available as a reference document, but it is not a substitute for Part One.

Reading lists, induction packs, annual training, completion records and knowledge checks will all need updating. Trusts should be clear about how they will evidence completion across every school and central team. 

Early help and Family Help

The guidance now separates community-based early help from targeted early help delivered through Family Help.

This needs to be reflected in policies and training, but the practical issue is local referral routes. Staff need to know where a concern goes, who they contact and how they escalate when the response is not sufficient. 

A broader picture of safeguarding harm

KCSIE 2026 gives more attention to overlapping harms and to the different circumstances that can increase a child's vulnerability.

The additions include modern slavery, child criminal and sexual exploitation, serious violence, child-to-parent or caregiver abuse, stalking, financial exploitation, misogyny, misandry and child-on-child harassment and violence.

Staff training should not simply reproduce the list. It needs to help staff recognise how these issues may present, particularly where a child faces additional barriers to disclosing or being believed. 

Online safety, generative AI and mobile phones

There is new content on the safe and effective use of generative AI, a dedicated section on mobile phone policies and updated categories of online risk.

The guidance also places greater weight on the evidence behind filtering and monitoring arrangements.

Schools need a recorded annual review involving senior leaders, the DSL and IT. That review should cover internet-connected devices across all relevant sites and settings, not only the main school network.

Generative AI, mobile phone arrangements and information security should be considered as part of that review, with actions recorded and followed through. 

Information sharing and data

The guidance reflects the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and expands the sections on information sharing, risk assessment and information security.

Policies need to support timely, proportionate and secure sharing. Trusts should also check the agreements and working arrangements they rely on when information passes to or from third parties. 

DSL cover and capacity

 KCSIE 2026 is clearer about the need for effective cover whenever the designated safeguarding lead is unavailable.

This is worth testing rather than assuming. Staff should know exactly how to report a concern, and the trust should be confident that nothing can sit unseen because one person is absent.

A confidential shared mailbox may form part of the solution, but only where ownership, access, security and response expectations are properly defined.

Safer recruitment and regulated activity

The removal of the regulated activity "supervision exemption" means that arrangements for volunteers, work experience, visitors and DBS or barred-list checks need to be reviewed carefully.

The duty to refer now expressly includes volunteers.

This has implications for recruitment guidance, the single central record, visitor categories, supervision arrangements, referral triggers and checks on self-employed staff. It is one of the areas where a relatively small wording change may affect several separate processes. 

Supply staff, trainee teachers and contractors

References to trainee teachers now appear throughout the guidance, alongside a clear reminder that safeguarding responsibility is shared with third-party organisations.

An agency's assurance does not remove the school's responsibility.

Trusts should review what they receive from supply agencies and other providers, and whether escalation and information-sharing arrangements are clear for trainee teachers, contractors, alternative provision and organisations using school premises. 

Harmful sexual behaviour

Part Five has been substantially rewritten to show the continuum from harmful sexual behaviour to sexual violence.

The sharing of nude or semi-nude images requires a safeguarding response, whether it was consensual or non-consensual.

Staff need clear guidance on recognition, recording, immediate response and escalation. This is not an area for uncertainty or inconsistent local practice. 

What needs to happen before September

 The immediate work is to:

• brief the board, safeguarding link trustee or governor, DSL team, HR and recruitment, IT and pastoral leaders;
• complete a policy and procedure gap analysis against Annex C;
• update Part One reading requirements, induction materials, training records and knowledge checks;
• review safer recruitment arrangements for volunteers, visitors, supply staff, trainee teachers and contractors;
• complete and evidence the annual filtering and monitoring review, with named senior leader, DSL and IT involvement; and
• schedule an autumn assurance review focused on implementation, not simply whether policies have been approved.

This cannot sit with the DSL alone

Safeguarding may lead the work, but implementation cuts across the organisation.

The board needs a clear view of readiness. DSLs and senior leaders will own much of the safeguarding content, while HR, IT, governance, operations, inclusion and pastoral teams will each have actions to complete.

Ownership needs to be explicit. "The trust" is not an owner, and neither is "the safeguarding team". Each action should have a named lead, a deadline and evidence of completion.

That includes the Part One roll-out, safer recruitment checks, filtering and monitoring, local referral routes and assurance from agencies, contractors and alternative provision.

Training also needs to cover the changes affecting children at greater risk of harm, including children with SEND, young carers, children with medical conditions, pupils requiring mental health support and children in alternative provision.

The final step is checking whether the changes have reached practice. A short autumn review should test a sample of records, files and arrangements and report honestly to governors or trustees.

Our full briefing includes a detailed action and ownership table for each workstream. 

A workable implementation timeline

Now: appoint an implementation lead, brief the relevant teams and start the Annex C gap analysis.

July and early August: update policies, Part One materials, recruitment checklists, volunteer and visitor procedures, and the evidence templates used for online safety reviews.

Late August and INSET: brief staff, issue Part One to every member of staff and record reading, training and knowledge checks.

September: adopt the revised policies, test DSL cover and confirm safeguarding assurance for supply staff, trainee teachers, contractors and alternative provision.

Autumn term: complete a short implementation review, report the findings to governors or trustees and address any gaps while the new arrangements are still bedding in. 

The Keystone view

The weakest response to KCSIE 2026 would be to update the policies, take them to the board and consider the job done.

Readiness will be visible in staff knowledge, recruitment files, DSL cover, filtering and monitoring records, referral routes and the handling of real concerns.

What should governors and trustees ask to see?

Useful evidence includes board minutes, a policy change log, Part One completion records, sample recruitment and volunteer files, the filtering and monitoring review, DSL cover arrangements and a sample safeguarding case-file review.

That gives the board something tangible to test. A general assurance that "everything has been updated" does not. 

Download the full KCSIE 2026 briefing

Our full briefing sets out the changes, the teams responsible and the evidence governors and trustees should expect. It also includes an implementation timeline and a detailed action and ownership table.