Mossbourne Academies: investigations into alleged emotional harm and abuse. Why are needlessly strict academies unaccountable?

[ParentOfOne]

The Guardian has published a story https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/dec/07/london-academies-emotional-harm-mossbourne-schools-observer-investigation

about allegation of emotional harm and other forms of mistreatment at "one of the country's leading academy trusts", which runs the following schools in Hackney, North London: https://www.mossbourne.org/our-schools/

It is a follow up to a similar story, on the same topic, published a couple of weeks ago: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/nov/23/teachers-at-mossbourne-academy-in-hackney-screamed-at-and-humiliated-pupils-say-angry-parents

The previous story was based on testimonials from 30 parents, but now 70 parents, more than 30 former students and eight former teachers have come forward

"A dossier of allegations, shared with the Observer and sent to the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, included Mossbourne teachers being trained in “healthy fear” and “screaming” sometimes “centimetres apart” from children’s faces, several reports of children fainting in line-ups while being shouted at, and children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) being punished unfairly and “pushed out” to other schools. Many former students said they had suffered mental health issues due to being afraid in school which had lasted long after they left."

Here there were some discussions about how notoriously strict these schools were https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/5019841-mossbourne-community-academy-any-experiences but no one mentioned this kind of emotional abuse.

My opinion remains that:

• I hate how so many schools have become academies. That's a backdoor privatisation, with teachers being paid less, while the CEOs of these academy trusts earn more than many University vice-chancellors
• I hate that academies are de facto unaccountable to anyone
• It is false that academies do a better job. Some work well, some don't, but lack of transparency and accountability remain big issues. E.g. see academic research by the LSE https://www.lse.ac.uk/social-policy/Assets/Documents/PDF/Research-reports/Academies-Vision-Report.pdf .
• Academies are simply good at showing Ofsted what they want. If this kind of s* happens in a school rated Outstanding, it means ratings are useless
• I am all for strict discipline, and I will absolutely stand by the school if they punish my child for misbehaving. But I absolutely dread needlessly draconian rules, put together by sexually repressed headteachers who didn't get enough love from their mums, and who get off on exercising this kind of authority to crush their students' spirit. I had made some examples here: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/5168466-how-common-are-detentions-at-secondary?page=9&reply=138524258 where I also talked about a secondary school in London banning bicycles and giving detentions to students caught cycling to school

A school must be criticised in the same breath as screaming abuse in the face (as claimed) for not wanting 11 year olds pasted all over the road by HGVs in the morning?

We give out detentions for running across the road for the bus instead of using the crossing where it is at least less likely they'll get squished - there are damn good reasons for that, as some of the memorial trees on site bear testimony to. Fortunately, nobody at the council or parents took offence at the 'Don't try and ride a bike here, it's not safe'. Didn't need to add 'and chances are some scumbag would rob it off you in any case'.

I think that particular school sounds worse than most but it's all over. There are so many schools where it's one long round of petty rules and unpleasantness. It is no wonder there are (some) children who simply can't see the point in behaving.

"A school must be criticised in the same breath as screaming abuse in the face (as claimed) for not wanting 11 year olds pasted all over the road by HGVs in the morning?"

@NeverDropYourMooncup Of course shouting at children and banning bicycles are not the same thing, but there is a pattern:

• with the excuse that academies need to be free and autonomous from the shackles of local government, we have basically made them unaccountable to anyone
• Academies may not distribute profits but they are de facto privatised schools. They want to be oversubscribed and get good Ofsted ratings and test results. The easy way to do that is to put on a good show for Ofsted, even if it hides serious problems (The Outstanding rating in this case was a perfect example) and to come up with needlessly harsh rules which i) scare away the neurodiverse and the special needs children and ii) beat the rest into submission.
• When you create a system like that you are opening the door to these kind of abuses. In some cases the abuses may be less serious, like banning bicycles, in others they may be more serious, like shouting at children, but it's the same environment which makes these possible
• There were other examples in this thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/5168466-how-common-are-detentions-at-secondary?page=9&reply=138524258
• Ashcroft Academy created the policy banning bicycles before the school, in its current form, even existed. See https://road.cc/content/news/s-london-school-bans-knives-guns-drugs-and-bicycles-286243 That policy is driven by ideology, not by evidence. Most students live very close to the school. Sure, some roads are dangerous, but many students live close enough to be able to cycle safely. The point is that it's not up to the school to make this decision
• Other examples are Micaela school giving detentions for taking one second longer to get a pen out, or expecting students to speak standing up with their arms crossed, which is a silly habit they must unlearn once they graduate as it signals distance
• I fail to understand why some bootlickers think that these policies are justified and that getting rid of these excesses would cause the schools to precipitate into chaos. A school can still be strict on discipline without having sexually repressed headteachers getting off on checking the exact shade of grey of a pair of trousers or decreeing that students must wear blazers during a heatwave. That's not discipline, those are just stupid rules enforced by stupid people

I remember speaking to a woman primary school head who said that if you want to find Toxic Masculinity the best place to look is Secondary School heads.

