EXCLUSIVE: Parents of pupils with special educational needs at St Mary’s Catholic Primary in Kilburn allege their children are punished for behaviours that are a response to being overwhelmed
Staff and parents have alleged there is a culture of bullying, intimidation, and discrimination of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) at a North London primary school.
Under the stewardship of Head Teacher, Bridget Pratley, St Mary’s Catholic Primary School in Kilburn has been accused of fostering an environment which two members of staff past and present have described as “hostile and intimidating”, whilst SEND parents claim their children have been victims of “targeted bullying”, as well as a lack of adherence to their education, health and care plans (EHCPs).
The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) received testimonies from three current parents at the school and two members of staff – one current and one former – who all made consistent allegations against the school leadership. They claim the culture is harmful to the children and has led to a high staff turnover, resulting in student outcomes suffering and the school providing what they feel is a lower quality of education. The LDRS also spoke to two other parents and another source at the school who raised similar concerns.
The school has said the allegations “are unfounded” and were deemed to be “spurious” following an investigation. Mrs Pratley was also approached directly for comment but did not want to add anything further to the school’s response.
One of the parents, Filmawit Mekonen, claims Mrs Pratley “treats you as the enemy” whenever issues are raised directly with her and starts to “make school life miserable by mistreating your child”. She claimed: “When a parent raises an issue against the school’s general academic provision, mistreatment of pupils by staff or failure to adhere to one’s EHCP, she directly takes it out on the child.”
Filmawit’s son has an autistic spectrum condition which affects how he interacts with others, communicates, learns and behaves. She told the LDRS: “After repeated mistreatment by the school staff, [my son] hated to go to school and constantly started to scream as soon as he arrived at the school gate. […] She as a head of the school doesn’t have a minute knowledge of autism. She treated him as a mad person and even as a naughty boy.
“A head of school with insufficient knowledge of autism and other conditions, and yet the school opens its door to support children with special needs.”
‘They made her feel different, unwelcome, and isolated’
Another mum, Eden Melaku, described the school culture as “one of avoidance, cover-ups, and reputational damage control”, at the expense of the wellbeing of both children and staff, as well as parental trust. She claims her daughter, who has an EHCP for autism and requires additional learning support, was subjected to “deliberate disability discrimination” when she was excluded from a school enrichment activity at a sports club.
Eden told the LDRS: “All 18 other children in her class received an invitation. Mine did not. […] She was excluded from a school activity without notice because of her autism, an act that made her feel different, unwelcome, and isolated from her peers.”
When Eden initially raised her daughter’s exclusion from the activity she claimed to have been told that a letter had been sent to her, then that her six-year old daughter had lost it and then that there were insufficient resources. A subsequent investigation by the school concluded that it was “the receptionist alone” who was responsible for deciding not to provide her with the letter and they had subsequently decided to leave the school.
The school’s account is disputed by Eden. She said: “I believe this was part of a damage-control strategy, to scapegoat a departing staff member to shield senior leadership from accountability.”
Eden also claimed that her daughter’s EHCP provision has been “grossly mishandled”, resulting in her missing almost four months of her speech and language therapy – which she was not told about. Eden said: “With her therapy so inconsistent and poorly coordinated, she risks regressing over the summer. […] This experience has shaken my faith in the school’s ability to protect and support my child.”
The parents’ accounts are corroborated by two members of staff at the school, one of whom was still working there when the LDRS spoke to them and one who left earlier this year.
Pupils ‘punished instead of supported’
Jacob Weems-Ado, 30, left his role as a classroom teacher at the school in June of this year. He told the LDRS that he saw a “consistent pattern of failing to prioritise pupils with SEND”, who were “frequently labelled as naughty”. Jacob claimed: “At an early pupil-monitoring meeting, drawing on nearly a decade of SEND experience, I highlighted one child who displayed obvious characteristics of ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).
“Mrs Pratley’s response was ‘we don’t believe that student is SEN, he’s just naughty. We’re not going down that route. You have to be very strict with him’. I reiterated my professional view that the child’s behaviours were strongly consistent with ADHD, but my comments were ignored.
“Throughout the year, this child was repeatedly singled out and punished, often directly by Mrs Pratley, for behaviours that went unpunished in other pupils. Even when pupils had statutory EHCP provisions in place, interventions were sometimes blocked or discontinued by Mrs Pratley.
“She would argue these supports were unnecessary or burdensome, despite being legally mandated. When pupils predictably struggled as a result, they were punished instead of supported. I saw children lose playtimes, face public reprimands, and in some cases be shouted at, all because their needs were not being met.”
Jacob described how parents who raised concerns were often treated “with suspicion and hostility”, with Mrs Pratley identifying them as “difficult” or “a threat”. He added: “[She] is highly surveillant in general, and is constantly questioning staff about private interactions with parents as well as other staff members.”
Ngozi Ijanboh runs a registered youth charity and has two children who attended St Mary’s, although one has now left. One child has been diagnosed with ADHD and autism and the other has finally been referred “after battling” with the school. She claims one of her children has been subjected to “bullying, segregation, intimidation, and neglect”, as well as being “repeatedly singled out” after she submitted a report to Ofsted, alongside 20 other parents.
Ngozi said: “It became clear that Mrs Pratley had identified my child as a so-called ‘problem child’ and the treatment he received from that point onward was unjust, targeted, and harmful.
“Despite evident needs, she refused to refer him to CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services), asserting that he was simply ‘naughty’ – a personal and damaging judgement that disregarded professional guidance and robbed him of the early interventions he may have greatly benefited from.”
