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.