It's not an abuse of children or parents to want kids alive and in registration.

If anybody had refused to listen to our 'Don't cycle', we'd have put it specifically in the behaviour policy as well. We were a maintained school - guess that makes it alright?

PS For those who say we have the options of sending our children elsewhere:

• in many parts of the country options are limited to non-existent
• regardless, as taxpayers we do not have the option not to fund these institutions. It is a basic rule of democracy to expect accountability and transparency on how public funds are spent. If these were private schools, let them come up with all kinds of crazy rules (as long as none are illegal). But when public funds are used it is perfectly sensible to demand more accountability. These academy trust CEOs shouldn't be allowed to do whatever the hell they want.

@JohnofWessex Other institutions, like the police forces, which apply pressure and influence over other people's lives have strict screenings in place to filter out those sick individuals who get off exercising this power over others. AFAIK no such screenings are in place for schools, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of these individuals were attracted to roles as heads of schools or trusts for this very reason. Of course I'm not saying they're all like that, I am just saying that the system has no provisions in place to filter out the people who are.

I am all for strict discipline, and I will absolutely stand by the school if they punish my child for misbehaving. But I absolutely dread needlessly draconian rules, put together by sexually repressed headteachers who didn't get enough love from their mums, and who get off on exercising this kind of authority to crush their students' spirit
How do you know so much about the teachers at the schools history?!

I don't think anyone is suggesting that encouraging children to travel safely is a bad idea. I think if, for instance, you were to disseminate that message by screaming at children that would be unacceptable. Equally, if you have a child who lives in an awkward location with a difficult bus journey but has chosen to cycle so they can actually get to school on time it would be kind of inappropriate to punish them for doing the best they can to get to school - while still making sure they understand any potential safer choices.

Have you read the article? It sounds awful. There is no way on earth I'd send my child to a school like that.

Erm with this additional post you're losing me as a sensible commentator....😕A school can still be strict on discipline without having sexually repressed headteachers getting off on checking the exact shade of grey of a pair of trousers
Wtf is up with you and obsession with the ht and sex life?!

"It's not an abuse of children or parents to want kids alive and in registration.
If anybody had refused to listen to our 'Don't cycle', we'd have put it specifically in the behaviour policy as well. We were a maintained school - guess that makes it alright?"

@NeverDropYourMooncup If parents think that the ride from their home to school is too dangerous, and/or that their child isn't ready to cycle that route safely, they should absolutely prohibit it. The point is not that, the point is: why on Earth should it be the school's job to dictate this and issue an universal ban for all?

I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if it is even legal for the school to dictate behaviour outside the school like that. A school can punish a child for unruly or antisocial behaviour on the way to school, but for cycling? Is that even legal?

I also invite you to read the local press article https://road.cc/content/news/s-london-school-bans-knives-guns-drugs-and-bicycles-286243 explaining that this ban was decided before the current school was even built; it is a ban driven by ideology, not by evidence, and goes against all guidelines from the Council and from TfL. But, hey, these schools are autonomous, right? So we taxpayers must pay up and shut up, because we must finance them but cannot demand any accountability.

I think that in another post I said something like "a head who didn't get enough love from his mummy". They are obvious, self-evident hyperboles to highlight the fact that these policies seem the kind of ideas that unstable and unbalanced individuals would come up with.

And, like I said in another reply, the police forces have screenings in place to filter out the sick individuals who may get off exercising capricious authority on other people. Schools do not.

I hope it's clearer now.

Children can equally be harmed by tolerating bad behaviour, especially by a few children who cause incredibly harm to all the others.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Can you please elaborate?

Are you one of those people who think that the only alternative to petty, capricious, needlessly draconian rules is anarchy and chaos?

It is perfectly possible to enforce discipline and to avoid chaos and anarchy without shouting at children (Mossbourne), without giving detentions to students caught cycling to school (Ashcroft) or without forcing students to wear blazers in a heatwave (many schools across the country). If you disagree, can you please explain why?

If instead you meant something else, can you please explain what you meant?

