Clear as mud: why work experience needs DfE guidance now

By the Association of Education Business Professionals | 28 October 2026

The new safeguarding rules were written to protect children. Right now, the uncertainty around them is putting work experience placements at risk, and the children the rules are there to protect are the ones who stand to lose out. Lawyers, headteachers and employers are reading the same guidance in different ways, and it is already costing placements.

A rule written to protect children is putting their placements at risk

Since 1 September 2026, the supervision exemption has been removed from the definition of regulated activity with children, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland [1][2]. Anyone who teaches, trains, instructs, cares for or supervises children frequently, on more than three days in any 30-day period, or overnight, is now in regulated activity, even if another adult is watching [1][4].

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) says the legislation does not create a new requirement to carry out DBS checks, and that employers and organisations decide whether a check is appropriate. It also says that roles once treated as outside regulated activity only because of supervision are now eligible for an enhanced check with children’s barred list information [2]. Its list of common misconceptions does not mention work experience [2].

Schools and employers are not hearing it that way. Dan Morrow, chief executive of Cornwall Education Learning Trust, told Tes: “Many employers are now saying they will not be able to offer placements” [11]. A Hampshire special school headteacher told the same article that placements which had been safely assessed were being withdrawn, and called for urgent clarification [11]. An ASCL specialist warned that the rules would discourage employers from offering week-long placements [11].

Behind the legal argument sits a simple decision, being made now in schools and workplaces across England: whether a Year 10 pupil gets a week inside a real job. AEBP’s 71 member organisations arrange those weeks, and every one has years of practice behind it [12][14]. We put safeguarding first, and we read the legal change itself as modest [12]. What we cannot accept is a rule meant to protect children being read in a way that takes opportunity away from them.

What the guidance says now, and what it no longer says

The work experience section of the 2026 guidance runs from paragraph 406 to paragraph 410 [28]. Paragraph 406 keeps the long-standing expectation that schools make sure the placement provider has policies and procedures to protect children [28][29]. Paragraph 407 sets the test: if the person teaching, training, instructing, caring for or supervising a child on a placement does so frequently or for more than three days in a 30-day period, or overnight, this is regulated activity, and a barred person must not take part [28]. Paragraph 408 says other people in the workplace who are not involved in that supervision are not in regulated activity [28]. Paragraph 409 says schools cannot ask a provider to obtain an enhanced check with children’s barred list information for staff supervising 16 and 17 year olds. Paragraph 410 says checks cannot be requested for under-16s, and deals with placements in specified places such as schools [28]. Both of those carry over from the 2025 edition [28][29].

The 2025 edition said more [29]. It told schools to consider the circumstances of each placement, in particular the nature and frequency of the supervision, to decide what checks, if any, were needed (paragraph 333). It tied that to whether the supervisor was themselves supervised and whether they worked with the child frequently (paragraph 334). And where a supervisor was unsupervised and in frequent contact with the child, it said the school could ask the employer to ensure that the person was not a barred person (paragraph 335) [29]. Those three paragraphs have no direct equivalent in the 2026 text [28][29].

Paragraph 407 treats supervision of this kind as regulated activity. Paragraph 409 says schools cannot ask for the barred list check on staff supervising 16 and 17 year olds, and DBS guidance says supervising a 16 or 17 year old’s employment-related activity is not regulated activity [3][28]. The guidance does not explain how these fit together on a work experience placement, or how a school or employer is meant to show that the duty in paragraph 407 has been met. A headteacher reading it is left with a duty, a prohibition and nothing in between. We think that gap is why capable lawyers and safeguarding leads read the same text differently.

Two opposite readings, and plenty in between

Since July, published advice has pulled in different directions. Two readings are directly opposed. The rest sit somewhere between them.

• Farrer & Co (1 September) reads the new test as applying to work experience: more than three days in 30 means regulated activity [5].
• Veale Wasbrough Vizards (17 September) says the opposite. Richard Hewitt, a partner, writes: “Supervision of work experience placements does not therefore amount to regulated activity with children” [6].
• Ardea Education Advisory (10 September) finds the law itself unhelpful. Rob Cooper writes that “Neither the legislation nor the current DBS guidance provides a detailed workplace test” [8]. He also says he has found no published operational guidance for staff who work with pupils from several schools [8].
• Unlock (22 October) says supervision tied solely to employing a 16 or 17 year old does not by itself create regulated activity, and warns against blanket enhanced checking. Debbie Sadler adds that “uncertainty around the new rules may be affecting approaches to work-experience placements” [7].
• Browne Jacobson (17 July) describes a single test and a duty not to allow a barred person to take part, and advises schools to review their work experience processes and liaise with providers before any placement [4].
• Counsel for Unifrog, writing to the Secretary of State on 14 October, argues that the relevant paragraph of the guidance is an error of law, because work experience supervision is employment [27].
• The Career Development Institute and the Careers & Enterprise Company both want clarity. The CDI (David Morgan, 2 October) reports concern from careers teams across England, Wales and Northern Ireland that uncertainty could make school leaders and employers “more risk averse until the application of the requirements is clearer”. It says it has no legal expertise and points members to the CEC’s advice [10]. The CEC says it is in urgent contact with government, and tells schools, colleges and employers to keep following rigorous safeguarding procedures in the meantime [9].

