Yes.
Removal is a recognised sanction, and the law’s default is that any paid member of staff may impose a sanction unless the head has specifically taken that away from them. DfE’s guidance describes removal as happening “at the instruction of a member of staff” — it does not reserve it to senior leaders. What needs the head’s explicit agreement is keeping a pupil out for a prolonged period, not the decision to remove in the first place.
updated 8 Jul 2026last checked 11 Aug 2026
What the source actually says
Start with the statute, because it is the part that decides who may act. A disciplinary penalty is lawful if three conditions are met, and the second is about who took the decision:
“The second condition is that the decision to impose the penalty on the pupil was made— (a) by any paid member of the staff of the school, except in circumstances where the head teacher has determined that the member of staff is not permitted to impose the penalty on the pupil, or (b) by any other member of the staff of the school, in circumstances where the head teacher has authorised the member of the staff to impose the penalty on the pupil and it was reasonable for the head teacher to do so.”
— Education and Inspections Act 2006, s.91(4), current text as revised legislation
The permission runs the opposite way to the way it is usually described in a staffroom: you have it unless it has been withdrawn from you. The same section sets the limits — the penalty must be “reasonable in all the circumstances” (s.91(3)(b)), and in judging that:
“(b) any special circumstances relevant to its imposition on the pupil which are known to the person imposing it (or of which he ought reasonably to be aware) including in particular— (i) the pupil’s age, (ii) any special educational needs he may have, (iii) any disability he may have, and (iv) any religious requirements affecting him.”
— Education and Inspections Act 2006, s.91(6), current text as revised legislation
DfE’s behaviour guidance then defines what removal is, and draws the line between it and simply having a word with someone outside the door:
“Removal is where a pupil, for serious disciplinary reasons, is required to spend a limited time out of the classroom at the instruction of a member of staff. This is to be differentiated from circumstances in which a pupil is asked to step outside of the classroom briefly for a conversation with a staff member and asked to return following this.”
— Behaviour in schools, DfE, February 2024, “Removal from classrooms”, p.22 DfE
Note “a member of staff”, not “a senior leader”. The guidance sets a threshold for using it, though — this is not a first move:
“Removal from the classroom should be considered a serious sanction.”
— Behaviour in schools, DfE, February 2024, p.22 DfE
“It should only be used when necessary and once other behavioural strategies in the classroom have been … attempted, unless the behaviour is so extreme as to warrant immediate removal.”
— Behaviour in schools, DfE, February 2024, pp.22–23; the ellipsis marks a page break in the captured PDF, with only the page number and footnotes between “have been” and “attempted”, not omitted words DfE
The single point at which the head’s sign-off is expressly required is length, and it is worth reading exactly:
“Pupils should not be removed from classrooms for prolonged periods of time without the explicit agreement of the headteacher.”
— Behaviour in schools, DfE, February 2024, p.24 DfE
Removal is also meant to be education elsewhere, not a corridor:
“The use of removal should allow for continuation of the pupil’s education in a supervised setting.”
— Behaviour in schools, DfE, February 2024, p.22 DfE
and there is one hard limit on what removal is not:
“ensure that pupils are never locked in the room of their removal”
— Behaviour in schools, DfE, February 2024, “When dealing with individual removal cases”, p.24 DfE
What the guidance does put on the head is the system, not the individual decision. Headteachers should:
“a) make clear in the school behaviour policy that removal may be used as a response to serious misbehaviour;”
— Behaviour in schools, DfE, February 2024, “Governance of removal”, p.23 DfE
Two things to keep straight about the status of that document. It is advice, not statutory guidance:
“This non-statutory guidance should not be taken as a complete or definitive statement of the law nor as a substitute for the relevant legislation.”
— Behaviour in schools, DfE, February 2024, p.4 DfE
So the power itself comes from s.91, and the removal framework around it is DfE’s advice on how to use that power well.
Finally, SEND does not sit outside this, in either direction:
“A school should not assume that because a pupil has SEND, it must have affected their behaviour on a particular occasion – this is a question of judgement for the school on the facts of the situation.”
— Behaviour in schools, DfE, February 2024, “Responding to the behaviour of pupils with Special Educational Needs and/or Disability (SEND)”, p.18 DfE
“The school should also consider whether any reasonable adjustments need to be made to the sanction in response to any disability the pupil may have.”
— Behaviour in schools, DfE, February 2024, p.18 DfE
A pupil’s SEND neither exempts them from removal nor can be ignored when you decide whether removing them is proportionate.
Your school may still require it
Your school can narrow this as much as it likes: the head may determine that a particular member of staff is not permitted to impose the penalty (s.91(4)(a)), and the behaviour policy can require you to call for a member of the senior team, use a named room, log the removal, or try specified strategies first. That is a school decision taken under the head’s own statutory power — it is not evidence that you lacked the power to begin with.
See also Can support staff issue detentions and sanctions?, Does my school have to have a behaviour policy? and Can a pupil be sent home to cool off?.