Well it isn't just prejudice:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/d0e69ac71ae72c99
Teenager Mohammed Umar Khan racked up 130 incidents involving violence, weapons and aggression in a few short years at his secondary school in Sheffield.
He was known to carry a knife, had been reported by other pupils as having brought a BB gun on a school trip, and on one occasion, off the school site, an axe was found in his bag.
Faced with a catalogue of appalling behaviour, Silverdale School would have been well within its rights – indeed, some might argue it was duty-bound – to permanently exclude the boy.
But that is not what happened. Instead, in what appeared to be an attempt to avoid blemishing Khan’s record with an expulsion, he was quietly moved to another mainstream secondary school in Sheffield via what is known as a “managed move”. Within four months of starting at All Saints Catholic High School, he had stabbed fellow pupil Harvey Willgoose, 15, to death.
Harvey Willgoose, above, was murdered at his school in Sheffield by a pupil whose record featured 130 incidents involving violence, weapons and aggression Credit: South Yorkshire Police
Families with school-age children would be forgiven for assuming that violent pupils who pose a threat to staff and students are permanently excluded from mainstream schools and put into other settings – such as pupil referral units (PRUs) or alternative provision schools – so that specialised staff can attempt to address their obvious problems.
While this does happen – around 9,000 pupils are permanently excluded each year, and many of them end up in specialist units – it is only part of the story. Under the managed moves process of “voluntary, preventative” transfers, thousands more young people with challenging and sometimes dangerous behaviour are euphemistically given a “fresh start” at another mainstream school.
Underlying this hidden system of transfers is the conviction of so-called progressives in education that the interests of the “vulnerable” – who, for them, are always victims of their circumstances – trump those of the rule-following majority, even if it puts other children in harm’s way.
Litany of horrors
Willgoose is not the only student to have been murdered by a classmate put into their school by a managed move.
In 2023, 16-year-old transgender pupil Brianna Ghey, who attended Birchwood High School in Warrington, was stabbed 28 times in a “ferocious” attack in a park by her schoolmate Scarlett Jenkinson and her friend Eddie Ratcliffe, who were both 15 at the time. Jenkinson had been transferred from Culcheth High School to Birchwood as an alternative to being expelled after she “spiked” a 13-year-old pupil with cannabis-laced sweets.
Jenkinson’s trial heard that, from the age of 14, the girl had enjoyed watching videos of real killing and torture on the dark web, fantasised about murder and developed an interest in serial killers.
Brianna Ghey, 16, was murdered by her schoolmate Scarlett Jenkinson, who had been the subject of a ‘managed move’ as an alternative to expulsion Credit: Family handout/PA
In another horrific incident in April 2024, a 13-year-old girl stabbed two teachers and a fellow pupil in Ysgol Dyffryn Aman school, in Carmarthenshire, Wales. The pupil, who was subsequently sentenced to 15 years’ detention for attempted murder, joined the school in 2022 from another secondary.
In the safeguarding review of the case carried out by the county council, it emerged that, at her old school, the child had been caught with a BB gun in her bag. Although the report does not spell out a managed move, there is no indication that the child was expelled from the first school for possession of the weapon.
Before her first year at her new school was out, the teenager had threatened to use a knife on another pupil. The safeguarding report says that “agreement was reached with her father” to conduct bag checks. A knife was subsequently discovered in September 2023, resulting in a four-day suspension. Various mental health interventions were made. Five months later, the child embarked on a stabbing spree, with near-fatal consequences.
A knife was found in the bag of a 13-year-old pupil at Ysgol Dyffryn Aman school in Wales, a few months before she stabbed two teachers and a fellow pupil Credit: Wales News Service Ltd
Underpinning the process of managed moves is the Fair Access Protocol, which was written into the statutory School Admissions Code in 2022 as part of an attempt to force reluctant academies to take their fair share of difficult students.
Further bolstering it, however, is the intense pressure on schools to bring down their exclusion rates and be more “inclusive”. Charities, pressure groups, think tanks, local authorities, various MPs and the Children’s Commissioner for England all campaign against the use of exclusion. Some are against the practice altogether, others want it employed less often. Hackney council in north London, for example, has guidance under the banner “No need to exclude”.
