Tuesday, June 27, 2023

Schools Week

A close friend brought my attention to an article (link) that was published on 15.06.23 in the online publication Schools Week. While the article itself is rather lacking in substance and insight, the comments it precipitated were quite interesting – see below:

 

1.    Robert James (16.06.23)

This barely scratches the surface of this story that has affected 1,000s. Morale of staff at these schools is very low at the moment and trust in the governing body at an all-time low. The only reason the strikes were called off is down to ministerial intervention and the unions having no choice.

I’m sure the impact of these strikes on the children of these schools has been negative. However, things need to be put into perspective here: the strikes did not come out of nowhere – they were the direct consequence of the governing body failure to consider its stakeholders wishes and concerns.

I would invite you to look at the Prendergast Academisation Discussion Group on FB (link) to gain a more in-depth insight into this campaign.

 

2.    Christina Boylan- Jones (19.06.23)

I completely agree with Robert. Your coverage of this issue is hugely disappointing. Where is the balance? Parents & staff have been left reeling by what has happened. To put forward these plans when it was evident from the response when it was proposed 8 years ago was irresponsible.

 

3.    Margaret R (19.06.23)

I am a parent of a child in one of the Prendergast schools. I think this article gives an unbalanced picture of the process which led to ‘the agreement’ between staff unions and the Governing Board.
While the article mentions the disruption caused by the strikes, it is worth noting that
I, along with many other parents, was not only supportive of the NEU and GMB strikes but grateful to the staff for doing what they could to halt the academisation process. As well as seeing more drawbacks than benefits to becoming a MAT, the way the Governing Board handled the process and responded to opposition has convinced me that there is no hope that this MAT will be what they are promising.

The Governing Board had spent two years planning the MAT essentially in secret. The first parents heard about it was from our children who were shown a glossy presentation about becoming a MAT. This was followed by a very short consultation period. The consultation itself was not open or inclusive, with responses having to be submitted online only and consultation meetings limited in number and scope.

Despite overwhelming opposition from parents and carers, staff and community members, the GB voted to pursue academisation showing that the consultation process was just consultation theatre. In this context, the unions’ decision to strike, and to strike hard, was seen as the last best option to protect our schools from an unwanted and unnecessary MAT conversion under the leadership of a GB who had proven themselves unwilling to respond constructively to community concerns.

Once the strikes were announced, the GB sent a series of hostile communications about their unionised staff to parents via Parentmail, accusing them of being ‘ideologically driven’ and having a history of ‘activism’ and also insinuating that striking staff did not care about the well-being of students. At the same time as these communications were sent, staff were forbidden from discussing their views on academisation with our children. Of course the strikes were disruptive, but it was the high handed actions of the GB that I blame for leaving staff with no other choice.

Your article gives the impression that the strikes have been called off due to some kind of mutually beneficial agreement. My understanding is that this was not the case at all and that the staff unions were in fact faced with the prospect of the MAT conversion being brought forward to September 1st this year with the intervention of the DfE, leaving them no realistic option to stop the MAT through strike action.

I am deeply concerned about the future of the schools under a leadership which has treated the concerns of staff and parents and carers in such a hostile way. I am horrified that they seem to have pushed through their plans with the backing of the current government. I am very worried that because of the way they have been treated, staff will be feeling understandably unhappy and may seek to leave. This would be such a shame as the staff are fantastic and the retention rates at these schools have been well above the average.

Lewisham stands out against the national picture for having a low proportion of academies. This rush to academise the Prendergast schools seems to be in line with the government’s previous policy aim of 100% academisation.

This story is hugely significant nationally as well as locally and it is a shame that the larger issues have been overlooked: it has been presented as the mutually agreed settlement to a disruptive dispute.

 

Friday, June 16, 2023

Media

A lot of friends and allies were made during this campaign: a real community was formed bringing staff, parents and many other activists together. 

Along the way, we were supported and by a number of local journalists and media activists. Here is a list of articles and videos that were written/made during this period. 

Thank you to all, with a particular shout out to the amazing Charles Thompson who has thus far written a grand total of 7 articles about the campaign!


