A high-profile review has strongly criticised behaviour policies such as shouting at students and applying “zero-tolerance” rules rigidly to children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
The findings of the independent safeguarding review into Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy (MVPA) in East London have “national implications”, according to a report published today (read the full report here).
The Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review substantiates concerns raised by parents and teachers over harsh disciplinary practices, inadequate adjustments for students with SEND and a leadership culture that dismissed complaints.
It says these practices sit in tension with the school’s strong academic outcomes.
The review was commissioned by City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership and carried out by Sir Alan Wood, who oversaw Hackney’s statutory education services from 2002-12.
MVPA is part of Mossbourne Federation, the trust that sprang from Mossbourne Community Academy - one of England’s first academies, led by former Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw.
Behaviour management
Sir Alan said the main findings into MVPA were a “paradox”, with the school achieving exceptional results but doing so through a behaviour model that caused distress to a “significant minority” of students, especially those who are more vulnerable or struggle with rigid systems.
The academy had a Progress 8 score of 1.15 in 2023-24, more than double the national average.
In 2024-25, it had an Attainment 8 score of 64.1, nearly 20 points higher than the average across England.
The report highlights routine shouting as a normalised behaviour management tool in the 800-student school rather than an exceptional intervention, and describes the practice as “humiliating” and “intimidating” for students.
It also raises concerns about a sanction known as “desking”, where children are placed at individual desks in corridors for minor infringements, isolating them from learning without any oversight of how often or to whom the sanction is applied.
Evidence gathered from teachers describes a “climate of fear” for both staff and students, with some staff reporting that they were told to instil “healthy fear” in children and felt pressured to shout to meet expectations set by senior leaders.
Parents, former students and external agencies reported that students with SEND were frequently punished for behaviours linked to their needs because the behaviour policy was implemented without sufficient reasonable adjustments.
Student mental health
The review also describes concerns about student mental health, with some professionals warning that the school’s strict culture and emphasis on academic performance were “exacerbating” anxiety, and that support systems such as the Behaviour Support Unit and Alternative Provision Centre functioned more as “containment than rehabilitation”.
The review identifies disproportionality in sanctions issued to students from certain ethnic backgrounds and those with SEND, noting that governors had not routinely scrutinised sanction data through “an anti-racist lens” or in line with Equality Act duties.
From 2022 to 2025, the school recorded more than 127,000 incidents and more than 77,000 detentions, yet the review reports “no evidence” that leaders or governors systematically analysed sanction patterns or used data to understand impact.
The report is also critical of leadership and governance structures, stating that senior leaders promoted a culture of “rigidity” and “punishment no matter what”, while governors were “lulled into inaction” by strong results and failed to challenge practice.
Sir Alan found the school’s complaints process to be defensive and dismissive, with some families reporting that serious concerns were ignored or minimised, contributing to a loss of trust.
Zero-tolerance behaviour policies
The review focuses on one school, but emphasises that the findings sit within a broader debate regarding zero-tolerance behaviour policies, appropriate use of sanctions and how schools balance order with pastoral care.
Sir Alan concludes that academic rigour “cannot supersede wellbeing”, warning that discipline systems built around inflexibility risk harming students whose needs require nuance or support.
His report warns that the issues uncovered “should be considered” by the federation as applicable to its entire cohort of schools, and are relevant to other schools nationally.
It notes that, in the past decade, guidance from the Department for Education has been influenced by its behaviour tsar Tom Bennett, who “has been one of the strongest proponents of strict behaviour policy in schools”.
The review also states that “there has been a growing call for more nuanced approaches to behaviour”, and that this “tension” has been acknowledged in 2024 DfE guidance by “reaffirming high expectations while also encouraging schools to implement restorative, trauma-informed, and relational strategies”.
A DfE spokesperson said: “These findings are serious and deeply concerning. Every child deserves to learn in a calm classroom, and school behaviour policies should promote safety, respect, and a positive environment for both staff and pupils, tailored to the needs of their pupils and wider community.
“We will continue to engage with the Trust to ensure that it implements the changes needed in response to these findings.”
The Mossbourne Federation said that “the report is being considered carefully and in detail”.
The trust added: “[We] are committed to doing everything in our power to ensure the best outcomes for every child who attends its schools. We will review Sir Alan’s findings and reflect further on them.”
Mr Bennett said: “Zero tolerance isn’t a credible stance for behaviour policies because there must always be exceptions and exemptions for any rule”.
He suggested that “very low tolerance” would be a better attitude towards misbehaviour, “because it suggests high standards and circumstances”.
Mr Bennett added: “‘Strict’ means having very high standards and not deviating from them unless necessary. It connotes self-discipline, rather than high levels of sanction or being unreasonable.
“Schools absolutely should be strict. What they shouldn’t be is absolutely inflexible, which leads to unfairness.”
You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android
