Insights into KCSIE 2026
Last autumn, NetSupport hosted a webinar with Al Kingsley MBE and Mark Anderson FCCT to help schools unpack the changes brought in by Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025. Here’s how that conversation holds up against the 2026 consultation draft, which is currently open for review, what’s new and what might be coming.
Much of what we covered in that webinar is now being reflected and, in places, strengthened in the 2026 consultation draft, and there are also areas where expectations have moved on, even further.
Themes from the Webinar That the Consultation Has Reinforced
Filtering and monitoring needs active oversight, not passive compliance.
Al Kingsley MBE was clear in the webinar that buying and installing a filtering or monitoring solution isn’t safeguarding in itself. Schools need named responsibility, regular review, and real evidence that systems are being actively used, not just switched on. Mark Anderson FCCT brought the classroom perspective, pointing out that systems which overblock or create unnecessary friction end up undermining the trust and professional relationships that good safeguarding depends on. The goal, he argued, is proportionality: keeping children safe without putting unnecessary barriers in the way of teaching and learning. The 2026 consultation draft reinforces both points.
Technology should support professional judgement, not replace it.
Al Kingsley MBE was direct on this in the webinar: he’s not a fan of automated monitoring that determines outcomes. What he wants to see is technology that alerts a human being, who then applies their professional judgement and knowledge of the child to decide what, if anything, needs to happen next. Mark Anderson FCCT made the same argument from a classroom perspective: safeguarding gets better when the adults in school understand what they’re looking for and feel confident enough to act on it. A system that fires off alerts without context doesn’t help anyone. With AI-generated harm now featuring more prominently in the 2026 draft, it makes human-in-the-loop insights and intervention more important, not less.
AI governance is a safeguarding responsibility.
Mark Anderson FCCT argued in the webinar that building genuine confidence in what AI tools are and how to use them responsibly is foundational: the best safeguard isn’t the technology, it’s the skills and awareness of the people using it. Teachers who actually understand generative AI tools are in a far better position to use them well and spot when something’s going wrong. Al Kingsley MBE focused on the structural side: risk assessments, approval processes, audit trails, data protection. Who requested a tool? Who approved it? When was it recorded as suitable? These questions matter, and the answers need to be evidenced.
Attendance is a safeguarding signal, not just an administrative one.
Al Kingsley MBE made this case in the webinar, arguing that unexpected or unexplained absences should be linked directly into safeguarding workflows rather than treated as a separate administrative concern. He pointed to the value of cross-referencing attendance patterns with safeguarding chronologies, looking at whether absences align with known incidents, and highlighted how digital tools can help flag when students simply aren’t showing up or signing in.
Mark Anderson FCCT connected this to the broader point about data informing practice: patterns across multiple sources tell a richer story than any single data point. The 2026 consultation reinforces exactly this, embedding attendance more firmly within safeguarding responsibilities.
Governance and board accountability aren’t optional extras.
Mark Anderson FCCT pointed out in the webinar that reporting to leaders and governors has to be genuinely useful, not just comprehensive. People can’t act on information they can’t make sense of, and escalation routes need to be clearly communicated so everyone knows what to do if something goes wrong. Al Kingsley MBE was unambiguous on what good governance actually looks like: risk registers, meaningful audit processes, data protection impact assessments, and the right challenging questions at the board level. He spoke about spending Saturday mornings doing governor training across trusts precisely because board members need to understand these risks well enough to ask the right questions, and good school leadership should welcome that challenge, not resist it. The 2026 consultation raises the bar, with stronger expectations that boards can demonstrate real oversight rather than passive awareness.
What You Need to Know: What’s New in the KCSIE 2026 Consultation
The consultation draft was published on 12 February 2026, with the final version due to be published on 1 September 2026. It is not a wholesale rewrite of KCSIE 2025, but it does contain some significant additions and strengthened expectations that schools, colleges, and trusts will need to consider. Here are the key things to be aware of.
AI and generative technology are now explicitly part of the safeguarding picture.
The consultation introduces specific guidance on the safe and effective use of generative AI in education and updates the language around self-generated imagery to explicitly include AI-generated content such as deepfakes. This is important for both filtering and monitoring, for policy, and for how staff and students are taught to understand risk online.
Filtering and monitoring expectations have been tightened.
Schools are now expected to review the effectiveness of their filtering and monitoring at least once every academic year, and to keep a record of those checks. Importantly, those checks need to confirm that filtering is working appropriately across all internet-connected devices in all relevant locations.
Mobile phone policy is now specifically addressed.
A new section on mobile phone policy has been added. Schools have been navigating this area for some time, and the consultation now brings it formally within the KCSIE framework.
DSL cover arrangements need to be more robust.
The consultation adds expectations around how schools manage cover for the Designated Safeguarding Lead role, including the use of a confidential shared mailbox or equivalent system to make sure safeguarding concerns are received, monitored, and acted upon, even when the DSL is unavailable.
Child-on-child abuse has been retitled and expanded.
The section is now formally titled ‘Child-on-child abuse (including harassment and violence),’ with expanded content making clear that it is a safeguarding issue for both the victim and the alleged perpetrator, that it is preventable, and that it can involve serious physical harm, including threats involving weapons.
Violence Against Women and Girls has been added.
This is new content reflecting the Government’s commitment to addressing VAWG through schools and colleges, alongside updated references to misogyny throughout the guidance.
Mental health and serious violence sections have been substantially updated.
Both sections have been significantly revised. The mental health section in particular reflects evolving expectations around how schools identify and respond to children who may be struggling.
New sections on young carers, children with medical conditions, and sport.
The consultation introduces dedicated sections on young carers and their specific needs, safeguarding children with medical conditions, and sport, areas that have previously sat within broader guidance but now have their own focused content.
Trainee teachers are now referenced throughout.
Expectations around trainee teachers have been added across Parts one, two, three, and four, including new content on how concerns about trainee teachers should be handled.
Part five on child-on-child sexual harassment and sexual violence has been substantially rewritten.
The section has been restructured to highlight the progressive continuum from harmful sexual behaviour through to sexual violence, with clearer guidance on referrals to Family Help.
Safer recruitment has been updated.
Changes include a new single central record template, clarification on categories of visitors, and updated guidance on work experience supervision.
Data protection references have been updated.
The guidance now reflects the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which came into effect in January 2026.
What This Means for You
The KCSIE 2026 consultation is clear: safeguarding must be evidenced, not assumed. It is everyone’s responsibility, and that includes how schools approach AI. NetSupport’s products, such as classroom.cloud, are built with these expectations in mind. We’ll keep building tools that help you meet your safeguarding responsibilities with confidence.
The KCSIE 2026 consultation is open now. We’d encourage every school leader and DSL to take a look!