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

Does anyone know whether Ofsted are reinspecting? It's grossly misleading that Mossbourne and Mossbourne Victoria Park are still both shown as outstanding.

In fact, Ofsted clearly has some questions to answer about why it was apparently dazzled by the results and didn't notice how they were being achieved. I suspect that that's a problem that has been repeated with several other academies.

Hopefully the DfE will hold Mossbourne Federation to account.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/dec/09/london-academy-staff-instilled-climate-of-fear-among-pupils

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyvlj1zel0o

Where are all the bootlickers now?
All those who acted as enablers of this abuse?
All those who said or implied that the only alternative to Mossbourne's methods was chaos and anarchy?

@WomensRightsRenegade said that Children can equally be harmed by tolerating bad behaviour

@NINP said I would send my dc to one of these super-strict schools if we lived in catchment.

@Pythag said that kids apparently like these schools

@Ubertomusic said Why would they scream at your DC if they are well behaved? and called it yet another hate campaign in the left wing media against a high performing state school.

@Soontobe60 said the claims were exaggerated because otherwise the school wouldn't have been able to make such progress

@TreeSquirrel said that strict rules are necessary (failing to distinguish between strict and batshit crazy)

Will all these people look at themselves in the mirror and admit that they were wrong?
Or will they continue peddling the same bs that shouting at kids is necessary and that it's all a conspiracy by the lefties who want to destroy education?

You have downplayed and enabled abuse.
You should be ashamed of yourselves

Let's not feel angry towards them, they don't deserve it. I suspect they will still be very pro-Mossbourne because high achieving Henry did well there and darling Tilly was first of the class and that's all that matters to them. Their attention will move onto another issue and they will deal with it with the same lack of empathy and lack of nuance and profound ignorance. We are vindicated, but it still feels like a very sad day for Hackney. A significant minority was harmed and that's very sad. 😔

I am concerned about all the other schools in this chain and what might be going on there. I hope this report prompts more concerned parents to speak out. Cold, ruthless determination to fight this culture of abuse is what we need.

I've only skimmed the report but it's incredibly damning. pointythings, all the Mossbourne schools are like this. It's what they roll out from MCA. I live near MCA so know a fair few whose kids have gone through there - friends of my kids, etc, etc. What's been written in the report sounds exactly like all of their stories. It's the Mossbourne way so the report does ring true. I doubt they'll change unless there's a proper intervention. I'm not sure if that's even possible under the academy system.

What happens now particularity since the school has been found to harm and so discriminate against some pupils? What really concerns me is the lack of accountability to anyone that academies have.

Deleted

I might hope that the teaching regulator might look at the report and start hearings so that some face disciplinary action and bans from teaching

Tom Bennett (DfE behaviour advisor) has published an article completely contradicting the DfE’s previous comments about the findings being ‘serious and deeply concerning’. He says it’s all bunkum, basically.

x.com/cierzo1/status/1999048360817561911

The report itself does not contradict the article, it's right there in the first pages:

Para. 1.16: When determining whether the concerns could be substantiated, the Terms of
Reference were clear that ‘substantiation’ would be for the ‘purposes of the review’
.
This is an important point to highlight. It meant that it was not my task to investigate
and singularly prove or disprove each of the reported concerns, rather it was to decide,
based on a balance of probabilities, whether any specific incidents and/or themes of
practice were likely to have happened. When considering this balance, I have taken
account of factors such as the nature of the concern, its reported severity and
frequency, the credibility of the information, and its relevance to organisational policies
and government guidance.

Para. 1.22: The CHSCP maintained that the legal basis for withholding disclosure was secure. It
provided reassurance that none of the concerns indicated a child was at risk of
suffering significant harm, nor did they require immediate action regarding any member
of staff. A summary of the testimonies submitted through the Educating Hackney
website (that had been shared by individuals with the express understanding that their
information would not be disclosed to the Federation) was subsequently provided.

So the commission KNEW that no child was at risk of significant harm and now publicly admitted it in the report.

I hope the school sue the troublemakers and make them pay dearly for the huge waste of taxpayers' money instigated by them.

That rather depends on the definition of 'significant harm', doesn't it? It also doesn't mean that children were at risk of no harm at all, and a school which structurally and institutionally does any harm needs consequences.

The author of the report states he did not investigate any claims. Full stop. There is no need to read further at all.

I do hope there will be serious consequences for the rabid campaigners.

@Ubertomusic You should be ashamed of yourself. Anyone defending these methods is unfit to be a parent and should be stripped of parental responsibility. And I speak from direct experience of psychological abuse.

Are you saying that the ca 300 people who have come forward have all made it up, and that the numerous witnesses who talked about seminars on how to instil fear, and the numerous incidents of children being shouted at, or children placed in corridors for no reasons, or children traumatised and going to therapy... that it's all made up?

What was your interpretation? A case of mass delusion convincing more than 300 people?

Tom Bennett should be ashamed of himself, too. He starts by misrepresenting the group Educating Hackney as being against any form of school discipline. But he doesn't justify this claim. Opposing shouting at children and giving detentions for petty capricious reasons does not mean opposing. That the group opposes any form of discipline is not my understanding; my understanding could be wrong, but Bennett doesn't show why.

