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

Thank you for "seeing" this. I've heard a lot through my DC and friends that when they get to university their conditioned behaviour is noticed by their student peers. Their overly compliant behaviour and sometimes "fear" is noticed by the other students. Contrary to what Mossbourne claims on its website, a lot of them struggle with critical thinking at university because they have been conditioned to "learn for the test". I've heard a lot of feedback from ex Mossbourne pupils' experiences of being "let out" into the wider world.

*I'd edit my previous message if I could as I can't see a quote on the Mossbourne Community Academy website right now about teaching critical thinking.

@Proportionate That's a very good point.
The academics I know complain that their students are used to being taught to the test, but not to any kind of critical thinking.

A common pattern they see is students being able to answer questions and complete exercises they have seen multiple times, but panicking when asked things like: "you have studies this theory which is based on this assumption, but how do you think the theory would change if we change this assumption, and why?"

Repeating things seen multiple times yes.
Using your brain for a modicum of original thought no.

In fairness, this is a generic criticism, not specific to Mossbourne.

But it is well known that many of these draconian schools insist on a very repetitive style of teaching (which would have made me lose the will to live).

There are some examples in a previous thread about Micaela school: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/4661381-michaela-school-experiences?reply=121030355&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

T : The adjective 'monotonous' is in line 8. 'Monotonous' is an adjective which means very dull and boring' . Underline 'monotonous'.
STUDENTS UNDERLINE
T : We now know that monotonous means dull and boring. What does 'monotonous' mean, class?
STUDENTS PUT HANDS UP. Teacher chooses Saurav
Saurav : 'Monotonous' is and adjective which means very dull and boring, Miss.
I am not making this up.
We have had students leave that school to come to ours. They suffer considerable culture shock at being asked to think for themselves and self regulate behaviour.

My view is that the current GCSE curriculum and assessment is far too focused on memorisation at the expense of critical thinking skills.

However, that is the system we have and Mossbourne are right to maximise their students’ outcomes within it.

Depends if it squashes spontaneity and personality though. These are desirable attributes. Having a lively conversation and a bit of fun at school with “characters” you remember forever is never a bad thing. It’s far better prep for life when you have to deal with all sorts of people and work with them.

@TizerorFizz Spot on.
This reminds me of some ex-military people I have seen struggling in the corporate world.

They were so used to the rigid hierarchy and discipline of military life that they struggled to understand that the corporate world is different, that people won't necessarily rush into a (figurative) fight clenching a knife in their teeth just because their boss told them so, that moral suasion and charisma count more than theoretical authority, that people can and do question their bosses, that people who disagree with their bosses can and do leave, etc.

Yes, a calm, disciplined environment is essential and conducive to productive learning.

But a militaristic environment is counterproductive and doesn't prepare you for real life.

@ParentOfOne
I do think these schools fail to see the bigger picture. It’s more about their control over dc. I quite agree about the military. I’ve seen exactly what you describe. Obviously not always but always doing what you are told without question can bypass critical thinking.

It's all about incentives.

We have created a culture where schools, heads and academy trusts are assessed solely on academic results and Ofsted ratings.

So that's all that counts.

@ParentOfOne. Ofsted doesn’t assess a school purely on academics. If that was the case few true comps could ever be outstanding.

I prefer progress as a measure of success but behaviour and personal development are included. I think ofsted are not critical of some behaviour regimes in schools, and they should be. Also many parents using these schools see them as beacons of good behaviour and like what they do. I don’t agree with them but some parents will be very strict themselves, so they get a school that matches their views. I’m not sure dc in them fully develop as critical human beings but parents probably don’t like that idea anyway.

If parents cannot see the limitations of an Ofsted inspection, then they are a bit shallow. Lots of the judgements are marginal and lots of aspects are not inspected at all.

@TizerorFizz
I prefer progress as a measure of success

Yes, but we should maybe appreciate that there is no single universally objective measure of success or performance for a school.

Progress is a function of the starting level.
All else being equal, a school will show more progress if the starting level of the kids was low to begin with.
It's a good thing if a school makes kids progress more, sure, but this doesn't mean that a school whose kids progress less, not because there is anything wrong with the school but simply because the starting point was higher, is inherently 'worse'.

Also, how do we measure progress?

A common trait of many super-strict schools (e.g. Micaela) is to have a very narrow choice of options, and to limit kids' options based not on what is best for the kids but what makes the school results look better. So a kid may be prevented from taking a subject just because the school doesn't want that kid to spoil the school results. It happens. Sure, kids need guidance and if you struggled with GCSE maths maybe further maths at A-level isn't for you, but there's a spectrum.

Another common trait is the repetitive teaching to the test. See the example above about Micaela. Maybe this method gives a school good results to show off, but it doesn't arm kids with the slightest trace of critical and original thinking, and it doesn't prepare them for life after school. But, hey, the box is ticked.

FWIW, on Ofsted, my opinion, which I know not everyone agrees with, is that:

• if Ofsted says a school sucks it's likely to suck
• if it says it's good it means little, it could still suck
• the difference between good and outstanding seems ambiguous at best, random and capricious at worst
• Ofsted is clearly unable to identify problems with excessive discipline and emotional abuse (Holland Park school, Mossbourne, etc)
• Ofsted sucks at spotting illegal off-rolling and all the other million ways in which a school can game the inspections (asking difficult children to stay home, etc)

That is why the Progress 8 measure focuses only on how a child progresses from their starting point.

There are schools with lower than average GCSE results, but high progress 8 scores and vice versa.