‘She doesn’t want to handle it’
A staff member, speaking to the LDRS under condition of anonymity due to concerns about losing their job, claimed they frequently have parents approach them at school pick-up time to complain about the school – particularly Mrs Pratley. The staff member claims to have personally seen her “picking on specific children”, including one who they feel has undiagnosed ADHD.
They said: “It’s because she doesn’t want to handle it. She thinks it’s best to just get them out of the classroom. […] If they were diagnosed, the child would get additional one-to-one support. They’re not just sitting in the back of the class struggling, they’re going to be with someone who could help them with their work.”
The staff member alleges that, even when diagnosed, Mrs Pratley and other staff “dismiss SEND children”. They added: “They never look at their books or their work. […] SEND children should get the same time as every other child. I feel like she completely dismisses them.”
The member of staff also corroborated claims made by parents and Mr Weems-Ado about children being physically handled, claiming they have personally witnessed times when Mrs Pratley had “grabbed a pupil by the arm”. They claimed: “One time Mrs Pratley walked into the classroom when two children were misbehaving, she grabbed them by the arm, pulled them out of the room and started shouting at them. You should never physically touch a child and there’s been multiple cases.”
An alleged toxic work environment, bad pastoral care, and the quality of education delivered are reasons for a “high turnover of staff”, according to the staff member. They claim to have been told by some that have left that it was because they felt “tired and depressed” due to not receiving any support.
Jacob said: “When I began at St Mary’s, Mrs Pratley presented the school as having a strong sense of community and close staff relationships. In practice, the opposite was true. [She] frequently entered my classroom unannounced, often interrupting lessons to criticise me in front of pupils.
“Her interventions were often erratic and escalatory. She would abruptly enter, shout at pupils for ordinary classroom noise or movement, even when movement breaks were explicitly required by EHCPs, and, in one incident, physically pulled two pupils into the hall by their wrists to shout at them.
“These behaviours left students distressed and dysregulated, often in tears for long periods of time following her visits. This was particularly difficult for those with additional needs, and often provoked further conflict for which the students were then punished. This was a pattern of singling out a class with high needs, difficult behaviours, and bullying students within that class to a degree that the behaviour they exhibited in response then justified punishment or reprimands from Mrs Pratley, creating a cycle of trauma for these students.”
Ngozi wants a full independent investigation to be carried out at the school to prevent pupils having similar experiences in the future. She claims the school has left “lasting damage to my children’s confidence, wellbeing, and education”.
She added: “The lasting impact of the mistreatment my children endured at the hands of Mrs Pratley and the school has been profound and damaging — emotionally, psychologically, socially, and educationally. My eldest child, in particular, has developed a deep mistrust of all adults, including teachers, support staff, and professionals after being falsely accused, interrogated, and repeatedly punished for behaviours that were responses to trauma.”
In response to the allegations, the Chair of Governors at the school, Marco Di Paola, said: “The school categorically rejects these allegations, which are unfounded. The governing body have full confidence in Mrs Pratley’s leadership and are proud of the school’s strong provision for pupils with SEND.
“We encourage anyone with genuine concerns to use the school’s formal complaints process. Many of the claims raised have already been independently investigated by the school and found to be spurious, with the findings shared with the academy trust and the Diocese of Westminster.”
Parents claim investigation was not independent
Both parents and staff who have spoken to the LDRS refute the school’s claim that the investigation was independent and that the allegations were unfounded. They claim the investigator was “well known” to the school and at least one pupil was “interrogated” by them in front of Mrs Pratley.
St Mary’s is a mixed school with 268 primary aged children on the roll between the ages of three and eleven, including those with SEND. It was rated as ‘Good’ by Ofsted following its most recent inspection, with Mrs Pratley having overseen an improvement from its ‘Inadequate’ rating in 2014.
Referring to the experience of SEND children, the 2019 report states: “The school is inclusive. There are high expectations for all, including those pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities. The school identifies children with specific difficulties early on. Pupils with SEND learn well in the classroom, receiving support and help to learn alongside their classmates.”
The school has not been reinspected by Ofsted since it was academised in August 2024.
The LDRS has seen evidence dating back to 2022 showing parents had raised concerns with Ofsted and Brent Council – the local authority running the school prior to it becoming an academy in September 2024 – which determined no further investigation was required. Due to this, some parents feel that their concerns are not being addressed.
In response to the complaint raised by parents, Ofsted said at the time that the information provided includes “specific concerns of a safeguarding nature” that the education watchdog “does not have the legal jurisdiction to investigate” and explained that it is the responsibility of the council’s children’s social care department.
It added: “Ofsted have contacted the Brent local authority to advise them of the concerns raised. The local authority has advised us that the concerns will not be investigated further.”
A Brent Council spokesperson said: “We [treat] the education and safety of all children with the utmost seriousness. There is robust statutory guidance in place, and we enforce this consistently when assessing complaints.
“Most complaints are dealt with directly by school leaders, in line with each school’s policies and procedures published online for parents and carers. In this case, we reviewed the complaints received in September 2022 and June 2024 with the school’s leaders, who explained the steps they had taken to address concerns. We were satisfied that the school had acted appropriately and in line with its procedures, and neither case met the threshold for any further action by the local authority.”
After the LDRS approached the school for comment, a long-standing member of staff was reportedly made redundant, with several people linked to the school telling the LDRS they believed this was because they had raised concerns about how some pupils were being treated.
The school did not provide a response regarding the specifics of why the member of staff was laid off other than to say “we stand by our original statement”.
Don’t miss out on the biggest stories from across the city: Sign up to MyLondon’s The 12 HERE for the 12 biggest stories each day.
