A newly reported Upper Tribunal decision has clarified an important point for schools: reasonable-adjustment duties can apply to behaviour policies, sanctions and exclusion decisions, not only to classroom teaching or physical access.
The practical message is not “no sanctions for disabled pupils”. It is that a policy cannot be applied on autopilot when disability may create a substantial disadvantage. Schools need to consider reasonable steps before sanctions escalate.
This article is for schools in England, is accurate on 22 July 2026 and is not legal advice. Individual cases need careful evidence and, where appropriate, specialist advice.
What happened in the Cheam case?
A Your Local Guardian report published today drew attention to UW v Cheam Academies Trust (SEN) [2026] UKUT 53 (AAC). The judgment itself was issued on 4 February 2026 and amended on 23 February to protect anonymity.
The proceedings concerned a pupil known only as C. The judgment records diagnoses of autism and ADHD and an EHC plan. The claims identified 41 detentions, fixed-term exclusions and a permanent exclusion, alongside other alleged treatment.
The First-tier Tribunal had treated a reasonable-adjustments claim about the behaviour policy as outside its jurisdiction. Upper Tribunal Judge Holly Stout held that this was an error of law.
The Upper Tribunal held that the duty can cover a school's behaviour policy and its application, including sanctions up to permanent exclusion. It may require alternative provision, a lesser sanction or another step to avoid exclusion.
The judge went further and held that the duty also applies to the act of exclusion itself. In England, the First-tier Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to consider this kind of reasonable-adjustments claim.
There is an important procedural footnote. The Upper Tribunal recognised the error but did not set aside the later panel's decision. It did not decide that the school had discriminated. A late application remains possible.
What the ruling changes, and what it does not
The decision resolves a jurisdiction and interpretation question. It confirms that behaviour, discipline and exclusion sit within the field where reasonable adjustments can matter. That is significant, although the duty itself is not new.
The DfE's existing behaviour guidance already tells schools to consider whether SEND contributed to an incident, whether an adjustment is required and whether a sanction is lawful in the circumstances.
Current exclusion guidance also warns that a decision may be discriminatory where a disability can manifest in rule-breaking and reasonable adjustments have not been made. The Cheam judgment gives that principle firmer appellate treatment.
It does not create a blanket exemption from rules. It does not say every requested change is reasonable, or that the same adjustment will work for every pupil with the same diagnosis. Reasonableness remains fact-sensitive.
Nor does it turn a SENDCo dashboard into a courtroom. Data can show patterns, provision and decisions. It cannot, by itself, decide disability, substantial disadvantage, reasonableness or legal liability.
A seven-question check before sanctions escalate
1. What exactly happened?
Separate observed facts from interpretation. Record the behaviour, context, location, sequence and response. “Refused” can conceal confusion, overload, communication difficulty or a support step that was unavailable.
2. What did the school know, or reasonably need to explore?
Check the pupil's current profile, plan, passport, previous incidents and professional advice. A diagnosis label is not a substitute for understanding the barrier in this setting, at this time.
3. Where is the substantial disadvantage?
Identify the rule, practice or missing aid and compare its effect. Ask what makes it materially harder for this disabled pupil to access education or comply with the policy, rather than assuming universal wording makes the policy neutral.
4. Which adjustment might actually work?
Consider effectiveness, practicality, disruption, cost, safety and available resources. An adjustment might change a prompt, environment, transition, communication method, reset route or sanction while preserving the expectation.
5. Was the agreed adjustment available in practice?
A strategy hidden in a document is only theoretically helpful. Check whether relevant staff knew it, could use it at the point of need and had a workable alternative when the usual adult, room or aid was unavailable.
6. Is the proposed response still proportionate?
Review the seriousness of the incident, impact on others, previous support, alternatives and the likely effect of the sanction. Safety and the rights of other pupils remain real; so does the duty to avoid disability-related disadvantage.
7. What will be reviewed next?
Give the decision an owner and date. Record what will change, who needs to know and how the school will judge whether the adjustment reduces the barrier. Repeated incidents are evidence for review, not invitations to repeat the response.
A connected-data example
Consider a fictional composite pupil who repeatedly leaves a noisy lesson and receives late detentions. The pupil passport records a quiet reset route, but several incidents occurred when the named space was unavailable.
Attendance has dipped on the same timetable days. A pupil-view note describes anxiety before the lesson, while communication records show that home believed the adjustment was already in place.
That pattern does not prove discrimination or excuse unsafe behaviour. It does give the school a better question: was the pupil sanctioned for the effect of a barrier the agreed adjustment was meant to reduce?
The next action is professional, not automatic. Confirm the facts, hear the pupil and family, review risk, make the route workable, brief staff and decide whether the sanction remains appropriate in light of the full evidence.
How Student Radar can help
Student Radar helps authorised staff bring the evidence together. The SEND Register keeps current SEND status and plans visible, while pupil passports make agreed needs and strategies easier to find and review.
The pupil profile can place attendance and behaviour detail beside SEND and safeguarding context. Communication records help teams check what was discussed with home and what action was understood, rather than relying on memory.
This is decision support, not a legal decision engine. Student Radar can surface a pattern, preserve the professional trail and prompt a review. School leaders still decide the response and remain accountable for policy and practice.
Actions for school leaders this term
- Review behaviour and exclusion policies for explicit adjustment routes.
- Sample repeated detentions, removals and suspensions involving disabled pupils.
- Check that current adjustments are usable by staff at the point of need.
- Require decision records to distinguish facts, barriers, options and rationale.
- Involve the pupil and family, then set a named review date.
- Train governors and relevant staff on the Cheam judgment's scope and limits.
Start with a small, purposeful sample rather than a giant export. Use the SEND register audit to verify the underlying records, or request a focused Student Radar walkthrough.
Sources and further reading
- UW v Cheam Academies Trust (SEN) [2026] UKUT 53 (AAC), Upper Tribunal, issued 4 February 2026 and amended 23 February 2026.
- Cheam school case sparks landmark ruling on disabled pupils' rights, Your Local Guardian, 22 July 2026.
- Department for Education, Behaviour in schools, guidance for schools in England, last updated 19 February 2024.
- Department for Education, School suspensions and permanent exclusions, statutory guidance page updated 15 June 2026.
- Department for Education, Equality Act 2010: advice for schools, guidance for schools in England.
- Equality Act 2010, Schedule 13, reasonable adjustments for pupils in England, Wales and Scotland.