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

@bluegoosie That they were well-behaved was great.
But were they inquisitive?
Did they ask questions?
Were they thinking independently?
Or had the joy of living been sucked out of them?
These draconian methods often work by absolutely crushing the minds and spirits, and by forcing repetitive content down students' throats.
This may work well for GCSEs, but is unlikely to work as well at uni.

I am not an academic, but I know quite a few academics who complain of this very thing.

Using your same logic:

why on earth should a firm change its ethos when it is one of the most successful and most of its clients and employees seem to be happy?
Only because one or 2 women complained they were abused by their bosses??
Please - surely that's not a valid reason, right?

@SeaSwim5 Shame, shame, shame on you!

There will always be a few bad apples in any organisation. I have no doubt that there will be a few staff at Mossbourne who (largely many years ago) have behaved inappropriately.

However, just as one or two rogue employees doesn’t require a company to change its whole culture, a very successful school should not change its whole ethos due to one-off incidents.

If ca. 300 people come forward, all with similar complaints, then you can no longer dismiss it as one-off incidents involving a couple of bad apples!!!!

Also: even if it were just one or two isolated incidents, if the organisation does nothing to address the problems and ensure they cannot happen again then, yes, the whole ethos must change.

If one or two teachers had behaved inappropriately, and if the school had promptly dealt with those incidents and ensured they cannot happen again, we would not have had 300ish people coming forward!!!

Instead it all came from the very top, because the school held seminars on how to instil "healthy fear" FFS!!!!

This nonsense has already been answered in the previous pages of this thread.

Crucially, the parents who defended the school did NOT deny the allegations!!!

They didn't say: "I know those 300 people are all lying and I can prove it".

No - their attitude is a combination of:
" It didn't happen to my child so I don't give a flying fig if it happened to other people" and "Even if it happened to my child I don't care, because exam results are good".

Can you or can you not see the difference???

To make some historical parallels, think of the institutionalised abuse at boarding schools. Think of how many parents didn't care. Think of how many parents dismissed it with similar arguments to yours. Think of how Earl Spencer opened up about his own experience https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-68607134

SHAME ON YOU!

You and people like you are acting as enablers for this kind of abuse!

Like I have said, I suspect the one and only way you lot will ever understand is if either you or your loved ones have their mental health wrecked by this kind of abuse.

If 300 people come forward with serious allegations of abuse at my child's school, my first reaction is not: "how dare they challenge the notion that my child's school is perfect?". My first reaction is: "I need to understand if my child was affected and what really happened, but this remains serious even if my child wasn't affected directly".

It is truly disheartening to see how many parents don't care.

It’s never one or two bad apples! We know this from the police and others who have covered up knowing that there’s a crate or 10 of bad apples. Teachers who like authority in these schools are not necessarily empathetic people. The ethos suits them and enables them to be more draconian than is acceptable. As in the police, top brass turns a blind eye because it suits them too.

The bottom line is that local schools should be for local dc and they are a mixed bunch. Schools know this and should be responsive to needs. That doesn’t mean they don’t have rules but they should be fair and evenly applied.

If it is only "a few middle class parents in the media" (what class does a parent need to be to ask for their child to be protected?) do you think the CHCSP has missed this and committed to 6 months or more of work for nothing? Or is it more likely that with over 340 people raising the alarm, of which "over 300 accounts relate to the two secondary academies in Hackney, and include 90 ex-students and 30 professionals"... perhaps they think there is probably a wider problem?

Depends on how success is judged. Many schools are just as successful at getting dc through exams but have far fewer dissatisfied parents. This is because they are able to have an ethos that makes most dc fit in. We all know some dc are going to struggle in many schools but being intolerant is not going to help any child.

What are these “many” schools that have exam results as good as Mossbourne with a similar demographic?

It's a fairly usual response rate for surveys.

