Thank you all for your support on the march!

 

Letter to LSFed parents from Prendergast NEU members

Below is a letter to LSFed parents on the upcoming industrial action from NEU members. 

After talks with members of the Governing Body at ACAS, we asked for permission to send you this letter outlining our position on Parentmail. We also requested to send it to all staff via Prendergast email. These requests have been ignored by the leadership despite being reiterated. 

As a result we need you to share this letter widely.  We would like to reach all LSFed parents and the wider community. 

NEU members from across the borough will be joined by LSFed parents and students tomorrow to March against the academisation of LSFed Prendergast schools. Please join us to support our campaign to preserve our borough's community of schools.

Thank you so much for the support you have shown us so far: we cannot express our gratitude enough.

Prendergast NEU members

_____________________________________

Dear Parents/Carers,

National Education Union members in the Leathersellers’ Federation have voted overwhelmingly to take strike action against the proposal of the Governing Board to form a Multi Academy Trust from September 2023. The reason we were balloted at this time is because the governors are meeting on May 3rd to decide whether to go through with becoming a Multi-Academy Trust: the dates are not arbitrary.

 

o   Context on the strike ballot

The YES vote was over 95% across the Federation’s three schools on an 81% turnout. Our members - the teachers and support staff of these schools - are resolute that they do not want a MAT to be formed and want to stay within the Local Authority Family of Schools. It is critical for parents to be aware that our support staff colleagues have also balloted and it is looking increasingly likely that they will be joining our industrial action shortly.

The announcement for NEU industrial action came on the final day of the six week consultation during which the NEU reps and Governors met multiple times throughout. The Governing body knew precisely what was at stake. However, they have chosen not to make reasonable adjustments within that time frame which has left teachers with no option but to take industrial action. We have repeatedly put our points across many times: these strike dates were a last resort.

 

o   The impact of the ballot

We hoped the ballot result would encourage the Governing Board to recognise that their proposal does not have the support of the school communities, and that it is an unnecessary distraction at a time of year when our members want to be focussing on supporting students, many of whom are about to sit public exams. We were told by governors that Spring Term was chosen for the MAT consultation as it would be the least disruptive time in the academic year. The Governing Body decided the timing of the consultation in the knowledge that any strike action (which they themselves anticipated) could impact on the student examination period. Teachers at LSFed schools are 100% committed to supporting our students through their exams. There will be dispensation for any members needed for practical exams.

In response to being quoted by the Governing body in its communications to staff and parents, Dr Mary Bousted (General Secretary of NEU) responded: "I said that I thought members would not take national strike action during the exam period. The situation is different if there is a different local timescale for forced academisation. They are deliberately mixing up two disputes."

 

o   ACAS mediation

On Thursday 20th April 2023, we were invited to negotiate with the Governing body on. We welcomed these ACAS mediated talks which lasted 7 hours. Our position was made clear from the onset and was based on the aforementioned vote. We showed flexibility and were prepared to compromise by suggesting a meaningful delay in which the MAT proposal could be properly explored and alternatives suggested. However, the Governors did not offer flexibility in their suggestions - in fact their proposals were insubstantial and did not in any way reflect our members’ will. Had the Governors suspended their proposal, we would have willingly suspended our strike action. However, we now have no option but to strike.

 

Industrial action is not a decision that we have taken lightly. We do not believe that conversion to a MAT is in our students' best interests and will continue to oppose this proposal.

The NEU staff have requested to put out a statement similar to this on ParentMail, but have as yet not received a response.

We thank you all for you continuing support.

Best regards,

Prendergast NEU members

Another day, another lovely parent letter

I am writing as a parent with a child at one of the Prendergast schools to support the upcoming strikes by teachers and school workers (National Education Union members) to stop the drive to academise.

I will be joining the demonstration this Saturday (11am, 22 April, Loampit Vale, next to Prendergast Vale) and joining the picket lines to support the teachers and other workers on strike against academisation - as will many other parents. I encourage all parents to do likewise.

Numerous arguments why academisation is a terrible idea have been set out very clearly many times – for instance here https://stopacademiesinlewisham.org/prendergast and here https://alexgwinnett.blogspot.com/2023/04/letter-to-lewisham-directorate-for.html. No wonder the academisation proposal is opposed by the great majority of workers at the schools, their unions, the vast majority of parents who have been able to express an opinion (given the refusal so far to hold a ballot), by the council and now also by the students who have protested against it.

Like many other parents, I will be inconvenienced by the strikes, but I support them nonetheless – because they are defending not only workers’ rights but the future of my child and thousands of other children’s education. I also support the NEU strikes against a real-terms pay cut.

I urge the Prendergast governors and the Leathersellers organisation to drop the academisation and instead work to strengthen education and collaboration within the local authority family.

Ladywell Labour

A good friend has shared this with me:

The following passed at Ladywell ward Labour 12 votes to 1 against and 1 absention. Will now go to Lewisham Deptford constituency Labour.

STOP ACADEMISATION AT PRENDERGAST

Notes:

1. That on 20 February management at the Prendergast federation of schools announced they want to convert it into a Multi-Academy Trust. Ludicrously they declared only a six-week consultation.

2. That a consultation meeting called by the governors themselves at the St Mary’s Centre voted something like 70-3 against academisation.

3. That Lewisham National Education Union (NEU) is campaigning to stop the academisation. Its members at the schools have voted overwhelmingly to strike against it, with multiple strike days coming up – including 26 April and 3, 4, 9, 10 and 11 May (in addition to national strikes over pay). GMB members (support staff) are also balloting.

4. There have now also been student protests against academisation.

5. That in 2014-15 academisation at Prendergast was stopped by a campaign by staff and their unions, students and parents. In 2016 Labour members were central in blocking a wider attempt to academise Lewisham schools.

6. That the council Labour group voted overwhelmingly to oppose the academisation and call for it to be dropped – reflecting previous pressure by Labour members.

7. That party conference has voted repeatedly for return of academies to local authority control.

Believes:

1. That the supposed educational benefits of academies have been disproven; that academies divert funds from frontline teaching and school staff, represent a threat to pay and conditions, and undermine local authorities and local democratic accountability of schools.

2. That if this was decided through a democratic process, there would be no or almost no academies. As a minimum staff, parents and students should get a binding vote.

Resolves:

1. To advertise and take people on the demonstration this Saturday 22 April and to the strike picket lines.

2. To write publicly to the Prendergast governors and the Leathersellers organisation linked to the schools to drop their plan and work to strengthen collaboration within the local authority.

3. To work with Lewisham NEU and the Stop Academies in Lewisham (SAIL) campaign; invite speakers from both; circulate their materials including their petition against this academisation to members and more widely; support campaigning they call.

4. To send this motion appropriately amended to the CLP; to call on other Lewisham wards and CLPs, our MPs and all councillors to speak out vocally against academisation and back the NEU and SAIL.

Letter to Lewisham Directorate for Children and Young People from LSFed Prendergast Parents

This first week back at school has been very stressful and stupidly busy as a teacher and union rep. My union's position and proposed industrial action over our federatiojn becoming a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) has been presented in a rather critical and one-sided fashion. I am extraordinarly grateful not just to be sent the following extremely supportive letter signed by over 30 Prendergast Parents regarding how the consultation (James Kerr and I wrote about in previous posts) has been conducted, but also to be given the permission to share it on my blog. 

Dear [Lewisham Directorate for Children and Young People],

I am writing to you on behalf of a number of parents to raise our profound concern about the impartiality of the communication with pupils on the proposed academisation of LSFed Prendergast Schools. It has become clear from the previously confidential governor minutes (released on 18th March after a parent’s FOI request), that the LSFed governors have spent two years developing their proposal and yet, after launching the formal consultation period on 20th Feb ‘23, at no point over the last six weeks have the students been given impartial literature, assemblies or context. This is a shocking dereliction of duty on the part of the senior leadership team and governing body.

Early in the consultation process, several parents wrote letters of complaint to Ladywell head […] In his reply […] he went so far as to quote the DfE impartiality guidelines and yet failed to address the key action point which demanded to know when the senior leaders intend to rectify their error and offer a balanced viewpoint. As per the schools' complaints procedure this has now been escalated to Executive HT […].

Without impartial information from the senior leaders, students have been left grappling to inform themselves on the basics as well as the risks; as per this testimony from a parent from LSFed Ladywell Prendergast:

“At the MATs school council debate, students clearly expressed that they still do not understand what a MAT is or how it would impact them. The approach has been chaotic throughout, for example on Tues 21st March the Head Prefect was left to manage a spontaneous MAT debate attended by 45 students, with 10 mins notice, no resources and without the support of a single teacher”.

There have been many reports like this from parents across all three schools; students are deeply frustrated, know that they are being fed biased information and feel they have no authority or leverage to challenge the senior leadership. The Parental and Community Engagement Policy recognizes “the rights parents have and refers to the processes in school by which parents exercise these rights”, but does not mention students and outlines no mechanism for change or even input should they wish to raise their own concerns via the school council or any other means.

Given how long the leadership have had to prepare for this consultation period there is no excuse for the engagement with prefects/schools councils to be ill judged, the communication to be chaotic, or for lack of age appropriate unbiased material. The fact that younger pupils at Primary level heard about the proposal in partial, off-the-cuff comments is incredible and shows a lack of respect both for them and their parents […].  

Providing an impartial contextualisation is critical not only because it is the students’ education at stake, but also because the LSFed schools may well be facing strike action from huge numbers of teachers and support staff in the coming weeks. If the executive leadership at LSFed schools choose not to contextualise the strikes they are recklessly driving a wedge between the staff, pupils and parents. At the parent information events the governors have repeatedly said that there are very few teachers who are opposed to the proposed MAT when in fact the NEU and GMB indicative vote (carried out mid-March ‘23) indicates that almost all unionised staff are prepared to strike. Is the governing board deliberately misleading parents? It astonishes us that leadership at the LSFed schools, which pride themselves on promoting community cohesion and collaboration, seems to be manipulating the truth for its own purposes rather than working within the community to help us better understand the proposals’ risks and opportunities. When the staff strike parents will be left to explain to their children the internal conflict the schools are failing to address: the staff - the schools’ “greatest asset” fundamentally disagree with the proposal.

Vicky Foxcroft MP is in opposition and The Labour Group passed a motion against the MAT proposal on 27 Feb ’23 (attached for reference). The impact of LSFed becoming a MAT would be seismic for Lewisham’s education ecology and we are appealing to you to intervene in whatever way you can. The students deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. It is their education that would be most affected by the conversion to a MAT, so they must be included in meaningful and balanced discussion. We fear that LSFed schools are deliberately avoiding their duty and wish to mislead our children. This is setting a dangerous example for our young people, and causes upset in the wider community as teachers, parents and alumni are now mistrustful of the LSFed leadership.

We look forward to your reply...

Fighting Privatisation in the Blue Borough - by James Kerr

James Kerr - Lewisham NEU Assistant District Secretary- has kindly agreed to let me publish a great article he wrote about the MAT issue - it was first published in Education for Tomorrow magazine. 

Lewisham has historically had very low numbers of academies, with only 21% of secondaries privatised, compared to 80% nationally. This has been the result of hard campaigning, a resultant shift in the approach of the Local Authority and preemptive action in schools before academisation rears its head.

This is under threat as a number of governing bodies in the borough are looking to push through conversion to Multi Academy Trusts.

With big chains like Harris camped on the border and United Learning with a foothold in the borough, many of the privateer vultures will be eyeing the opportunity for breaching the dam in Lewisham and opening up new options.

A longstanding plan to form MATs of Catholic schools in South East London is gaining some momentum but one anti-academy campaign has had to become the focus of our attention.

The Leathersellers Federation, often referred to as the Prendergast Schools, are seeking to form a four school MAT from September 2023. They have set up a truncated six week consultation where they have made it clear that the only outcome is going to be to move forward with the proposal.

A parent petition demanding a vote on the proposal amassed over 1000 signatures but the Governing Board dismissed the idea by saying that binary votes are too divisive, referencing the Brexit referendum, and don't represent a range of views. They ignore the fact that they will be holding a binary vote at the end of the consultation, but at least they can be trusted to return the correct result.

The response from staff in the schools has been emphatic in opposition. Both NEU and GMB have held indicative ballots for industrial action, returning big Yes votes on super-majority turnouts and strike action is planned for after the Easter holidays.

The Governing Board have responded by pledging to sign a binding agreement guaranteeing national pay and conditions but we have pointed out that, as more schools are rebrokered and transferred between MATs, any agreement signed now can be worthless in the event of another change in employer. We are also clear that this is about more than just the staff in those schools. Taking those schools out of the Local Authority Family of Schools will reduce funds going into LA services and will give a green light to others to try and push ahead with their own plans.

Their case for the formation of the MAT is weak and largely focussed on limitations of the current governance structure. The more you scratch the surface, the clearer it becomes that this is more than just a technical change in governance and more about building a private edubusiness.

They plan to add new primary schools in the next phase and have floated the idea of opening a special school. There have been numerous references to 'lightly used playing fields' that the Federation owns and, with land a sought after commodity in South London, the temptation would be to cash in.

The Stop Academies in Lewisham campaign is seeking to replicate what we did in 2015, when the Prendergast Federation last tried conversion, and halt the process before the academy order is signed off. In 2015, strike action, walkouts and sit downs by the students and finally a successful legal challenge led to it being pulled. The Tories closed the legal loophole that led to the challenge last time and so it is clearer what needs to happen now.

The school management have tried to tightly control the narrative this time, particularly with students, who were given the hard sell in assemblies as soon as the consultation was announced but dissent is growing.

The Governing Board mistakenly published a tranche of formerly confidential minutes, with pertinent information redacted, but didn't lock the redactions on the page and so they could be removed by anyone with the right software. This unearthed some interesting discussions that have already taken place, including amending the pay policy to cherry pick what elements of the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document to include and the inclusion of the former Headteacher from 2015, who was found to have concealed documents from the Information Commissioner.

Organisationally, we are seeking to build a mass community campaign, with strike action at its core. The Council Labour Group have passed a strong motion in opposition, the local MP has also come out against and we even have Mark Ruffalo onside; The Hulk actor, who has worked with one of the affected schools in the past, tweeted to his 8 million followers the campaign's poster.

Giving confidence, organisational and financial support to the parents campaign has also been crucial, cohering a united message about the threats to the local education system as a whole. We are organising a day when all Local Authority schools will "badge up' with the slogan 'Stronger

Together, Proud to be Lewisham Family of Schools' after the Easter holidays to develop a coherent and positive alternative to privatisation.

Having so many schools still within the LA presents potentially very exciting opportunities for genuine collaboration. The Lewisham elected Mayor stood on a programme of launching a 'Lewisham Challenge' to assist collaboration between secondary schools, similar to the 'London Challenge' under the New Labour government but, partly because of Covid, it has never come to fruition. We are pushing now for them to make good on this promise and to strengthen a shared identity.

With this in mind, we are encouraging all of our reps in LA schools to pass preemptive motions against academisation and to write to their governing bodies to seek assurances that they are not exploring conversion. This has already unearthed one plan and put others on notice.

As with any anti-academy campaign, pace and time matter. The opposition admit in their proposal that this has been 18 months in the making (although in reality probably much longer) and every day counts, especially as they've been deliberate in shortening their consultation period to the minimum of what is reasonable. Prevarication or indecision can allow the momentum to ebb away and some mistakes are inevitable. Micro-managing every element is never an option and engaging in the fight has to be done boldly. We understand that the odds are stacked against this campaign but audacity and tenacity are our watch words.

The education system is in deep crisis. Opposition to Ofsted is growing and this brings into focus the whole gamut of education 'reforms like league tables, performance related pay and privatisation. These local battles are so important right now because this government and elements of their system could be booted out in the not too distant future. If we can halt or delay conversions it buys time to build mass national campaigns for decent funding and a genuinely supportive and collaborative system with children and workers at its heart.

That is what we are fighting for and we will continue to strive to punch above our weight.

Addendum

I mentioned in my previous post that much has been made of union members’ concerns over pay and conditions by the governing body. Consequently, our myriad other concerns have been belittled and pushed aside. I should not have to reiterate this but people who work in schools are not solely motivated by money. One word: vocation… There are a number of other motivations which are really quite important to us: ethics, ethos, community, staff and children well-being – to name but a few.

Anyway, there are a few extra points that I would like to share. I cannot take credit for them: they were made by a Labour councillor at the public forum that took place last month who asked the board to consider the issue of academisation from a broader perspective. It is important here to state that in our borough, at present, only 20% of secondary schools are academised - whereas 80% are nationally.

Anyway, the councillor began her statement by reminding the board that a while back it had taken a failing school and embraced it into the federation’s family of community schools. She added that all but two schools in the borough were 'good' or 'outstanding' and had good governance. She said that anyone who is a school leader or teacher knows about collaboration – adding that this is made possible by being community schools.

In her words, “I've just been hugely impressed by how (we) work together to support folks who are failing, whether that's teaching schools how to introduce interesting projects to boost their literacy.”

The point that especially hit home for me was when she then asked the board, “By forming an independent MAT, have you thought about how that might affect the ecology of those schools across (the borough)?”

The ecology of our schools – powerful words.

We are lucky to live in such a community: she stated that she took great pride in being part of it. A sentiment which I am sure is shared by the vast majority of teaching staff of the borough.

We owe it to our children, families and staff to maintain, not curtail and diminish our borough's community of schools.

MAT

Let me begin by saying I am a passionate and doting teacher. Anyone who has had one of their children in my class will be able to testify to that.

What is more, I love my current school: the children obviously, but also my colleagues, including the Senior Leadership Team. I am also intransigent when it comes to justice and integrity. I am union rep and do my utmost to look out for my colleagues. A happy school is made of happy children and happy staff: you cannot have one without the other. 

And I say that from experience: at my previous school, I had a nervous breakdown as union rep because I stood up for what I believed to be right. I was victimised and gas-lit for months until I eventually broke down (see previous posts) and am still seeking accountability from the school and the council it depends on.

I am categorically opposed to academisation in any form.

The vast of majority of people I have met who have worked at academies have only bad things to say about them.

The vast majority of parents whose children have been to academies have only bad things to say about them.

The vast majority of articles I have read about academies have only bad things to say about them.

You get the point.

In my view, academies, regardless of what has been said at consultations and other public forums, can only have a negative effect on accountability, sense of community and school ethos, staff T&Cs and retention.

The communications about potentially becoming a MAT have been disastrous. Staff were requested to attend a meeting the first day back from a half term break. We had been left to stew over the purpose of this meeting for two weeks. We suspected a proposal for academisation. Then there was a message that there was nothing to worry about. This seemed reassuring enough as it surely meant academisation was not on the cards. Surely?

Wrong: on the first day of a new term, the project was announced. With no possibility for discussion. And then, we had to teach our classes as normal, many of us upset and feeling betrayed. We were told to study the wretched (and costly) consultation website. We were told that the only way our opinions would be noted was in written form on the consultation website. How often have we heard that since? Why the obsession with it all being done in writing? Divide and rule? I sincerely hope that everyone’s written statements and questions will be online once results of the consultation are published.  

There were consultation meetings after that but with little scope for actual proper debate. You got to ask your question. You were given a response, not necessarily an answer. You were not allowed follow-up questions. We were told that the only way our opinions would be noted was in written form on the consultation website.

There was a public forum which did get quite heated. Parents and NEU members voiced their positions. Overall, people were angry and upset. Tones on occasion could have been more measured. However, this is also true of certain members of the governing body who were at times not as polite and respectful as they could have been. We were told that the only way our opinions would be noted was in written form on the consultation website.

Members of the NEU and GMB were consulted and given -very much- a private vote. In fact, two. Firstly, online as an indicative ballot. Secondly, as a postal ballot. As was reported on Parentmail, the results could not have been clearer (we are still waiting for the results from the GMB’s postal ballot but there will be no surprises).

We do not enjoy striking. It weighs heavily on our minds: of course there are feelings of guilt. We are in these jobs for the children. However, we will only be able to truly be there for the children if we are happy in our jobs. Until now, things had never been better for me as a teacher. And then, in one fell swoop, our trust in the governing board took a massive battering. For two years, this had been under discussion. Many believe the consultation was mere lip-service. A legal obligation. A box to tick.

I have a lot of respect for the governing board. There are some extremely gifted pedagogues who have managed to instil a beautiful ethos at our schools. However, I think they are misguided if they think that the community feel of our federation can be guaranteed in the long term. I cannot see a way that terms and conditions can be guaranteed legally. It is now how academies work. Academies become their own community. They turn their back on the council. It is the very nature of them.

The consultation certainly presented a very one-sided pro-MAT stance – I guess it would be naïve to expect it not to. Subsequent communications to parents furthered that trend and incorporated a number of slightly disingenuous claims. One was that staff’s main concern was pay: as reps, we set out a host of reasons why our members were unhappy about our federation becoming a MAT. These have not been communicated with parents.

Numerous parents fed back to us that they had been told that teachers overall were not concerned about the MAT issue, that it was only NEU pressure causing them to vote for industrial action. Untrue and upsetting.

We were also informed that last half term was chosen for the consultation (I reiterate after: 2 years of discussions) as it would be the least disruptive period for it to occur. Call me cynical, but the end of the consultation came just before the last preparations for SATs and GCSEs. How could the governing body not have taken that into account?

Moreover, the main imperative for becoming a MAT has changed at every consultation meeting I have been to. It has varied from:

• Too much work for governing body – the way it operates currently is unsustainable. A soft federation would have put prevented such a scenario, but it would have made us weaker apparently.
• To enable collaboration between schools – this happens already (when we have time – and becoming a MAT is not going to conjure up more time for overworked teaching staff) and is largely enabled by our links to the council.
• To attract and retain good teaching staff – academies have a terrible track record for this overall.
• To protect the ethos of the school – the old do it ourselves before we are shoved trope. Academisation is no longer a priority for this ailing government. What is more, we are already a strong federation with good results. Why change that? If it ain’t broke…

Apologies for the somewhat disorganised nature of this piece of writing. It is off the cuff but I hope gives a decent overview of my and many other teachers’ stance and concerns.