Aren’t Mossbourne and Ashcroft in the top 20 for progress 8 scores this year?

But does the end justify the means?

I would send my dc to one of these super-strict schools if we lived in catchment. The outcomes for the kids are amazing. Sadly we don’t have any comps like that near us so went for private/grammar instead.

Ashcroft is a very competitive school to get into with a specific ethos that they share openly. There are plenty of other options if you dont like the Ashcroft way.

This.
And comments about toxic masculinity of ht 🤦‍♀️

No, in your original post you said "sexually repressed".
Children get their attitudes to teachers from their parents.

OP, can you name a school which you think is doing a better job than Micheala? Which school is in your eyes a model for others to follow?

OK, I'll engage further.

Parents can and do also decide other things that can be dangerous for children are OK - buying them electric scooters, drinking, using drugs, going out with adult men, leaving them home alone. The fact that they are the biological parents does not make them automatically right and must be the sole arbiter of what is safe at all times.

Council staff can have motives related to ideology or personal performance targets that pay no attention to the realities on the ground. An example of this would be a council who has set certain targets for cycle use without considering the safety of anybody cycling or of pedestrians. Somebody planning a school, looking at the area, knowing the area, knowing what dickheads drivers are in the mornings, consulting experts on the transport strategy for the school (as they all have to determine how students will travel to them - it's what causes extensions of bus stops, increases in services, alterations in routes, for example) is perfectly capable of realising that whilst Nigel and Anna (Nigel, mostly) might think that it's perfectly fine for Barnaby to cycle into school, Nigel is six foot five and wearing lycra of a shade of orange roughly consistent with the light of a thousand suns, whilst Barnaby is four foot eleven, wears all black and won't be visible from the driving seat of an XC90 at 7.25am when the driver's youngest is kicking off in the back seat, never mind the HGVs and vans that also hammer it down there every day. And that the so called safe bus lane is actually full of parents dropping their kids off every morning, so said Barnaby would actually be weaving in and out of the vans and cars whilst avoiding being taken out by car doors.

Telling kids that their friend is dead is a really shitty part of the job. Really, really shitty. We don't want to have to do it. Each time, each call we have to make or receive, each empty chair, every time the MIS has to be updated to show a child is dead, the removal of their name from the register, reprinting the fire sheets so that nobody calls out a dead child's name, redoing seating plans, making the notification to the local authority, the inability to make it make sense and the faces of the kids, their families and your colleagues, each day dealing with the aftermath, is seared into your psyche forever.

There are many things that are terrible about some academies. But saying it's not safe so we will not permit cycling here, whatever the council says, is not one of the terrible things.

@Ubertomusic in the first post I had said both things. And I stand by that.

Petty capricious unjustified nonsensical rules are always a big red flag, in any environment: in school, at work, etc. And the people who come up with those have a tendency to be repressed and unstable.

I very much hope that my kids will learn a sceptical, critical attitude whereby they will learn to question what they're told, to ask "why? Where is the proof?" rather than switch off their brain and swallow whatever bull they're told. I very much hope that.

Nome of this means lax discipline. It is perfectly possible to have discipline without having petty capricious silly unnecessary rules. And without shouting at kids in order to crush their spirit into compliance.

There have been a couple of instances where our eldest was told off at school and we totally stood by the school.

A second teacher, who worked at MCA several years ago, attended a “shocking” teacher briefing about a “transition day” for primary pupils soon to move up. “We were told, if there was ever an opportunity, could we shout at the children and make them cry, so they felt frightened and intimidated ahead of starting in September,” he said.
Councillor Penny Wrout, who co-ran the parent campaign said: “We believe we have unearthed systemic emotional abuse of children over two decades.”
A father said his 10-year-old son was pulled out of the lunch queue on his year six transition day at MCA and “screamed at in front of everyone” about an alleged minor infringement of the school rules.
The father said: “He was put in a corridor on a chair facing the wall, scared and alone, and left for three hours. A senior leader stopped and told him he was disgusting.”
The father said his frightened son was also pushed to confess to “something he didn’t do”. When he collected him from school the boy was “deeply shaken and crying silently”. He did not return in September.

😧😧

That was difficult to read. Why did parents not take their children out of this hellhole? The example form the Guardian extract above is psychological torture. Thankfully the boy's parents had the sense t not send him back, I'm heartbroken for his experience during transition day. I know there is much worse that has been going on.

Hyperbole weakens your case rather than strengthening it.

I read that article, and as a teacher, was horrified by it. But this thread is not going to result in rational discussion while you're slinging stuff like this around.