The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on a major revision of its technical guidance for schools in England on the Equality Act 2010. The consultation closes on 30 September 2026 and the draft is more than double the length of the current version, so there’s a lot to digest.

It’s worth noting that the guidance is often used as evidence in legal proceedings and where a school departs from the guidance, it will need to explain why.

Many of the proposed changes reflect new and evolving case law on various aspects of the Equality Act 2010 as well as legislative updates, so we expect most, if not all, of the proposed changes to remain in the final version, likely to be published during the autumn term.

Here we set out the proposed key changes and some practical takeaways for school leaders.

Reasonable adjustments and accessibility planning: How to comply

The proposed guidance contains significantly more in-depth advice for schools on complying with the duty to make reasonable adjustments, with reference to numerous aspects of school life. In short, if a school concludes an adjustment to current practice is reasonable (and there are useful factors at paragraph 7.56 to help schools make that decision, including the views of pupils and parents), it must be made. If a school concludes an adjustment is not reasonable, it's important to record the reasoning so it can be explained to parents and, if necessary, a tribunal.

The proposed guidance expressly requires schools to treat underachievement or unexplained behaviour as possible indicators of an underlying disability, and to consider reasonable adjustments proactively, without waiting for an individual request. 

The proposed guidance expands on behaviour and discipline scenarios as reasonable adjustment risk areas, with worked examples distinguishing disability-related or involuntary behaviour from deliberate misconduct. Schools should be alert to the greater emphasis on conditions where manifestation is episodic, fluctuating, or masked by medication.

In addition, the school’s accessibility plan, covering curriculum participation, the physical environment, and access to information, must be current, consulted on, and published, with a clear review cycle. It should drive the school’s estates and capital programme, not sit in a folder.

Sex and gender reassignment: Clearer definitions, practical prompts

The proposed guidance anchors the definition of 'sex' under the Equality Act to biological sex (sex at birth), reflecting Supreme Court authority following the For Women Scotland case. This means school policies on single-sex admissions, facilities, boarding, and competitive sport should be drafted and applied using this definition.

Gender reassignment remains a separate protected characteristic, applicable to pupils of any age who are proposing to undergo, undergoing, or having undergone a process to reassign sex. No medical treatment is required, but the guidance makes clear that the protection is more likely to apply where there are more permanent social changes (consistent name, pronouns, presentation).

The proposed guidance specifically suggests schools consider adopting a policy on how trans pupils are addressed, with practical solutions where beliefs conflict e.g. approaches that avoid requiring individual members of staff to use pronouns that conflict with their beliefs, while still implementing the school's decision respectfully. 

A policy on pronouns that is clear, practical, and known by all staff is better than each teacher navigating an individual situation with no script and no support. Consistency protects pupils, staff and the school.

Facilities: The estate needs a plan

The proposed guidance links facilities decisions directly to the statutory requirement for single-sex toilets for pupils aged eight and over, and single-sex changing facilities and showers for pupils aged 11 and over. A worked example in the draft states that it is not permissible to allow a trans girl (male sex at birth) to use the girls' changing room, and that requiring use of the boys' changing room is likely to be indirect gender reassignment discrimination where it cannot be justified. The suggested solution is a single-user lockable space i.e. an accessible bathroom, a staff changing room, or equivalent.

This gives leaders something concrete and workable: a clear outcome (single-user provision), not an impossible choice between competing interests.

Exclusions, removal and isolation: Data and discipline

The proposed guidance is clear that informal exclusions and off-rolling are unlawful, reflecting updated Department for Education guidance on attendance and exclusions. Schools must take care to ensure that managed moves, prolonged reduced timetables, and repeated off-site directions are rooted in what is objectively in the child’s best interests with documented evidence in support.

For disabled pupils, the proposed guidance reflects recent case law that exclusion for disability-related behaviour is unlikely to be justified where the school has not first applied reasonable adjustments. This includes adjustments to the exclusion process itself and to the sanction imposed. The proposed guidance also introduces detailed expectations on internal removal, isolation, and restraint.

Parents must be informed the same day, records must be kept, and data must be broken down by protected characteristics and analysed for Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) compliance. On the PSED, the draft offers more operational clarity, describing what the duty actually requires day-to-day: awareness before deciding on an action, an evidence base, impact assessment, mitigation, and ongoing review.

Top tips and next steps

• Introduce a standard reasonable adjustment decision record: Used consistently across high-risk areas for disabled pupils including behaviour (sanctions and removal from the classroom, timing, format and parental notification), exams, school trips, assessments, facilities and admissions processes. Schools should document the barrier identified, the options considered, consultation with the pupil and parents, the decision reached and the reasonableness analysis.

• Audit managed moves, reduced timetables, and off-site directions: To ensure none are functioning as informal exclusions. Require a documented 'adjustments and causation analysis' before any exclusion of a pupil with known special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). 
  • Do not treat reduced timetables as a standard adjustment. Before implementing a reduced timetable require senior leadership team sign-off, written justification, and a review date, with evidence that full-time alternatives with support were considered first. Introduce recording for removal and isolation with a characteristics breakdown and review the data termly at governor/trust level.

• Embed PSED into your policy cycle, not as an annual statement but as an active step: Evidence, impact assessment, mitigation, review. This applies to routine decisions, not just formal policy reviews.

• Adopt a clear, practical policy on gender questioning children: That covers changing and toilet provision, competitive sport and the approach to trans pupils' names and pronouns that also addresses how the school will handle belief-based concerns from staff and pupils. Some schools are developing stand-alone policies, others are including their approach within pupil equality policies.
  • Our suite of policies has been updated to include a recommended approach to supporting gender questioning pupils that complies with this guidance and Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSiE) 2026.

• Ensure the accessibility plan is on the strategic planning calendar: Not just your compliance checklist.

• Bring breakfast club provision into your equality governance: If your school is operating a breakfast club, note that this is regarded as school provision, not a separate service.

The biggest operational challenge for schools is documentary discipline: maintaining records, applying policies flexibly but consistently, and, when it comes to making reasonable adjustments and issuing sanctions or interventions, demonstrating that alternatives were considered. 

The guidance expects documented reasoning at each decision point, and without it, decisions may be hard to defend if challenged.