The issue was in the spotlight as teachers gathered for NASUWT’s annual conference in Birmingham on April 3 and 4, when the teaching union warned that 70 per cent of its members identified “pupil behaviour” among their top concerns, and Matt Wrack, the body’s general secretary, declared that “teachers do not join the profession to be bodyguards”.
Parenting to blame
Yet, while unions raise concerns about deteriorating behaviour in classrooms in one breath, in the next they call for the ultimate disciplinary sanction of permanent exclusions to be used less.
The anti-exclusion lobby points to the link between getting kicked out of school and problems later in life, such as ending up in prison. It is estimated that around 60 per cent of permanently excluded and multiple-suspended pupils will not then be in education or work by the time they are 24.
Many expelled pupils who are then sent to PRUs or special schools for children with social and emotional problems – or even privately tutored, paid for by the local authority – have difficult backgrounds, and some are known to social services because of abuse or neglect.
Research has clearly shown that dysfunctional home lives are the breeding ground for later behavioural problems in school. But campaigners prefer to blame the moment of exclusion – not the child’s parenting and their appalling behaviour, bad choices, inability to control themselves and tendency to make life hell for those around them – for their poor outcomes.
Early signs of Labour’s direction of travel on this was provided in January, when the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said that pupils who receive a suspension should not automatically be sent home. Instead, there should be “internal suspensions” which allow non-violent pupils to remain on site – resulting in yet another way in which schools, rather than parents, are forced to shoulder the responsibility for dealing with unruly children.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said in January that pupils who receive a suspension should not automatically be sent home Credit: Andrew Matthews/PA Wire
While local and national data on the number and characteristics of suspended and permanently excluded children is currently collected, published and scrutinised, no single body has a clear picture of the number of children who are “managed moved” to different schools and what the outcomes in such cases are.
Hidden beneath the exclusion statistics are “numerous unseen ways” that children are moved around the system, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research. A Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the 153 local authorities in England made by The Telegraph asking for their most up-to-date figures has revealed that the majority of councils have no idea how many managed moves are being carried out in their area, describing them as “arrangements between schools”.
In the 38 councils that did provide data (for either the 2023/24 or 2024/25 academic year), a total of 2,995 secondary pupils were “managed moved” to another mainstream school – an average of 79 individuals per council. The range spanned from one student in Slough to 316 in Sefton, Merseyside (which provided figures for 2024/25) and 333 in Sandwell, West Midlands (which provided figures for 2023/24).
Keeping children engaged in education
A spokesman for Sefton council said: “While Sefton’s managed move figures may appear higher, it is important to view them in a local context. In Sefton, managed moves are fully integrated within our in‑year admissions process, which is coordinated centrally by the local authority. This differs from the approach taken by many other local authorities, where managed moves are often arranged between schools.”
This system means the council is “able to ensure that children spend significantly less time out of education,” the spokesman said, by avoiding delays “that can occur when pupils are excluded or remain without a school place for extended periods.”
“These decisions are taken carefully, with the child’s educational needs, wellbeing. and long‑term outcomes in mind, and only where it is agreed that a fresh start in another mainstream setting offers the best opportunity for success,” they added, referring to managed moves as a “positive, preventative measure” and “an alternative to permanent exclusion where it is safe and appropriate to do so.”
“Our priority is to keep children engaged in education, supported appropriately,” the spokesman said, adding that each managed move is supported by “multi‑agency panel oversight and ongoing monitoring to ensure that pupils receive the right support at their new school.”
Sandwell Council did not respond to a request for comment.
Extrapolating across all 153 authorities, the number of managed moves surpasses the number of permanent exclusions in England. Department for Education figures for 2024/25 are yet to be published, but 9,376 pupils were expelled in 2022/23, rising to 10,885 in 2023/24. Based on the data from the local authorities that did have figures, the total number of pupils being quietly transferred from one mainstream school to another might be as high as 12,000 per year.
Information from some of the 38 councils that provided data reveals that serious behavioural problems explain the majority of these moves. In the 109 cases in Durham, for instance, some of the causes included “weapons brought into school, drugs brought into school or associated drug-related issues and constant disruption”.