Bennett starts by praising the good academic results of the school, as if to imply that that automatically means that the complaints are unjustified. He should have remembered the story of Holland Park school, which was rated outstanding, yet subsequent investigations found it was "rife with exploitation and fear".
Bennett is certainly not open to admitting that a school might be rated outstanding but still mistreat its pupils. Biased much??

As for what Wood investigated, you seem to forget that Wood is not a police detective, cannot compel anyone to speak to him, and in fact complained of how obstructive Mossbourne has been, and how he was forced to communicate to them only via lawyers. What more could he have done to investigate, with these premises??

Wood states

It meant that it was not my task to investigate and singularly prove or disprove each of the reported concerns, rather it was to decide, based on a balance of probabilities, whether any specific incidents and/or themes of practice were likely to have happened. When considering this balance, I have taken account of factors such as the nature of the concern, its reported severity and frequency, the credibility of the information, and its relevance to organisational policies and government guidance

My reading is that he did not have the means to verify every single incident of shouting or "desking". However, he did verify, by speaking to multiple staff members, that shouting and desking did occur. Is this not sufficient for you?

You are not satisfied with multiple staff members testifying that shouting and "desking" occurred, because you want a police investigation of whether John Doe's complaint that his child was shouted at on 13-Oct-2023 at 11.15 am was true or not??

Read these statements from current and former staff and tell me why they would not be sufficient. Also kindly highlight what burden of proof you would have expected, and how the report could have met it if the school was patently uncollaborative. Thank you

https://chscp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/MVPA-LCSPR-Report-Published-.pdf

Teachers and former teachers stated: “I observed frequent instances where pupils were screamed at for minor infractions, fostering an oppressive environment that, in my view, was deeply harmful to their wellbeing.”

“A white female teacher started to scream at a male pupil. I heard the shouting in a playground that was full of pupils and all staff and was horrified to the extent that I complained to my line manager and the then [senior leadership role].”

“The senior leadership team would regularly shout into children’s faces - other teachers didn’t do this and I refused to do it myself. I remember a senior teacher getting down to a child’s level and screaming at them.”

For my review, MVPA were either unable or unwilling to provide any data on the incidence of desking or an analysis of its impact on children by characteristics of age, gender, ethnicity, pupil premium and SEND

A long-term teacher critically described desking “as a highly visible, shaming practice.”

Staff are also reportedly instructed not to speak to pupils on desks, which further exacerbates their isolation and lack of support

Another way Tom Bennet is dishonest is by claiming that the letter sent by ca 300 families disproves the allegation. It does not.
The letter https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2024/dec/22/observer-letters-schools-change-lives-for-better

did NOT say that the allegations were false, that they never witnessed those incidents, and that if they had they would have complained and taken their kids elsewhere. No.

The letter was signed by a group of parents saying that the school works for them.
But "it works for me" doesn't mean "no one was mistreated".

Wood then goes on the same kind of rant we have seen on this thread, about teaching the habits of success, clear expectations etc, peddling the same false dichotomy as if there were no alternative between shouting at children and allowing anarchy and chaos.

What is notable by its absence is any comment by Bennet on the most controversial practice of shaming and "desking", isolating pupils in corridor. Does he think that these practices are fair? Unfair? Justified? Unjustified? Let's park for one moment whether they occurred at Mossbounre or not - what does this Bennet think of them? If there were proof (satisfying which burden of proof? This remains unclear) that these practices occurred, what would Bennet think?
The silence is deafening. I wonder why.

Again, as someone who knows from direct experience what psychological abuse is, I can only repeat:

SHAME ON YOU ALL!!!

I think that anyone who can read the Wood report and say 'nothing happened, nothing to see here' does not care about children.

I completely agree. Claims submitted on an anonymous website set up by anti academy political group.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/11/how-mossbourne-academy-was-mauled-by-a-hit-job/#comment

Unless you genuinely think that 300 people are all lying, the fact remains Mossbourne is a school that abuses children. As for the Telegraph - not a credible source.

@ByLemonOP , How do you answer my points above?

I ask again: You are not satisfied with multiple staff members testifying that shouting and "desking" occurred, because you want a police investigation of whether John Doe's complaint that his child was shouted at on 13-Oct-2023 at 11.15 am was true or not??

Can you please answer?

The Safeguarding commissioner has written a response to the article by Tom Bennett (which the Telegraph piece is based on)

chscp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/JG-121225-.pdf

There are some people on this thread who really need to read that document, @tigger29 .

But they won't.

Thank you for sharing this tigger29, and thank you Jim Gamble and Sir Alan Wood for listening to our valid concerns. Tom Bennet's comments left me shaking. I think that most of us have given very fair, measured accounts of what happened to our DCs, why we don't think the actions were proportionate, and what we'd like to see improved.

I have not ever criticised the excellent teaching at Mossbourne. The situation involving my DC has nothing to do with school uniforms, or teachers raising their voices, for example.

I believe it's possible to allow teachers to use their reasoning skills to not punish pupils for serious matters outside of their control, for example, without this negatively impacting academic excellence.

I don't understand why the Federation leadership team can't see that this is possible, or why they seem so fearful and resistant towards making a few changes for the better. Could ego be getting in the way?