In March, Andy Leary-May — the parent who coordinated the evidence that led to the Mossbourne safeguarding review — sent the following letter to the Members of the Mossbourne Federation, the small group who sit above the trustees and hold ultimate responsibility for the organisation.
Followed publication of the review, the letter asked the Federation to acknowledge the experiences described by hundreds of former pupils, parents and staff across Mossbourne schools. It also raised concerns about the lack of meaningful accountability or reassurance for families who continue to report similar experiences today.
No response was received.
The letter is published here in the interests of transparency, and because many families who contributed to the review have understandably asked what has happened since its publication.
12th March 2026
Members of the Mossbourne Federation
Request for apology following Mossbourne safeguarding review
Dear Members of the Mossbourne Federation,
The safeguarding review led by Sir Alan Wood concluded that Mossbourne’s success has been achieved “at too high a cost for some pupils.” In light of that finding, I am writing to ask that the Mossbourne Federation offer a public apology to the pupils whose experiences have now been recognised, and that this apology clearly acknowledges the failings in practice, culture and governance identified in the review.
As the Members of the Federation, you hold the ultimate responsibility for safeguarding the integrity and accountability of the trust.
An acknowledgement of harm would not diminish Mossbourne’s achievements, but would demonstrate the leadership and responsibility expected of institutions entrusted with the care of children.
I trust that Sir Alan’s recommendations will now be fully implemented to protect future students, and that details will be shared soon to provide reassurance. While nothing can undo the harm caused to students in the past, former pupils still feel impacted. Many have told me that, while the review finally recognised their experiences, the absence of any acknowledgement or apology from the Federation has only deepened the sense that their experiences remain unheard.
For the parents and carers who attempted to advocate for and protect children over the years, the findings were painfully familiar, and I am asking that an apology is extended to them as well.
Those who have raised concerns in the past, myself included, have consistently acknowledged that much about Mossbourne is excellent and that many students thrive. Any school community will consist of those who are content, and those whose experiences lead them to raise concerns.
Instead of recognising and respecting that those advocating for children may not be opponents of the school, or its general ethos, the response often appeared to create division.
In a letter sent the day before the review was published, you told parents that if they agreed with the findings of the review they would not choose to send their children to Mossbourne. This was wrong. It is entirely possible, and entirely reasonable, to have concerns about a school and still choose to send your child there, particularly when it is the nearest local school and where their friends attend.
In the same letter you asked that, after reading the review, parents base their conclusions on their own experiences of Mossbourne. This appears to encourage those whose children have not been affected to discount the experiences of those whose children have, risking further division within the school community at a time when understanding and reflection were needed most.
As found by both Sir Alan Wood’s review and the complaints process review led by Anne Whyte KC, it was very difficult for parents and carers to raise concerns and have them properly considered. Many families felt that when they tried to advocate for their children they were treated as the problem, and were told, directly or indirectly, “perhaps this is not the right school for your child.”
The Federation now has an opportunity to reassure the community that in the future every child who comes through its doors will be supported, rather than made to feel that they should leave if they struggle within the school environment.
I was one of the parents who tried, unsuccessfully, to engage with the school to secure a good outcome for my child. I encountered the same absence of empathy or flexibility experienced by many other families.
My actions were subsequently shaped by what I came to see as a clear pattern. By the time I began raising concerns more widely, I had spoken to around thirty other families who had tried, unsuccessfully, to improve things for their children — often after serious declines in the mental health of already vulnerable pupils. Many had already removed their children.
My concern was that aspects of the school environment may have been causing harm to some pupils for a long time. For almost a year I asked, in good faith and in confidence, that the Council, Ofsted or the Department for Education speak directly to these parents to determine whether further investigation was needed. It became clear that, just as individual parents had struggled to have concerns considered, even a group of thirty families with closely correlating experiences and serious consequences for children was not sufficient to prompt action.
Using the press to raise these concerns has been criticised, and I understand why. However, I was not prepared to leave the harm I believed was occurring unexamined, and it was wrong that media attention proved to be the only route through which change could be achieved.
In your letter to parents dated 22 November 2024, you described the concerns raised in the media as a “vexatious campaign”, led by a parent whose son attended the school. Many parents would naturally have understood this to refer to me and to my son. It was inappropriate to refer to my child in this way and to imply that his enrolment undermined the legitimacy of my concerns.
Those concerns were genuine, and as Sir Alan’s review subsequently confirmed, they were substantively grounded.
While schools may of course receive vexatious complaints, automatically treating serious concerns as such — particularly when the number, consistency and severity of experiences described is so great — risks preventing genuine harm from being recognised.
At its core, this issue concerns safeguarding: when children are harmed within an institution responsible for their care, acknowledging that harm is an essential part of restoring trust.
In light of the findings of the review, and in the interests of rebuilding trust with the community, an apology is owed — to the pupils whose experiences have now been recognised, to the parents who tried to advocate for them, and to those whose motives were publicly questioned when they tried to raise legitimate safeguarding concerns.
I would welcome the opportunity to hear your response before the end of term, after which I will decide whether to share this letter more widely, particularly given the significant public interest in the issues raised by the review and the public resources already committed to addressing them.
If it would be helpful, I would be happy to meet with any Members, or with the new Federation Chair.
Yours sincerely,
Andy Leary-May
Educating Hackney 