Risk to the welfare of others
Schools in Luton moved nine primary pupils and 94 at secondary level (all to other mainstream schools). The council said that in five primary cases, pupils had “significant levels of challenging behaviours, suspensions and in all cases a breakdown in relationship with the school.”
At secondary level, 49 of the pupils transferred to another mainstream school were “on a pathway to permanent exclusion”. Even more worryingly, 28 were deemed a “risk to welfare of others”. Non-attendance, rule breaking, disruptive behaviour and peer-to-peer abuse were also catalogued.
In Peterborough, the reasons recorded for transferring 21 pupils to other schools included, “risk of permanent exclusion or to prevent the accumulation of suspensions which could lead to a permanent exclusion, a one-off serious incident, serious misconduct, physical assault, threatening behaviour and persistent disruptive behaviour.”
Meanwhile, in Enfield, north London, the reasons for 64 managed moves included sexual misconduct, physical assault, the use of an “offensive weapon or prohibited item” and verbal abuse/threatening behaviour (against both adults and children).
Increasingly in education, the word “vulnerable” is applied to these students. Many have a dysfunctional background or special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Diagnosis of conditions such as ADHD are common among them because the checklist for diagnosis is primarily behaviour-driven and these children do, indeed, display behaviour such as difficulty sustaining attention, impulsive actions and “emotional dysregulation”.
But Iain Mansfield, head of education at think tank Policy Exchange, argues that inclusion is being “weaponised”.
“It is unacceptable that these policies are being used to quietly move violent and disruptive pupils from one school to another – placing innocent children at risk,” he says.
Laura Trott, the shadow education minister, agrees: “Too many local authorities are pushing a misguided inclusion agenda,” she says. “In London, [the Mayor] Sadiq Khan is encouraging schools to sign up to an inclusion charter. Policies like this are failing children.”
‘Too many local authorities are pushing a misguided inclusion agenda,’ says shadow education minister Laura Trott Credit: Clara Molden
Department for Education guidance published last year states that a managed move should only take place “when it is in the child’s best interests” and with the agreement of their families. Scant consideration is given to the interests of the pupils in the school that is receiving a teenager who is constantly disruptive or aggressive and violent.
Former education minister Nick Gibb says managed moves should not be used as an alternative to permanent exclusion. “Managed moves are a good idea for particular children who may have been bullied, for instance, or who have just not settled at a particular school or have had an unfortunate incident that they can’t get over,” he says.
“What they should not be used for is dealing with children with severe behavioural problems and special needs, for whom there is specialist provision. Special schools for children with social, emotional and mental health issues and PRUs both have expertise in supporting those children.”
Information not shared
Any managed move is supposed to be underpinned by “comprehensive and timely information sharing between the originating and receiving schools”. This should include, says the guidance, “any relevant risk management strategies”. While this term is not explained, it seems to be referring to measures a school can take to contain behaviour, rather than any assessment of the risk that a pupil might pose to children and staff at the receiving school.
In the tragic case of Willgoose, a report examining the events that led to his murder has highlighted several safeguarding shortfalls. The report was commissioned by St Clare Catholic Multi Academy Trust, of which All Saints Catholic High School, where Willgoose was stabbed, is a member.
The trust has refused to publish the report in full, even when challenged by an FOI inquiry by this newspaper. It has made public a series of recommendations, however. It seems clear from these that information sharing between Silverdale and St Clare schools, and the assessment of the risk that Khan posed, were woefully inadequate.
Police officers and floral tributes outside All Saints Catholic High School in Sheffield, following the death of 15-year-old Harvey Willgoose Credit: Jacob King/PA Media
Sheffield council is about to publish its own safeguarding review of the incident. In response to The Telegraph’s FOI request, the local authority said 132 secondary pupils were “managed moved” last year, but did not provide information on the reasons for the transfers.
Yogi Amin, the head of public law and human rights at Irwin Mitchell, which represents Harvey’s family, said that, although there had been discussions between the two schools about Khan, it did not amount to adequate data sharing.