That is a sector asking the same question in different ways. We do not offer a legal opinion and we are not taking a side in this argument. Our own papers say that regulated activity alone does not require a DBS check, and that the duty is that a barred person must not take part [12]. The point is that if solicitors cannot agree, a school business manager or a small employer cannot be expected to work it out alone.

Rob Cooper asks how we tell “defensible” safeguarding decisions from “defensive” ones, driven by anxiety about accountability [31]. Without clear national guidance, we think anxiety will keep winning.

The damage already visible

We asked our members what they are seeing. Seventeen of the 71 had responded when the figures were compiled, about 24% of the network. Between them they cover roughly 39,000 to 41,000 employers [13][14] and more than 180,000 placements a year [32]. We regard these figures as a floor, not a ceiling [13].

The regional reports all point the same way [13]:

• In the West Midlands, one response estimates that about 75% of schools are reducing placements to three days.
• In London, one response estimates that 13% of previous employers may be unable or unwilling to comply, and a further 18% are uncertain.
• In the North West, two schools have moved to three days, three more are expected to follow, and the local authority has asked for guidance.
• In Hampshire, some employers are withdrawing because they believe pupils need DBS checks.
• In the East Midlands, schools are considering using only DBS-checked employers, cutting to three days, or requiring checks for every supervisor.

There is no national count of cancelled placements. These are reports from a small number of responses, not totals, and we offer them as evidence of what is happening, not as a measure of how much. Practitioners are saying the same in public. On LinkedIn on 20 October, Matthew Hodgkinson of Changing Education, which provides work experience services to schools, wrote that some employers are pulling out because they have been told every supervisor needs an enhanced check, and that once an employer walks away it can be “very difficult to get them back” [22]. A week later Stephen Hackney, also of Changing Education, reported hearing that some schools are considering shortening or withdrawing placements because of uncertainty about the guidance [23]. Hackney had written on 13 October that uncertainty should not become “an unnecessary barrier” to young people experiencing the world of work, and Rob Cooper, replying, described “considerable anxiety among Careers Leaders” [33].

Employers say it more bluntly. Katy Davies, managing director of Cap Air Systems, a manufacturer, wrote on 15 October that a two-week placement is ten days, so whoever looks after a Year 10 pupil now crosses the three-day line. Her firm has no HR department, and she wrote that “the willing are getting rather exhausted” [24]. Cap Air has taken young people for two summers running, and she would like to make it three [24]. These are employers who say yes. We cannot afford to lose them.

The letter sent to the Secretary of State on behalf of Unifrog describes the same pattern among large employers: a supermarket pausing placements, a second retailer stopping under-16 placements, a government department withdrawing under-16 placements, an armed forces branch warning that 2027 placements may be withdrawn, and a multi-academy trust saying that its workload would double [27].

What the children stand to lose

The most recent national picture comes from Education and Employers. In 2024/25, about 58% of Year 10 pupils were recorded as doing a placement, averaging four days, overwhelmingly in July [15]. About 42% were not recorded as doing one even before the rules changed, and an extra 273,000 placements a year would be needed to reach every pupil [15]. We were already not reaching everyone. The risk now is that we reach fewer.

Education and Employers also found that young adults who had done a pre-16 placement had 62% lower odds of being not in education, employment or training (NEET) between 16 and 18. That comes from a survey of 804 young adults aged 19 to 26, after controlling for other factors. It shows an association, not proof of cause [15]. The same research found that each additional employer engagement activity was linked to 24% lower odds, and that the most engaged quarter had 80% lower odds [15]. An earlier study reported a reduction of up to 86% [15].

These figures do not prove that a week in a workplace changes a life. They do tell us what work experience is linked to, and that is a poor thing to risk losing in a country where about a million young people aged 16 to 24 are already NEET [15].

Teachers have said for years that pupils come back from a placement more mature, more confident and more focused. The CEC’s review of what works rates work experience as potentially effective, and its findings fit what teachers describe. It found consistent evidence of gains in confidence, communication, maturity, teamwork and career readiness, reported mostly by pupils, employers and coordinators rather than tested in controlled trials, and found the evidence on attainment inconclusive [18]. Earlier Education and Employers research found that career confusion at 16 was linked to being NEET between 16 and 18, and that about a quarter of pupils were offered part-time work after a placement [19]. The CEC review also found that pupils are dissatisfied when placements are too short [18]. That matters now, because cutting a week to three days is a widely reported response [13].

