The success of one of the highest-performing schools in the country has been “achieved at too high a cost for some pupils”, a safeguarding investigation has found.
The probe – called a local child safeguarding practice review (LCSPR) – was launched “to investigate widespread concerns regarding the implementation of the behaviour policy” at the Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy in Hackney.
It called on the school to ban staff from shouting at pupils, finding the practice had humiliated and intimidated youngsters.
The academy is part of the Mossbourne Federation, the trust originally run by former Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw. In 2024, the school ranked seventh in the country for its progress 8 score. It was rated ‘outstanding’ in all areas by Ofsted in 2023.
The boss of the academy has defended the secondary, arguing parents will not agree with the findings as if they did, they “would not entrust [their] children to our care on a daily basis”.
Hundreds of reports
Sir Alan Wood, who led the review, said the “paradox of outstanding results alongside deep distress can be explained by a culture that prioritises compliance and control above all else”.
“The school’s leadership has created a structured environment that can be positive for those who can navigate its strictures.
“However, this same system is implemented with a rigidity and a lack of differentiation that does not protect the wellbeing of a vulnerable minority.”
His findings were “based on a triangulation of evidence”, including 342 reports from “parents, pupils, and staff involving concerns relating to a range of schools within the [Mossbourne] Federation”.
Seventy-three “specific accounts” were focused on Victoria Park. Testimony from current and former teachers described a “climate of fear”.
Concerns from external agencies about the “school’s inflexible approach, disproportionate sanctions, and the high volume of mental health referrals” were also received.
‘Screaming’ at pupils
The review found that “shouting” was used at Victoria Park “in a manner that humiliates and intimidates pupils”. Wood said incidents would be “public, excessive, and directed at individuals”.
One teacher told the review pupils “would be screamed at for turning to look at a clock, or for taking a pen from a bag without asking”.
In a year 7 assembly during the first week of term they “witnessed two or three new pupils fainting in line as a result of being screamed at”. Another called the treatment of children “dreadful”.
They saw “many occasions where teachers are screaming at the pupils directly into their faces, centimetres apart, for a pupil turning around, not having a green pen, their pen running out … the list is endless”.
Wood noted that while “not every teacher engages in this behaviour” and with testimony suggesting “only a small number of teachers are involved”, the evidence suggests “a cultural problem rather than rare individual lapses”.
‘Desking’
He also wrote that pupils were placed at desks in corridors outside the rooms of senior teachers “as a punishment for minor infractions”, a practice he described as “isolating, shaming, and educationally unproductive”.
Claims were lodged with the review that the punishment – called desking – “disproportionately affects ‘black working-class boys’ and pupils with SEND”.
Wood said the practice – “combined with frequent detentions and a generally ‘harsh environment’” – was “linked by some to increased pupil anxiety and depression”.
A former student “recounted having a panic attack while on a ‘time-out desk’”. Others “mentioned instances of self-harm and suicidal ideation directly related to the school’s disciplinary regime”.
Accounts also “indicated that desks are cleared or moved when ‘high-profile visitors’ are on campus, raising concerns that the school is attempting to conceal the practice”.
“While senior leaders claim this is done to prevent distractions for pupils, the perception among others is that it’s a blatant attempt to hide what is happening, raising questions about the school’s transparency,” Wood said.
“[There is] no data collected to monitor how this sanction is used, its effectiveness and whether there is any disproportionate impact.”
Off-rolling allegations
The report noted that the “evidence presents a complex and polarised picture” on the support offered to pupils with SEND.
Many families “provided positive feedback, describing the school as supportive and effective for their children with similar needs as those who raised concerns”.
But Wood called these cases “highly specific and, in some cases, may be dependent on individual staff members rather than a consistent, school-wide policy”.
“The stark contrast between these two narratives highlights an issue of inconsistency,” he said.
“While most pupils and families may thrive in the structured environment, others seem to be severely let down by a system that is experienced as inflexible, unresponsive, and, in some cases, potentially harmful.”
One staff member reported being told to “build evidence that this isn’t the right place for this pupil to be” in the case of one child with an education, health and care plan (EHCP).
Wood said this suggested “a potential institutional pressure to remove certain pupils”.
“Several” accounts also suggested the academy “may have engaged in practices that could be considered off-rolling, which is the practice of removing a pupil from the school roll without a formal exclusion”.
A headteacher from another school “reported that a family felt they had ‘no option but to move their son’ after a ‘relentless regime of punishments’ and that the school had suggested the parents home educate the child while keeping them on the school roll”.
National implications
Wood concluded that Victoria Park’s “success has been achieved at too high a cost for some pupils”.
But he highlighted that “while focused on [Victoria Park], concerns extend across the federation”. The trust “must ensure all” its schools “are examined against these findings”.
“This review also has national implications,” Wood wrote.
“The ‘no excuses’ model, when implemented rigidly without adequate safeguards, can become one of ‘zero tolerance’ that causes serious harm to vulnerable pupils.”
‘Ban shouting’
Wood told the Mossbourne Federation that data “on all sanction types” should be provided to trustees and governors, with “disproportionality, anti-racism and the correlation between sanctions and outcomes” analysed.
To boost transparency, anonymised figures “should be published”.
The review also called on the school to launch a consultation on its behaviour policy. Among other things, it should ask “whether a ‘no excuses’ ethos remains compatible with inclusion and dignity”.
The trust should also “directly engage” with government “about the appropriateness of “desking” and whether this sanction, as currently practiced, complies with [Department for Education] requirements for pupil dignity and continued education”.
If the practice continues, processes should be amended “to ensure there is the proper and accurate recording of it”.
Wood said the trust’s “code of conduct should be revised to explicitly prohibit shouting at individual pupils as a disciplinary measure” as well.
It should also “prohibit the use of any public reprimand, action, or sanction that has a primary function to draw negative attention to a pupil for the purpose of shaming them”.
Head speaks out
In a letter sent to parents yesterday preparing them for the release of the report, principal Matthew Toothe stressed the academy “has and is taking the review seriously”.
He does not believe parents “will agree with … [its] conclusions” as if they did, they “would not entrust [their] children to our care on a daily basis”.
He added staff would not choose to work there and “the countless external professionals who visit the academy … would not have stood by and been complicit in a system which they thought was causing harm”.
Toothe also noted the City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership, which commissioned the review, previously “confirmed” that “none of the accounts” indicated a “child was at any immediate risk of significant harm”.
In addition, “urgent action” was not required “in respect of an identified member of staff”.
“When the LCSPR is published, I urge you to read it from cover to cover, to focus on its facts and nots its assertions, nor on the media headlines that may be presented in the coming days, to consider your experiences of the academy, and then to draw your own conclusions accordingly,” he wrote.
Your thoughts