CRITICS of the recently imposed stricter disciplinary codes at Stanford-le-Hope and Corringham's two secondary schools run by the Mossbourne Federation are set to mount a protest outside of the gates of the Fobbing Academy (formerly Gable Hall) tomorrow (Friday, 4 July) morning.

They will be supporting the family of a year 11 student who was denied access to the school's prom event on a succession of hotly disputed disciplinary charges.

And, according to social media posts, that family are not alone, with a significant number of local families at Fobbing and the nearby Portside Academy (formerly Hassenbrook) saying they are angry and disappointed by actions taken at the two schools.

Local disquiet over Mossbourne policies has become a hot topic in the two towns. Last week Thurrock Nub News reported on continued local concern over policies related to out of school behaviour, uniforms and use of mobile phones.

Since taking over the former Gable Hall and Hassenbrook secondary schools and Corringham primary last year, the Hackney-based Mossbourne Federation has come in for repeated criticism for its strict disciplinary policies and the imposition of a detailed code of conduct in and out of school – which has been described by some as 'Draconian'.

Tomorrow a local family is planning a protest in the latest public disclosure of concern over the way the schools are being run.

Parents Louisa and Paul Scott have discarded anonymity to say they want to raise serious concerns regarding the treatment of their son, who they say is the victim of 'disproportionately harsh disciplinary actions and exclusion from school activities.'

They say there has been a clear lack of support during the final months of his GCSE programme, which ultimately resulted in exclusion from the end of year school prom,

Mum Louisa says: "On Monday, 16 June, we received an email regarding emergency contact and dietary information for Prom 2025. However, just days later, on Thursday, 19 June, we received a generic 'Attendance Letter – Prom 2025' indicating our son would not be allowed to attend prom. The letter failed to provide any detail or specific reasons for his exclusion. It was also sent at 3.45pm, the day before the Year 11 Leavers' Assembly, leaving us no time to receive clarification.

"We attempted to call the school, but the line went to an automated message. As a result I drove to the school and waited nearly two hours at reception. However, no staff were available to meet us as they were attending a meeting off-site. This lack of communication is unacceptable, particularly when it affects a significant milestone our son's school life.

"In May he had been suspended for removing his blazer four metres from the school gate on what was reportedly the hottest day of the year. We were told he complied when asked to put it back on. Despite this, he was suspended – during the first week of his GCSEs.

"We later learned that five students did not wear their blazers that day; only two were suspended, including him. The inconsistency in disciplinary action raises serious concerns about fairness and potential targeting.

"Furthermore, we were not clearly informed whether he was allowed to attend his GCSE Sport Exam on Thursday, 8 May. We made multiple attempts to contact the school to clarify this but were unsuccessful. Ultimately, we were told by reception that he could attend under escort to and from the exam room. The whole process added unnecessary stress during this vital time and demonstrated a lack of support for a student undertaking major national exams.

"We attended a meeting with Mr Ball from the Pastoral Team on 8 May, during which we raised our concerns. We are still awaiting a copy of the incident report, despite requesting it nearly two months ago.

"On Monday, 12 May another incident happened which the school allege involved him speaking inappropriately, which he acknowledges was perhaps justified.

"However, his punishment — being placed in reflection (isolation) until the end of his final exam — was excessive, especially given the context.

"We understand that the above incidents are the reason he is now being excluded from Prom. This was never communicated clearly at the time of the events.

"Our son has 97.5% attendance (as per his latest report); effort grades of C and above, punctuality in line with school expectations and 56 merits for the academic year

"Given this, we strongly feel that his exclusion from prom is unjust and not in line with your stated policies. We also know of students with more serious behavioural issues who are still permitted to attend.

"We had already invested financially and emotionally into his Prom, including booking a limousine, decorations, and attire. To be told, with just three weeks' notice, that he cannot attend (and via a generic letter) is deeply upsetting and shows a lack of care for student well-being."

The couple say they have had little response to their concerns and feel the only way to make their point is a public protest, which will be tomorrow, outside the school gates, from 9am.

The Federation have been made aware of all the couple's concerns but have declined to respond on a personal basis.

However, it has issued the following statement: "We take student-related complaints very seriously. Followed correctly and in full, our robust complaints procedure ensures that concerns are addressed effectively and promptly, safeguarding the education, wellbeing, and safety of all students.

"By maintaining clear processes, we aim to resolve issues constructively and maintain a positive learning environment for everyone involved.

"Parents are strongly encouraged to utilise and adhere to the complaints process in full at all times. Failure to do so may result in concerns going unresolved or being incorrectly addressed, which could inadvertently pose a risk to pupils or disrupt their learning.

"We are committed to working in partnership with parents and carers. We therefore encourage all parents and carers to follow our complaints procedure and to revisit any unresolved matters directly with the school, so that we can provide support in the right areas and reach an appropriate, fair outcome for all parties.

"We would also encourage any individuals or organisations who advocate for parents and children to guide parents towards using our established complaints process. This helps ensure that concerns are handled through the proper channels, allowing us to address them thoroughly and in the best interests of the students."

Mrs Scott says he is less than pleased with the response and urged aggrieved and concerned parents and resident to joint tomorrow's protest, saying: "Let's make our voices heard. Together, we can push for fairer policies and a safer environment for our children's futures."

Local councillor Gary Byrne says he continues to be aggrieved by the Federation's policies and told Nub News: "Every single day I'm spending hours with parents concerned about what is happening with Mossbourne.

"I write letters to the head and the CEO but get no reply and Thurrock Council's children's portfolio holder, Cllr Vikki Hartstean, continues to turn a blind eye.

"She is not on the kids' and parents' side and goes through the motions with meetings with the trust CEO. The council is not fulfilling its safeguarding duties."