We have seen placements lost before. The Institute for Fiscal Studies recorded that work experience placements were cancelled during the pandemic [30]. We have not found research that measures what that cost the pupils who missed out, and we should not have to find out the hard way a second time.

Then there is the calendar. Most placements happen in July [15], and our members warn that DBS checks may not be processed fast enough for the summer-term cycle [13]. Decisions made this autumn will shape whether this year’s Year 10 group gets a proper placement next summer. That is an entire year group at risk. We believe the confusion will get exponentially worse the longer it goes unanswered, because every school and employer that pulls back makes the next one more likely to follow. That is our judgement of the trend, based on what our members report. It is not a forecast from published data.

The effect will not fall evenly. In the Education and Employers research, 71% of young adults found their own placement or had it found through parents, relatives or family friends, and 81% of schools said that all or most students must find their own [15]. Pupils without those contacts depend on the schools and organisers who find placements for them. We think they have the most to lose, and we are concerned that these are the placements most likely to be shortened first. The children the safeguarding rules are meant to protect include the very ones with the least to fall back on.

Why cost is not the whole story

The cost of a DBS check is the first thing most people mention. The enhanced check fee fell from £49.50 to £41 on 5 October 2026, and checks for volunteers remain free [16]. Cheaper checks do not solve the problem. CBS Screening, which sells checks, says that working out which roles are affected takes more time than the fee reduction saves [17]. Our East Midlands response says cost and turnaround time are both unresolved [13].

The pressure was there before the rule change. Education and Employers’ survey of schools, carried out before the Act, found that insurance (45%) and health and safety (38%) were already ranked as extremely significant barriers [15]. DBS uncertainty lands on top of an already stretched system.

We think that for the smallest employers the burden is administrative as much as financial: working out who counts as a supervisor, who has crossed the three-day line, whether a barred list check is possible, and how to apply, often without an HR team to do it [24]. We have not found a published measure of the time this takes, and we would welcome examples from members.

The question nobody is answering: family and friends

The 71% figure above matters for another reason. Most young people do not get their placement through a school or a placement organiser [15].

Our position paper asks national guidance to confirm what applies where the supervisor is the pupil’s own parent, carer or family member [12]. DBS guidance excludes activity in family relationships and personal, non-commercial relationships, but does not say how that applies to a placement at a relative’s workplace [3]. We have not found any other source that addresses the question.

We raise it because of what is known about who harms children. In the Crime Survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2016, about two-thirds of perpetrators of child sexual abuse were known to the child [20]. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse Truth Project found that 47% of abusers described by participants were family members, and that 42% of abuse happened in the family home and 15% at school, although participants chose to take part and the figures are not a representative sample [20]. The CSA Centre reports that most contact abuse of children by adults is by someone the child knows and trusts [21].

None of these figures concerns work experience, and none suggests that relatives are unsafe. We are not asking for checks to be extended to families. The point is narrower, and it is uncomfortable. The rules are built around adults a school does not know, yet the commonest route to a placement runs through the pupil’s own network. A rule cannot be the safeguard if it is silent on that route. Schools and employers deserve to be told what is expected.

Why the two-week promise depends on it

The government has said it wants every young person to have two weeks of work experience [25]. Just days before the CDI wrote on 2 October, it announced a National Mission on Work Experience to create 200,000 new placements [10]. The scale of the task is large. Education and Employers estimates that about six million days of placements a year are needed for under-16s alone [15]. The Youth Voice Census found that only 36% of secondary students had access to work experience, and commentators have said provision would need to roughly double [25][26].

Employers are the supply side of that ambition. Our view is that small and micro employers give young people the broadest experience, are the most exposed to the current confusion, and, once lost, are rarely won back [13]. A policy that needs far more placements cannot afford to lose the employers who already provide them. If the rules put employers off now, the two-week ambition becomes much harder to deliver.

What we are asking DfE for, and by when

We are not campaigning, and we are not asking anyone to take a side. We are asking for what any headteacher or employer would ask for: a clear answer, in plain English, from the people who wrote the rules. Our papers set out four practical requests [12][14]:

• formal recognition of the declaration-based approach our members already use as an acceptable way to meet the duty not to allow a barred person to take part;
• direct communication from government to employers, who are hearing about this change from schools and intermediaries rather than from those who wrote the rules;
• engagement with the AEBP network when guidance is written; and
• recognition of the due diligence our members have carried out for years as existing national infrastructure.

Our papers also name the gaps that national guidance should close: employers hosting pupils from several schools, cover when a named supervisor is absent, inconsistent advice from regional DBS outreach teams, a parent, carer or family member as supervisor, virtual placements, and pupils with special educational needs who are accompanied by school staff [12].