“The review said the schools were not properly communicating with each other about what they knew to allow an appropriate plan of action to be in place to address the behavioural issues,” he tells The Telegraph. “That is, in my view, a safeguarding failure. If it is a safeguarding failure, it means the schools are not following the statutory guidance, which means it is unlawful.”
He said that while it might be incumbent on a school to explore the option of a managed move, “exploring it doesn’t mean doing it”.
“If the schools had followed statutory guidance they might have realised that the reports of weapons and violence were serious matters in their own right,” the solicitor says. “They might have realised that there was a wider picture, and an opportunity to take action which might have been ‘No, he’s not joining our school’.”
Amin believes better record-keeping is essential; if carrying weapons is simply recorded as a “behaviour issue”, how can other children be kept safe?
Managing, not punishing
In 2024 there were 1,304 offences involving knives or sharp objects at schools and sixth form colleges in England and Wales, according to police forces. At least 10 per cent were committed by primary school-aged children. The data shows that the number of more serious offences recorded – for example, violence rather than possession – is rising.
Conservative attempts to introduce a “one knife and you’re out” rule into Labour’s schools bill failed.
“Knives in schools are a serious and growing threat,” says Trott. “This cannot be tolerated.”
Mark Lehain, executive headteacher at Wootton Academy Trust, in Bedford, insists schools must have a full picture of a new student’s behavioural history to assess if extra measures are needed to integrate them, or indeed if they can be safely admitted at all.
“I’m lucky to work in an area where heads and the local authority work together really well and share information around student moves,” he says. “Importantly, there is no pressure to avoid expelling students when needed. This is vital to keep everyone safe, including the expelled students’ future schools. Sadly this isn’t the case everywhere, and schools are left admitting disruptive or dangerous children without full understanding.”
One headteacher, who asked not to be named, insists that permanent exclusion is absolutely the last resort, but says that the acronym PEX – the shorthand for permanent exclusion – on a child’s record “is an important indication to every teacher or member of staff that subsequently comes into contact with that child”. Those dealing with a managed move do not have the benefit of this clear signal.
In late 2025, a survey of teachers across the UK, conducted for the education magazine TES, found that the majority identified student behaviour – from low-level disruption, disrespect and defiance to more severe behavioural issues – as their biggest challenge.
Teachers reported a lack of support from leadership teams, ineffective behaviour policies and a reluctance to take strong action on behaviour where appropriate, leaving overworked teachers to deal with unruly children and their often-difficult families.
Making it even harder, at a time when special-needs diagnoses are soaring, is the increasingly widespread view that poor behaviour is something to manage, not punish. One of the fastest-growing categories of SEND, alongside autism, is children categorised as having “social, emotional and mental health” issues. Until recently, that official category was called “social, emotional and behaviour” issues.
Growing pressure against expulsions
According to David Spencer, head of crime and justice at Policy Exchange, too often parents, children and teachers are “expected to tolerate abusive, violent or disruptive children in schools and classrooms”.
“This is partly as a result of pressure from progressive activists who seem to believe that the rights of a small, unruly – and sometimes criminal – group should override the rights of the law-abiding majority,” he says.
Gibb thinks behaviour in schools is now, overall, better than it was 20 years ago, thanks to academies, many of which have strict behaviour policies that bring order to classrooms.
He is clear, though, that this is not true of all schools. Behaviour hubs, launched by the Conservative government in 2021, were designed to provide resources and training to schools struggling with poor behaviour, and the idea has been adopted by Labour.
The Government’s recent White Paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, commits to rolling out 90 attendance and behaviour hubs with the capacity to give 3,000 schools training programmes and help, including “intensive support” for those in the most acute difficulty.
But with “inclusion” at its heart, the plan is likely to put heads under even more pressure not to use the ultimate sanction. Schools have been told that they will be provided with data on suspensions and permanent exclusions to “review their outcomes against similar schools”. In other words, if your exclusions are too high, we will be targeting you.
The White Paper also promises an “internal review” to look at how managed moves are carried out, and why children are leaving their schools in the first place, to ensure that “vulnerable children do not miss out on education or end up with support that does not meet their needs”.
As is par for the course, the primary focus will be on the needs of pupils with challenging behaviour, rather than the interests of the unfortunate children in their vicinity – until there are terrible consequences and it is too late.