The full guidance can be accessed on the link.
Here is a summary of implications for looked after children (LAC) and the Virtual School Head (VSH) in the July 2026 updated suspension and permanent exclusion guidance
The July 2026 statutory guidance strengthens expectations around safeguarding, early intervention, multi-agency working and educational stability for looked after children and other children with social workers. It also formalises and expands the role of the Virtual School Head (VSH) throughout exclusion prevention, decision-making and review processes.
1. Stronger expectation to prevent exclusion of looked after children
The guidance reinforces that education is a key protective factor for children with social workers and looked after children. Schools are expected to balance behaviour management with safeguarding responsibilities.
The implication is that:
* exclusion of LAC should be treated as a safeguarding concern as well as a disciplinary issue;
* schools must demonstrate that preventative strategies and support have been explored before exclusion;
* headteachers are expected to consider wider contextual and trauma-related factors contributing to behaviour.
The guidance also repeatedly links exclusion prevention with:
* SEND assessment,
* mental health support,
* multi-agency intervention,
* alternative provision,
* managed moves,
* reintegration planning.
2. Earlier and more formal involvement of the VSH
The updated guidance significantly strengthens the expectation that the VSH is involved early, not simply informed after decisions are made.
Where a looked after child is "likely to be subject to a suspension or permanent exclusion", the Designated Teacher must contact the VSH "as soon as possible".
This has several implications:
Schools must:
* involve the VSH before exclusion decisions where possible;
* seek advice from the VSH regarding support and intervention;
* review whether sufficient preventative work has occurred.
VSHs are expected to:
* challenge exclusion practice where appropriate;
* advise on trauma-informed and attachment-aware approaches;
* support schools to identify alternatives to exclusion;
* influence planning around reintegration and educational stability.
This moves the VSH role further into strategic oversight and inclusion leadership.
3. Increased importance of the Personal Education Plan (PEP)
The guidance explicitly links exclusion risk management to the statutory PEP process.
Schools and VSHs are expected to ensure:
* behaviour concerns are recorded within the PEP;
* support strategies are documented and reviewed;
* exclusions and suspensions trigger review of educational provision;
* interim PEP reviews are convened where required.
The guidance specifically states schools should consider:
* whether the current PEP is being implemented effectively;
* whether an interim PEP review should be called;
* how Pupil Premium Plus is being used to reduce exclusion risk.
This increases accountability for evidencing targeted support prior to exclusion.
4. Expanded role of the Designated Teacher (DT)
The DT is positioned as a key operational lead in exclusion prevention for LAC.
The DT must:
* contact the VSH promptly;
* coordinate support;
* review PEP effectiveness;
* engage with carers, social workers and children's home staff.
This means DTs will need:
* stronger oversight of behaviour and attendance risks;
* earlier escalation systems;
* closer working relationships with Virtual School teams.
5. Mandatory notification duties now fully embedded
The guidance confirms that whenever a looked after child is suspended or permanently excluded:
* the VSH must be notified "without delay";
* the reasons and duration must be shared;
* the VSH must also be informed of governing board meetings.
The same applies when exclusions are cancelled.
Implications:
* schools require robust systems to identify LAC status immediately;
* exclusion notification pathways must include Virtual School teams;
* local authorities may need tighter monitoring and escalation procedures.
6. VSH involvement in governing board and review processes
The guidance strengthens the role of the VSH in formal review stages.
The VSH:
* must be informed of governing board meetings;
* can share information relevant to safeguarding and educational stability;
* may contribute to representations concerning reinstatement or support planning.
This increases the VSH's influence over:
* proportionality of exclusion decisions;
* scrutiny of schools' preventative work;
* reintegration planning;
* managed move arrangements.
7. Managed moves now require explicit VSH involvement for LAC
The guidance states that where a managed move is contemplated for a looked after child:
* the relevant VSH must be notified before the move;
* PEPs must be reviewed and amended if the move proceeds.
The implications are significant:
* managed moves for LAC require stronger scrutiny;
* schools must evidence that the move is in the child's best interests;
* VSHs become central to ensuring educational continuity and safeguarding oversight.
8. Reintegration expectations are stronger
The guidance introduces a clearer expectation that schools create structured reintegration strategies following:
* suspension,
* cancelled exclusion,
* off-site direction,
* safeguarding separation.
For looked after children this means:
* coordinated reintegration involving carers, social workers and VSHs;
* greater emphasis on belonging, emotional safety and relationship repair;
* ongoing review and adaptation of support plans.
This aligns with trauma-informed practice expectations.
9. Multi-agency working is now more explicit
Throughout the guidance there is repeated emphasis on:
* safeguarding partnerships,
* information sharing,
* social worker involvement,
* CAMHS,
* MASH,
* Youth Justice Teams,
* local authority coordination.
For LAC and VSHs, this means:
* exclusion prevention is increasingly treated as a shared safeguarding responsibility;
* VSHs will need stronger relationships with SEND, safeguarding and behaviour services;
* schools are expected to evidence collaborative planning before exclusion.
10. Operational and resource implications for Virtual Schools
The updated guidance substantially increases expectations on Virtual School services.
Likely operational impacts include:
* higher volume of exclusion notifications;
* greater attendance at meetings and reviews;
* increased monitoring of PEP quality;
* more challenge and consultation work with schools;
* increased oversight of managed moves and reintegration.
This may require:
* enhanced staffing capacity,
* clearer escalation frameworks,
* improved data systems,
* more strategic inclusion work across local authorities.
Overall conclusion
The July 2026 guidance continues the policy shift away from viewing exclusion solely as a behaviour sanction and towards seeing it as:
* a safeguarding issue,
* an inclusion issue,
* and a marker of vulnerability.
For looked after children, exclusions are expected to trigger:
* earlier intervention,
* stronger multi-agency planning,
* closer scrutiny of school practice,
* and enhanced support through the PEP process.
For Virtual School Heads, the guidance formalises a much more active role in:
* exclusion prevention,
* challenge and oversight,
* managed moves,
* reintegration,
* and safeguarding coordination.
