‘Not what was needed’: Mossbourne Federation sparks backlash after setting out response to safeguarding review

Mossbourne Federation’s CEO, Peter Hughes. Photograph: Mossbourne Federation

Under-fire academy chain Mossbourne Federation is facing further criticism after outlining its response to a scathing safeguarding review.

Education expert Sir Alan Wood’s report, published last December, substantiated claims that pupils at Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy (MVPA) were subjected to shouting and public humiliation.

He found that the school’s ‘punishment no matter what’ regime could be linked to students’ self-harming.

“Academic excellence that traumatises some pupils is not true excellence”, he wrote.

After opposition politicians last week spoke out about a “lack of transparency” from school and council leaders in the three months since the review was released, Mossbourne has now announced the next steps in its response.

In a press release, the Federation ‘outlined how it will take forward the recommendations of a recently published review’.

It ‘reaffirmed its commitment to partnership working, continuous learning and the highest standards of care for its pupils’.

The multi-academy trust said it had reorganised its board to ‘strengthen governance capacity, including a specific focus on governance and enhanced assurance in relation to safeguarding and pupil wellbeing’.

As reported last week, the Federation has set up an Implementation Committee to ‘oversee this work’.

The Committee includes directors of education from Hackney and Thurrock councils, as well as a qualified social worker.

It is chaired by Toby Campbell Gray and ‘reports through the Federation’s established governance structures’.

Gray has also replaced Henry Colthurst as the chair of the Federation board. Colthurst resigned at the beginning of March, as reported by the Citizen.

The press release stated: “The Committee is actively taking evidence from a wide range of professionals, ensuring that any actions taken are informed, balanced and focused on achieving the best outcomes for children”.

Peter Hughes, chief executive of the Mossbourne Federation, said: “We are committed to working in partnership with others and to learning wherever there are opportunities to strengthen our practice.

“This work is being taken forward through a strong and experienced group, drawing on expertise from across the system, to ensure that any actions we take are thoughtful, proportionate and focused on achieving the best outcomes for children”.

The Federation has said it will ‘continue to engage openly and constructively as this work progresses’.

Sir Alan Wood. Photograph: supplied

In his review, Sir Alan was highly critical of Mossbourne’s response to complaints, saying: “A defensive and dismissive leadership culture has refuted these concerns, branding them as ‘vexatious’, and has prioritised academic reputation over engaging with criticism”.

And the Federation’s reaction to Sir Alan’s investigation was previously described as “adversarial” by Hackney’s independent safeguarding commissioner, Jim Gamble.

Reacting to Mossbourne’s announcement, Andy Leary-May, the parent who gathered the hundreds of testimonies that triggered Sir Alan’s review, said bluntly: “This isn’t what was needed.

“I wrote last week to the Members of the Federation suggesting that an apology and acknowledgement of the experiences of pupils and families would help to rebuild trust — this does not do that.

“The statement does not even name or meaningfully engage with the safeguarding review itself, nor respond to the detail of its findings or recommendations.

“Instead, it relies on high-level language about governance and process, much of which was already reported weeks ago.

“In several places, the wording appears to implicitly refute or dilute the review’s conclusions.

“There is no acknowledgement of its central finding — that some pupils were harmed — and no recognition that change is required in response.

“The suggestion that the new Committee will ‘take evidence’ and ensure actions are ‘informed and balanced’ is particularly concerning, given that this is precisely what the safeguarding review has already done in depth.

“It risks implying that those findings are still open to question.

“Mossbourne is not rebuilding trust — it is still closing ranks”.

Independent Socialist Penny Wrout (left) and the Greens’ Zoe Garbett last week called for more action from Mossbourne and the council.

Independent Socialist Cllr Penny Wrout, who has called for more accountability from Mossbourne and the council, said she was “disappointed”.

“Once again, the Federation seems to be playing its cards very close to its chest”, she told the Citizen.

“There seems to be no parent representation on the new Implementation Committee, which I would consider a bare minimum to show a commitment to transparency and change.

“As I see it, a lack of open accountability for the implementation of some policies at Mossbourne was what led to the problems the Federation is now having to confront.

“I welcome the presence of directors of education from the two local councils where Mossbourne Schools are sited, but surely the addition of at least one elected representative from each local authority area would have provided additional reassurance?

“As it stands, the press release and CEO’s statement fail to explicitly acknowledge that mistakes have been made, that it was in fact a safeguarding review which took place, or to offer any sense of contrition that some students suffered significant harm from some practices at the school.

“‘Could definitely do better’ is my assessment at this stage”.

The Citizen revealed last month how a firm set up by Mossbourne CEO Peter Hughes had acquired the rights to a piece of software from one of the trust’s charities and turned it into a money-spinner.

It was also revealed recently that the Federation spent £400,000 of public money on legal costs in response to the safeguarding review, including launching its own barrister-led inquiry and hiring solicitors to handle Sir Alan’s questions.