Placements for summer 2027 are being planned now, and every week without a clear statement is a week in which more schools shorten placements and more employers decide it is not worth the trouble. We read the law as narrow. The confusion is not. The people who will pay for it are Year 10 pupils, aged 14 and 15, waiting to find out whether anyone will let them through the door.

If you are a school or an employer unsure what to do about a placement, reach out to your local education business partnership. Its team knows your area and your employers, and AEBP members have carried out due diligence on placements for years [14]. We would also like to hear what you are seeing.

References

1. Disclosure and Barring Service, Change to the definition of regulated activity with children from 1 September 2026, GOV.UK, published 4 August 2026, updated 4 September 2026. Link
2. Disclosure and Barring Service, Regulated activity with children: myth busting the September 2026 supervision exemption changes, GOV.UK, published 25 August 2026, updated 4 September 2026. Link
3. Disclosure and Barring Service, Regulated activity with children (guidance leaflet), GOV.UK, updated 17 September 2026. Link
4. Browne Jacobson (Vicky Wilson), KCSiE 2026: work experience supervision, 17 July 2026. Link
5. Farrer & Co, Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026: a practical guide for schools, 1 September 2026. Link
6. Veale Wasbrough Vizards (Richard Hewitt), Changes to the definition of regulated activity with children, 17 September 2026. Link
7. Unlock (Debbie Sadler), DBS checks and work experience: what the new regulated activity rules actually mean, 22 October 2026. Link
8. Ardea Education Advisory (Rob Cooper), When does work experience become regulated activity?, 10 September 2026. Link
9. Careers & Enterprise Company, Crime and Policing Bill and KCSIE: implications for work experience (briefing, September 2026). Link
10. Career Development Institute (CDI), David Morgan, Do new safeguarding rules put the work experience mission at risk?, 2 October 2026. Link
11. Tes (John Roberts), Heads warn of major threat to government’s work experience plans, 1 October 2026. Link
12. AEBP, position paper on work experience, regulated activity and KCSiE 2026 (final), shared with members, October 2026.Link
13. AEBP, impact and scale summary (final), shared with members, October 2026. Link
14. AEBP, due diligence and scale summary (final), shared with members, October 2026. Link
15. Education and Employers, Work Experience: Past, Present and Future, June 2026. Link
16. Disclosure and Barring Service, DBS reduces fees for checks and Update Service from 5 October 2026, GOV.UK. Link
17. CBS Screening, DBS fees fall on 5 October 2026. Link
18. Buzzeo, J. and Cifci, M., Careers education in England’s schools and colleges: what works, work experience, Careers & Enterprise Company, 2017. Link
19. Education and Employers, Work experience: impact and delivery, insights from the evidence, 2012. Link
20. Surrey and Sussex Association for Child Protection Awareness (SACPA), Child sexual abuse: what the data tells us about perpetrators and victims, 21 April 2023, summarising ONS Crime Survey for England and Wales (year ending March 2016) and IICSA Truth Project data (August 2021). Link
21. Centre of expertise on child sexual abuse (CSA Centre), Key messages: child sexual abuse perpetrated by adults. Link
22. Matthew Hodgkinson, The Changing Education Group, LinkedIn post, 20 October 2026. Link
23. Stephen Hackney, Changing Education, LinkedIn post, 27 October 2026. Link
24. Katy Davies, Cap Air Systems, LinkedIn post, 15 October 2026. Link
25. Education Development Trust, The Youth Guarantee: how will an entitlement to two weeks’ work experience for young people be achieved?, 27 February 2025. Link
26. FE Week, The 50-hour work experience policy: ambition versus reality, 29 March 2025. Link
27. Kingsley Napley LLP, letter to the Secretary of State for Education on behalf of Unifrog, 14 October 2026 (not published; used with permission).
28. Department for Education, Keeping children safe in education 2026, statutory guidance in force from 1 September 2026, paragraphs 406 to 410. Link
29. Department for Education, Keeping children safe in education 2025, statutory guidance, paragraphs 332 to 337.Link
30. Institute for Fiscal Studies, Are the kids alright? The early careers of education leavers since the COVID-19 pandemic, January 2023. Link
31. Rob Cooper, Ardea Education Advisory, LinkedIn post, 16 October 2026. Link The series continues on the Ardea Education Advisory Facebook page: Post 1, We Love Regulated Activity, ; Post 2, DBS? Why the sudden fuss?, ; Post 3, Making informed decisions, ; Post 4, The Employers’ Perspective,
32. AEBP, placement total across the responding member organisations, updated figure, 28 October 2026.
33. Stephen Hackney, Changing Education, LinkedIn post, 13 October 2026, with a comment from Rob Cooper, Ardea Education Advisory. Link