Table of Contents
Benedict’s Law sits at the intersection of both healthcare and safeguarding within schools.
In September 2026, Benedict’s Law, formally part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act
2026, became statutory for every school in England. Named after Benedict Blyth, who died
following an allergic reaction at school, the legislation introduces a formal allergy safety duty:
requiring schools to have clear, evidenced systems for identifying and managing pupils at risk of
anaphylaxis.
Understandably, most schools and leaders responded by reviewing their medical provisions:
where Adrenaline Auto-Injectors (AAIs) are stored, which children are at risk, and whether those
children can receive the care they need as quickly as possible.
Now, over a month into the new term, we’re hearing far less about schools that looked
carefully at their pastoral provisions. Could this be where an equally important conversation is
taking place? Is this where a gap is emerging?
Learnings: Free School Meals (FSM) in the 70s and 80s
Many of you reading this may be able to directly relate to this or know someone who can. Under
the Education Act of 1980, the government overhauled aspects of school life, turning canteens
into hyper-visible markers of personal and family poverty. What, clearly, wasn’t considered
almost 60 years ago was the pastoral implications of a political policy shift.
Research from the University of Sheffield revealed that students who received FSM in the 70s
and 80s experienced deep psychological trauma that shaped individuals’ eating habits and
mental well-being for decades, into adulthood.
Eligibility for FSM was means-tested, and systems of the day exposed a child’s socio-economic
status publicly. The canteen became a coliseum of humiliation, and children went to extreme
lengths to conceal their eligibility through fear of bullying and stigma.
There’s a risk that the changes in allergy awareness and preparedness in 2026 could likewise
result in a sizeable gap between intent and impact, a direct parallel with the canteen stigma
surrounding FSM in the 70s and 80s.
Where might the gap exist?
Benedict’s Law is health legislation that aims to support children with known and
yet-to-be-discovered allergies. What we know of allergies and stigma, already, is that we have
hundreds of thousands of children navigating medical conditions that stretch far beyond their
physical impacts.
A child with a severe allergy carries that medical condition into every part of their school day;
- The anxiety before a school trip
- Social dynamics in a lunch hall
- The relationship they have with a form tutor or teacher who they fear may be ill-equipped
to act accordingly in an emergency
None of this is captured in a medical record; instead, it’s deeply ingrained in pastoral relationships. The question we believe Benedict’s Law should be is this: do your healthcare andsafeguarding systems talk to each other?
The gaps
Those anxieties we discussed above are drivers. A pupil’s anxiety about their condition
escalates, and the pastoral team, who could have seen this compounding anxiety, likely had no
idea of the medical picture that was driving it.
Benedict’s Law creates an obligation to get the physical health side of the picture right. While
mentioning bullying and attempts to mitigate segregation based on allergies, it doesn’t go far
enough to close the gap between health and safeguarding data. This gap has to be closed via a
deliberate decision from school leaders to treat these as connected systems rather than
adjacent ones.
In most schools and Trusts, healthcare and safeguarding exist in separate silos. The medical
room knows which child needs an EpiPen, and the SENDCo knows which child has an EHCP.
At the same time, the DSL knows which child is on the child protection register, while the form
tutor knows which child is having a tough time at home.
So how does this relate to Benedict’s Law and allergies?
The guidance requires that relevant staff know which children have allergies and what to do in
emergencies. In the context of a child moving around school, “relevant staff” means anyone in a
position of responsibility for that child, which, by definition, is a pastoral requirement.
The guidance requires that care plans are updated, current and accessible to the right
people, at the right time.
Crucially, the guidance requires that schools and trusts evidence that their systems
work, and we believe this is where pastoral, safeguarding and medical teams will feel most
comfortable with this new guidance. The core skills of these healthcare professionals are rooted
in evidence-based practice, which helps narrow the gap between medical and pastoral teams
and facilitates their collaborative work.
A question for you
Benedict’s Law has given schools and trusts a statutory reason to assess their medical
processes and provisions, and the impact this has on allergy management will be significant.
If something happened to a child at your school tomorrow that wasn’t a medical emergency but
had been building quietly, would the right people have seen it coming? Would information have
been linked, connected and accessible?
To understand how CPOMS and Medical Tracker are working together and can support your setting, get in touch today.
Alex Oselton, Marketing Manager, medical Tracker
Alex Oselton, DipM ACIM, is a marketing leader with over eight years of experience in the global Edtech industry. Throughout his career, he's worked closely with education leaders, schools, councils and local authorities and is passionate about supporting innovation in education.
Medical Tracker is the UK's leading digital health management platform for schools and Multi-Academy Trusts. Trusted by more than 4,000 schools and 180+ MATs nationally, the platform gives every school a single, always-accessible record of every child's health needs, from first aid and medication management to SEND documentation, mental health and welfare logging, care plans and parent communication.
