77,000 detentions in 3.5 years – but will “no excuses” culture at Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy change?

Damning review of implementation of behaviour policies at the London school came with recommendations to which the government says the trust must now respond.

 

A comprehensive academy in London must decide whether to follow 15 separate recommendations made by an official safeguarding review, with the government pledging to act to make sure that it “implements the changes needed in response to these findings”.

A local safeguarding practice review into behaviour management practices at Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy (MVPA) in Hackney identified multiple causes for concern, concluding that its excellent academic results had been achieved “at too high a cost for some pupils”.

The report by Sir Alan Wood, a former director of children’s services in Hackney, makes recommendations including that pupils, parents, staff and “multi-agency partners” be consulted on its behaviour policy.

The report said its findings were based on evidence including “342 individual reports from parents, pupils and staff involving concerns relating to a range of schools within the [Mossbourne] federation,” 73 accounts relating to this school specifically and “testimony from current and former teachers describing a ‘climate of fear,’ institutionalised shouting, and practices designed to humiliate pupils”.

The report criticised the practice of staff shouting at pupils, with one senior leader having told the review that they might “shout in public” to “gain attention or validation from peers”; a policy of pupils spending up to five days at a desk in a corridor; and highlighted black pupils being more than three times more likely to receive serious sanctions than while pupils. The school operated a rigid policy of “punishment no matter what,” the review found.

The Department for Education said that the findings were “serious and deeply concerning”. However, it seemed to be at odds on this with its own behaviour and attendance “ambassador,” Tom Bennett, who posted an article criticising the report. He described the review as a “hit-job”.

I consider some implications and possible consequences of the report in the piece below.