What is universal though is that schools with poor behaviour also have terrible progress 8 scores.

@ParentOfOne. Having been a governor, getting good progress from the lower achievers is phenomenally difficult. We had the best progress from middle and high achievers. They can actually access the curriculum! You will find low achievers with reading difficulties, parents who can barely read, all sorts of SEN and often poor behaviour and concentration. The best progress in my area is seen in many of the grammar schools. Better behaviour and great teaching. The lowest where there’s more lower achievers due to barriers to learning. A school that can remove barriers to learning will get good progress but how it’s done matters.

Getting rid of the dc certainly helps or having a culture that doesn’t suit them always helps, hence strict schools. However it’s measured, low achievers struggle to make good progress. Bright enough dc can forge ahead. I don’t think exam results is always the measure of a good school. Not at all. Progress is better but needs to be seen in the light of school roll.

Progress 8 only measures academic progress though. It's a very narrow measure.

Ultimately if you want to tackle the issue of low achievers and getting them to improve, you have to tackle socio-economic inequality in the UK. And nobody wants to do that.

Academic progress is schools’ primary role though, as it is what improves life chances the most.

Of course schools have other roles, but they are not and cannot also be social workers, mental health nurses and psychologists in addition to teachers.

I actually agree with you (shocker). But if you want to tackle underachievement, you don't do it by having schools which abuse their pupils. You do it by addressing poverty, health, employment and crime, i.e. the underlying issues. The Mossbourne approach is pathetic window dressing.

@pointythings. You are assuming low achievers are all pp children. They are not. Thats way too simplistic. Some just are not great academically. They are getting help but they are in mainstream when they need more than that. They most certainly have happy holidays in Florida! It’s just that we aren’t all born equal.

I do also agree with that, but the Mossbourne ethos seems to be that it's children from more deprived groups who need this kind of abusive treatment.

The UK caters very, very badly for its less academic young people. We could do with looking at countries which do it better - what's the point in putting young people through the agony of dissecting literature and complex equations when their real talents lie elsewhere? But that would mean adopting a selective model and properly funding high quality vocational education, and the UK's obsession with academia won't allow for that.

FWIW I don't think underachievers are all poor kids from deprived background.
But I do think that the huge inequality of the UK society contributes to poor academic results.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Finnish schools do so well in a society which is much less unequal. I suspect that the same Finnish schools would not do as well if hypothetically transplanted in the UK

@SeaSwim5 Academic progress is schools’ primary role though, as it is what improves life chances the most.

Not at any cost. Schools which produce good academic results but completely destroy the mental health of their students do a huge disservice to both the students and society as a whole.

Remember what child psychologist Naomi Fisher said on the matter? https://www.linkedin.com/posts/naomi-fisher-psychologist_vexatious-complaints-over-the-last-few-weeks-activity-7274398835781648386-shxo/

@SeaSwim5 What is universal though is that schools with poor behaviour also have terrible progress 8 scores.

I am sick and tired of bad-faith, bootlicker trolls who keep implying that these draconian methods would be the one and only way to achieve good discipline and therefore good academic results. They are not.

I have already shown you, data at hand, how ca 20% of London's STATE secondary schools are outstanding, and most achieve that without being in super posh neighbourhoods and without resorting to Mossbourne's methods.
Your answer? A deafening silence.

There is a special place in hell for all the adults who acted as enablers for this kind of emotional abuse towards children and teenagers.

Like I said, it is sadly clear that most people will never appreciate the mental toll that this abuse can take until and unless it happens to them or their loved ones, until and unless they or their loved ones are reduced to a wreck, unable to eat sleep function.

It will always be possible to get even higher grades, no matter how high high-achieving students already are, or how focussed a school already is on discipline and exams. Children could be made to feel more pressure, fear the consequences of lower grades more, feel they are not doing enough more of the time, be allowed to spend less time on things other than study, and fear acting in a way that children naturally do even while trying to follow the rules. There are many methods a school could use to achieve this, short of physically beating students.

A question to @SeaSwim5 and others of their pursuasion.. If the end-result is even higher grades, are there ever any lines that shouldn’t be crossed? And if there are, do you think enough thought has been given to where those lines might be over the past couple of decades?

My view is no, there has been a massive social experiment playing fast and loose with children’s mental health, on the un-evidenced assumption that marginally higher exam results will always be better for them.

@tigger29 , these questions have been asked to @SeaSwim5 and to those of their persuasion countless times during this thread, and always met with a deafening silence.

@pointythingsSome of the lower achievers struggle to read the books! We do need a different curriculum so these dc can get basic qualifications and more of what they can do.

Cannot get higher than a 9. Many schools can get dc with high grades without being unpleasant. Obviously dc can be set and work with similar dc.

I agree with you so hard!

Reading is a fundamental part of being able to live a happy and productive life in society though. We cannot have a situation where ‘lower achievers’ (disproportionately likely to be from poorer backgrounds) are written off.

As a Lib Dem supporter, I was a big fan of the pupil premium introduced under the coalition government and would like to see this hugely expanded.

I agree with the essential nature of reading, but we currently have a curriculum where it's completely one size fits all. You can set, and Maths has a higher and lower tier, but there are children who can't access even the lower tier, and children who get no benefit at all from analysing poetry to death and dissecting 'Animal Farm'.

If you look at countries in Europe, there are those who provide a foundational track from the moment children hit secondary school. I grew up in the Netherlands and had friends who went to technical school after primary. They learned solid functional maths, solid business Dutch and English, and besides that they spent their time preparing for a skilled trade. We don't offer that here, and we absolutely should.