The leaders of an East London academy where vulnerable pupils were found to have potentially been harmed by its disciplinary culture have declined to apologise to children affected.
A safeguarding review into Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy (MVPA) in Hackney, praised for its excellent academic results, concluded in December 2025 that the school’s culture of “punishment no matter what” had been “particularly harmful” for a substantial minority of vulnerable students.
The report, commissioned by the City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership and authored by Sir Alan Wood, looked at 342 reports from parents, pupils and staff describing a climate of fear, institutionalised shouting, a lack of reasonable adjustments for SEND children, and techniques designed to humiliate pupils. Sir Alan called on the school to end the practice of isolating children in corridors – known as ‘desking’ – and teachers screaming into pupils’ faces.
Sir Alan urged the school to differentiate between “acceptable voice raising” to gain attention, and “unacceptable shouting” used to humiliate individual pupils. It concluded: “Academic excellence that traumatises some pupils is not true excellence.”
On Wednesday (July 8), figures from MVPA and its multi-academy trust, Mossbourne Federation, claimed that their behaviour policy was “fit for purpose,” but that it was the culture and “implementation” that needed changing. As they faced a grilling by councillors for the first time since the report’s publication, senior figures from the trust said they had made “enormous progress”, but they would not “throw the baby out with the bathwater”.
Since MVPA is an academy, Hackney Council has limited enforcement power over the school, which is presently controlled by the Department for Education (DfE). The DfE was originally scheduled to attend the meeting but pulled out. During the tense meeting, two cabinet members accused the trust of “gender discrimination” by requiring pupils to make up extra time if they take toilet breaks during class.
A dossier of complaints which led to the damning review – usually reserved for cases of serious harm to children – included five reports from parents that pupils with no previous incontinence problems were soiling themselves or menstruating through their uniforms, either because they were banned from going to the toilet or were too afraid to ask.
MVPA’s Principal, Matthew Toothe, said the school was “unwaveringly caring” as he rejected the toilet policy as “restrictive”, claiming that an alternative approach would fail those children who missed learning time. Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Early Intervention, and Cllr Laura-Louise Fairley, Deputy Cabinet Member for SEND, said this discriminated against menstruating children.
Councillors challenged the leadership’s broader response to the report’s findings, arguing they had yet to see proof of change. Cllr Fairley reported that a Year 6 child who had attended a Mossbourne school on a transition day was sanctioned for not bringing a pen. She called on the senior leaders to say sorry to pupils identified by Sir Alan’s review.
Toby Campbell-Gray, Chair of the Mossbourne Federation, said the trust was focused on acting on the recommendations, but despite pressure from councillors, he refused outright to apologise for suffering experienced by schoolchildren.
“We’re not going to get into apology politics for lots of reasons,” he said, as he implied that certain practices could remain. This included desking, which he said could be “restorative” for pupils, including those who sometimes were asking to be removed from the class.
Peter Hughes, CEO of the Mossbourne Federation, said the school’s code of conduct had now been updated to make clear that “no child is belittled or (made) to feel less than”.
Independent Children’s Safeguarding Commissioner Jim Gamble, who led the report in December 2024, has been critical of the trust’s response both leading up to the review and post-publication. In January, Mr Gamble conveyed his shock that nobody from the senior leadership had yet resigned over the report’s findings. He has also called into question the £400,000 the Federation spent on legal fees, including on its own parallel KC-led inquiry – the equivalent of nearly £500 per pupil.
When asked by Labour backbencher, Cllr Daniel Rea, whether this was an “appropriate” use of public funds, Mr Campbell-Gray said the trust would have “preferred to have spent less” and admitted this decision may have been a mistake, adding: “It is what it is”.
Mr Campbell-Gray took over as Mossbourne Federation Chair in March, following the resignation of Henry Colthurst.
Though Mr Gamble said he was pleased by the new chair’s “fresh perspective”, by the meeting’s end he became visibly frustrated with the leadership’s refusal to apologise to children who had “suffered in a place where they should have felt safe”.
“When an apology is warranted, it should be delivered. That candour is what differentiates those who can reflect and learn from those who simply will defend and continue to defend because they can,” he said.
Turning to the DfE, Mr Gamble did not mince words, claiming that “the so-called regulator” had failed to hold the school to account by sanctioning the leadership. “Leadership sets the tone for the culture, and governance should oversee and challenge when that culture has clearly gone wrong,” he said.
“Made to wet themselves? In LONDON? In 2026? What century are Mossbourne living in?”
Strict? This isn’t strict. This is cruelty dressed up as discipline, and if leaders can’t apologise to children, then they shouldn’t be anywhere near them.
Envision defending a policy that leaves kids soaked in urine. Absolutely medieval.
Sanitation is an acknowledged human right. The UK accepts this and has obligations to progressively realise it.
There is no standalone “right to sanitation”, but failures in sanitation provision can still be challenged under broader rights (e.g., dignity, health, discrimination).
Although the UK acknowledges sanitation as a fundamental human right through international obligations, the Human Rights Act does not specifically identify it.
THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO 