The agony and ecstasy of being a successful school
The case of Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy
It can be a wild ride.
A few days ago, ‘Progress 8’ scores were released for schools in England. This measures how well students in a particular secondary school performed in their GCSE examinations compared to how well students with similar levels of achievement at the end of primary school performed across the country. For example, if a school posted a Progress 8 score of 1.00 that would mean, on average, students gained one grade higher than they would if they attended a typical school.
Extraordinarily, Michaela Community School in Brent, London, topped this list with a score of 2.55—almost half a grade higher than the second highest achieving school. This is a testament to the tireless work of Katharine Birbalsingh and her team, and their dedication to not being blown off course. There is overwhelming pressure to be like every other school and this is why so many are.
Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy in Hackney was the seventh highest performing school in England, with a Progress 8 score of 1.54—a huge achievement. Students who attend can expect to gain one-and-a-half grades higher than if they went to an average school.
However, as this was still sinking in, The Observer published its second report on Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy by journalist Anna Fazackerley—this time, it also included reference to its sister school, Mossbourne Community Academy, also in Hackney. Following the first report, it seems that several other complainants have come forward and the UK government is now calling for an investigation.
The allegations about Mossbourne are lurid and unpleasant. (This next part is the bit my critics will ignore if they read this piece) If they are true, then those responsible need to be held to account. I trust that the local authority will investigate the claims fully to establish the facts.
In the interim, what are we to make of the allegations?
There are reasons to doubt we have the full picture. Firstly, the journalist, Anna Fazackerley, has a history of inaccurate reporting. In July, she reported that, “[UK government behaviour advisor] Tom Bennett, is widely expected to exit the Department for Education soon.” This was rebutted almost immediately by none other than the education minister herself—“I genuinely have no idea where that report has come from”—and last time I checked, Bennett was inconveniently still in place. In October, an article of Fazackerley’s had to be corrected online because it initially claimed, incorrectly, that black children in England are more likely to be excluded from school. A note explained this was an ‘error during editing’ and the reference should have been to black Caribbean children. However, this rendered the article nonsensical because it tells the story of ‘Sam’, a boy with a Cameroonian mother, and last time I checked, Cameroon is in Africa and not the Caribbean.
Secondly, I find some of the claims hard to understand. The debate in England over the last few years has been about ‘warm/strict’ behaviour policies such as the one pursued by Michaela Community School. When I visited Michaela last year, I saw plenty of warmth. Teacher-student relationships were extremely cordial and my guides told me how brilliant the place was because there was no bullying. I didn’t see the strict component at all, even though I know there are clear rules and boundaries, and consequences for crossing them. If I understand it well, the basic idea is more about building a culture. Students behave well and are well mannered because that is simply ‘what we do here’.
The new article in The Observer suggests that Mossbourne teachers intentionally scream at students, centimetres from their faces, and are given training in ‘healthy fear’. This is part of a plan:
“A second teacher, who worked at [Mossbourne Community Academy] several years ago, attended a ‘shocking’ teacher briefing about a ‘transition day’ for primary pupils soon to move up. ‘We were told, if there was ever an opportunity, could we shout at the children and make them cry, so they felt frightened and intimidated ahead of starting in September,’ he said.”
If this is what is happening at Mossbourne, it does not fit my understanding of warm/strict and I cannot imagine it being very effective.
What are we to make, for example, of the testimony of a former student who tells Fazackerley that, “I was a well-behaved pupil but frequently found myself being screamed at, belittled and humiliated.” What purpose would that serve? How would this build a culture of good behaviour? Either Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy has some very strange ideas or we are not in possession of the whole story. Why would a school with the capacity to generate a Progress 8 score of 1.54 be so inept that its teachers screamed at, belittled and humiliated well-behaved kids? What purpose is that supposed to serve?
Thirdly, I have personally been on the other end of a similar media firestorm and I know that what is printed in the papers can have a tenuous relationship with reality. A media expert once explained to me that these press storms work on a cycle. The initial report flushes out more people who have issues with the organisation and who feel emboldened to speak. The fact that some of the new claims Fazackerley is reporting on apparently go back over two decades is presented as damning, but I find it most revealing. This has widened the pool of potential complainants to everyone who has had any connection to either Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy or the older Mossbourne Community Academy over the last 20 years.
That’s a lot of former teachers, parents and students.
As with the previous piece, there are comments that Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy is somehow hostile to, or weeding out, students with special educational needs and disabilities. These are boosted by an unnamed headteacher of a school in a neighbouring borough whose agenda we can only guess at. Again, the school point out that they support such students and have, ‘double the national average of students with education and health care plans’.
They also suggest they are being targeted by a ‘vexatious campaign’. Whether vexatious or not, they literally are being targeted by a ‘campaign group’ or ‘parent campaign’ because Fazackerley mentions this in both articles. It is presumably this campaign that contacted Fazackerley in the first place.
I share the reported view of a UK Department for Education spokesperson that these allegations are ‘deeply distressing’. They are. They are also likely to be deeply distressing to those working at Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy who will be experiencing the emotion that comes with wanting to tell their side of the story while not being able to.
The allegations may be distressing, but it remains to be seen whether they are true.
If you have enjoyed this post and especially if you have shared it with others, you really should become a paid subscriber to Filling the Pail. As a Pailer, you will have full access to all my exclusive Curios posts, keeping you up-to-date with the most important news in the world of education, as well as the entire back catalogue of posts. You can also comment on posts and let me know what you are thinking. At just $5 AUD per month or $50 for a year, a subscription to Filling the Pail costs far less than it should, given the hours that go into writing it, but you will help me to do a few nice things for my family. A group subscription is a great way to share this knowledge around your workplace, guilt free, and right now, there is a 20% discount.