You have basically just said that you think there is a cohort of children who need abusive draconian 'discipline ' in order to get good exam results. Wow. You have also just said you don't care if some children are treated abusively at school, as long as exam results are good. Double wow.

My local secondary school doesn't get the stellar results that Mossbourne does. It does however provide every child with the opportunity to maximise their potential in the context of firm,fair discipline. If families don't want to take that opportunity- well, that's their choice and their responsibility. Families who do support their children to succeed get the good results. But children aren't abused and managed out to make the stats look better.

@ParentOfOne

Their behaviour went beyond "well-behaved". The kids from the other two schools were what I thought well-behaved teenagers should be like.
The Mossbourne group's behaviour (not as a reflection of the kids individual) made a lot of staff a bit...uncomfortable.
Kids move, they fidget, they raise their hands, they look at their friends, they look at their teacher. There was none of that from the Mossbourne group. That's why I remember it.

The more I think about what I witnessed, the more I think the media articles are not exaggerating or talking about isolated incidents. This happened years before the expose.

I think behaviour policy is really important in schools. If the kids are consistently misbehaving you cannot teach and they cannot learn. However there is a difference between having a good behavioural policy and exerting control through fear.

Personally, I had a really bad experience in primary school. Our school's ethos was that being late was a sin. I had to go to the emergency dentist one morning and my parents forgot to inform the school. I was drag up onto the stage at assembly because I was late, and shouted out for 10 minutes in front of the whole school. The staff member (always the same person) made derogatory comments about my habits, my personality, my abilities. I spent the rest of the day shaking and my break time crying the toilet ( I was not allowed to cry in lessons, or I would lose my break time).

This was the standard procedure for all late comers. I witnessed it almost every week and I thought it was normal. Bear in mind some late comers are children in reception and they got the same treatment.

I spent a lot of time as child wondering why it upset me so much. Every other late comer seemed to just get on with their life, why couldn't I?

Now as an adult I realise just what a terrible thing it was to do to a 9 year old girl. I feel awful that the school staff just went along with this, I cannot fathom what was going on inside the minds of the adults in that room.

I still have anxiety and I am generally an anxious person. I went to a nurturing secondary school and it really helped me. I do always wonder what kind of person I would be if this never happened to me.

The things I have read about Mossbourne really disturb me because I wonder what kind of psychological impact those policies will have on the young people for the rest of their lives.

By definition your local school doesn’t allow every child to maximise their potential.

Like it or not, GCSE results play a key role in determining life chances and happiness. Mossbourne does a fantastic job of allowing DC who are in many cases from disadvantaged backgrounds to maximise these.

Interestingly, there is another Ofsted report out this morning showing what happens when schools aren’t strict on behaviour and get out of control.

This school has very similar demographics to Mossbourne:

”Disruption spoils many lessons and pupils worry about the behaviour and conduct of others… Pupils have not had a positive experience of school.”

”Some pupils do not feel at ease in school because of the boisterous or disrespectful behaviour of others. Derogatory language is far too common. Many pupils do not behave well, meaning learning is regularly disrupted throughout the school day.”

”The education pupils receive has not resulted in treating adults and each other with respect.”

”In lessons, disruption is frequent and, as a result, pupils feel anxious or uncomfortable.”

It absolutely does. There comes a point where parents have to take responsibility for their child's learning and behaviour. At my local school, that is what happens. At Mossbourne, the children who don't engage are managed out. My local school does not do that.

Meanwhile every child who wants to do their best has that opportunity, with GCSE booster classes not just for those scraping a pass, but for those sitting at a 6 and wanting push for better. And all without instilling fear, because instead of fear, there is respect.

The issue with that approach is that 29 parents take responsibility for their DC’s behaviour, but all it takes is 1 not to do so to ruin learning for the rest.

There comes a point where the interests of the majority have to be put first, which is what Mossbourne does.

Could you share the link?

I live locally to Mossbourne and it's v widely acknowledged that it's brilliant for some children but that there are always a few who just can't cope with the v rigorous discipline.

Here: files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50272080

So that school is getting it wrong. As is Mossbourne. As I have said, there is a middle ground. Unless you believe that children from a certain demographic must be treated abusively in order to succeed?

@SeaSwim5 Cherrypicking much?
Your proof that draconian discipline and abuse would be necessary for academic excellence is... that a single school with poor behaviour struggles academically?

Circa 20% of London's secondary schools are outstanding. Look at a map here
https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/interactive-map-shows-every-outstanding-29885666

Among these schools, many are in areas like Hackney, which have gentrified, and whose catchment now includes a mix of affluence and deprivation.

Not all these schools hold seminars on how to instil fears, nor need to resort to the institutionalised abuse of Mossbourne.

I ask again : why do you think abuse is necessary in order to have reasonable discipline?

Do you not see how this map proves you wrong?

Oh, and this is without getting into the fact that Ofsted ratings are bull.
Do you know that Holland Park School had been rated outstanding? That Ofsted inspectors had completely missed the institutionalised abuse that was going on there? That a subsequent inspection after the public outcry failed the school? What do you make of that? Please, do tell.

Again, if 300 people come forward, all with the same accusations of institutionalised abuse, you can no longer dismiss it as one or two troublemakers!!

There are many areas in London where the immigrant community achieve highly but are not from well off families. The schools get shed loads of PP money and parents keen on education find dc well served by such a school. It’s cultural to them to expect good learning habits. However the methods used to achieve this doesn’t suit everyone. That’s where the problem lies. It’s a community school that shuns some of its community.

No children should be treated abusively. However, it is common sense that a specific approach is needed for schools with high levels of deprivation. Many of these DC will have a lack of boundaries and structure at home, so schools need to provide these.

It’s all very well saying that top private schools don’t use the Mossbourne method, but these have a totally different demographic.

I have used an example of a single school (where the Ofsted report happened to be published this morning), but there are hundreds of schools serving deprived areas where behaviour is out of control and DC aren’t getting the education they deserve.

In fact, here is another even worse example from last week (this particular school has never achieved a good rating):

”Pupils’ behaviour is poor during social times and on corridors. Too many pupils miss lessons and wander around the building. A significant minority of pupils do not treat staff or peers with respect. Pupils say they feel less safe during these times.”

”Pupils’ behaviour during unstructured times, and on the corridor when they opt out of lessons, is poor. This disrupts pupils’ learning and makes others feel less safe in school.”

I wasn't comparing Mossbourne with top private schools.

Open the link and the map I sent you : ca 20% of London's STATE secondaries are outstanding. Again, many of these are in areas very similar to Mossbourne.

You lot like to talk about Mossbourne as if it served the most deprived area in the country. It does not. It serves one of the many areas of London which used to be rougher, has gentrified and is now a mix of affluence and deprivation. We are NOT talking about those areas of the country, like Bradford, where you have secondary school kids who struggle to read https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2025-03-10/the-gcse-pupils-being-taught-the-alphabet-amid-literacy-crisis

So, again, why do so many STATE schools manage to be outstanding without serving the kids of plutocrats and without resorting to the institutionalised abuse of Mossbourne, Holland Park etc? Why? How do you explain it?

Your examples are irrelevant cherrypicking.
All they show is that poor behaviour is linked to poor academic results. No s*#@, Sherlock.
They do NOT show that abuse and fear are the only way to achieve discipline and good academic results.
In fact, the many outstanding schools which achieve those results WITHOUT those methods prove the very opposite, ie that those methods are not necessary!!

You still don't need to scream and create a culture of fear to counteract the behaviour. Strong discipline, constructive use of isolation (I.e where a dual school work is done under teacher supervision ), strict uniform policy (but with affordable uniform available from the high street with minimal logos available at cost) - all of that works with no abuse or fear required.

Really, you are saying that some children deserve abuse. That's shocking.