77,000 detentions in 3.5 years – but will “no excuses” culture at Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy change?
The Department for Education: pledging to make sure that the Mossbourne Federation "implements changes" in response to the report. Image: Alamy.
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.
To continue reading this article…
You'll need to register with EDUCATION UNCOVERED. Registration is free and gives you access to one article per month. But please consider a subscription which will give you full access to all the news articles and analysis on the website. As a subscriber you'll also be able to comment on each news article. as well as support our journalism and extend the reach of the site.
By Warwick Mansell for EDUCATION UNCOVERED
Published: 12 December 2025
Comments
Submitting a comment is only available to subscribers.
So many things to say about this but the report has shown that this report definitely should have an impact on the wider ethos of "warm-strict" or "no excuses". The key element is that you cannot prioritise exam results and accept that there will be "collateral damage" to a proportion of the school. It might be that this means more consideration of alternative provision or a rethinking of how we are judging schools. The inspection regime (under the time of Spielman - who is not a stranger to controversy) also needs to bear responsibility as well as the management of the school that created the ethos. Giving a school outstanding either shows the proprieties of the inspections regime were to accept exam scores transcend wellbeing or the ability of the trust to cover these up (and we have other stories of trusts 'hiding' pupils when Ofsted comes to call). Lastly, above you report that, "Staff should be trained according to a “behaviour curriculum” that “aligns with DfE expectations". Given his comments both now and in November 2024 over this trust and his comments elsewhere it is imperative that the "behaviour ambassador of the DfE" even should he remain in position, which must be questioned, is nowhere near this training.
A really interesting article and reflects well on the actual report. I have empathy with all the individuals involved including the school. We need to go back to thinking about child protection and harm and many modern school practices are causing harm, as evidenced here, as well as other independent reports such as Student Q. Ofsted has politicised safeguarding and a focus on compliance rather than culture has taken over. The school have been led astray as the inspections were missed opportunities to help the school to improve and also follow up on issues. The harsh discipline across many multi academy schools was a deliberate strategy to select children so that results would improve. Schools need to serve pupils and not the trusts. Our system is broken and we need a national education system. Keep up the in depth research.