James Twomey – South London Press

Twitter: @jamesatwomey

16th March: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/well-fight-this-to-the-end-parents-and-teachers-fears-over-plans-to-turn-group-of-schools-into-multi-academy-trust/

26th April: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/this-is-about-the-children-teachers-on-strike-and-parents-furious-over-academy-plans/

27th April video: https://twitter.com/jamesatwomey/status/1651515614953971713?s=20

 

7 Shelf Films

3rd May video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OFVThRoJPQ

 

Charles Thomson – New Shopper

Twitter: @CEThomson

15th May: https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/23515010.mark-ruffalo-backs-lewisham-teacher-strikes-prendergast-academy-row/

16th May: https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/23523451.teachers-strike-academy-plan-lewishams-prendergast-schools/

24th May: https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/23542506.lewisham-prendergast-academy-row-worsens-governor-attacks-neu/

1st June: https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/23559549.lewisham-schools-minister-nick-gibb-backs-prendergast-plan/

7th June: https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/23569885.lewisham-prendergast-teachers-defend-academy-strike-action/

14th June: https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/23586189.lewisham-prendergast-schools-become-academy-trust/

16th June: https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/23593354.lewisham-prendergast-vale-pta-chair-resigns-strikes/

 


Wednesday, June 14, 2023

Defeat

We have lost out battle to stop our Federation converting into an academy. We fought hard. We were on strike for the best part of half a term as our genuine concerns -as well as the vast majority of those stakeholders who shared theirs- were completely ignored. A parent recently asked me online about whether the NEU would release a statement after the failure of the strikes to gain leverage and, in fact, imperil the education of a generation of children who had already suffered enough missed schooling under Covid.

This was my answer:

As far as Covid goes, we teachers were on the front line, working at school most days for key workers, and working at home (every day and evening) to do as much as we could for our pupils (prepping and marking work, calling children and parents to make sure they were ok in the most surreal of atmospheres in school), and home-schooling our own children. I am proud to have been an educator during those dark days. It seems as if the government and the GB have conveniently forgotten about our hard work and resilience back then, and keep using the Covid card to vilify us.

And now this. Each time, we went to ACAS, the counter-proposals of the GB got worse. They deflected and wasted time, it would seem because they knew that the government was helping move the MAT conversion on behind the scenes. There is not much we can do against ministerial intervention. We (members of the NEU and GMB) were genuinely fighting for a system we deem to be fair (certainly fairer than that of MATs) and equitable for staff, yes, but also for our students and their families. Maybe this MAT will manage to exist respecting the Federation’s ethos. The way it got to this stage makes me doubt this. 

It will take me a while to process these past few weeks. At the moment, I feel betrayed and depressed. But I also feel great pride to have fought this fight. We have lost the MAT struggle. But we have our heads held high and know we have our integrity intact.

____________________

Once I have fully digested our defeat, I will hopefully be able to write about this experience in more depth. I certainly will be sharing some of the lovely messages of solidarity that have been received over the next few days. Thank you to all the wonderful families, community and union members who have had our backs from the beginning of our anit-academisation campaign.



Integrity

Some of you who have been reading my blog from its inception will know that the one virtue I hold dearest is that of integrity. The following resignation letter is a shining example of integrity.  To say that it made me feel proud to have fought the good fight with this passionate person would be a huge understatement. She is a Prendergast parent, who also happens to be a teacher, and I am lucky to now count her as an extremely supportive friend. It puts across the emotions we have been through so eloquently. Thank you Emma xxx 

____________________

Dear Mr Coogan and Mr Hussain,

I’m writing to you to explain my decision to step down from my involvement with Friends of Prendergast Vale, including my position as Chair. This has been an incredibly emotional decision for me to take and I thought I should let you know the reasoning behind my thinking.

My involvement with the PTA at this school started in 2009 when my daughter Molly started at Lewisham Bridge Primary. I joined a healthy and active primary PTA where parents were campaigning against Lewisham Bridge closing. Despite what Andy Rothery says, it never failed an Ofsted inspection. In fact, the final Ofsted inspection graded many areas ‘Good’ including Leadership and Governance. I know as I was interviewed by the inspector as Parent Governor and Chair of Standards Committee.

As I’m sure you know, parents and staff lost the long and exhausting fight against becoming part of the Leathersellers’ Federation. Mood and morale was very low amongst parents and staff and for this reason I joined a small group of parents to become the founding members of Friends of Prendergast Vale. It was very difficult to get parents involved. The school was unpopular; many Lewisham Bridge families had left and most secondary pupils hadn’t listed the school anywhere on their list of preferences; failing their Ofsted inspection only increased this. People did not want to attend this school. Situations worsened after a few years when a pupil was stabbed on site. 

However, FoPV continued working hard to raise staff morale by coordinated shows of support such as ‘bake for staff’ days and group emails to let them know they were valued. We established yearly traditions such as the photo booth for prom, year 6 leavers t-shirts and reception families bowling trips. We also created a calendar of fundraising events helping to create the Summer Fair and the Primary Christmas Fair as well as raising money through estate agent boards and the summer raffle. At last, people started wanting to get involved and we hoped to expand out into supporting more events.

Then the Governing Body put in an application to form a MAT. Again, there was huge staff and parent opposition and we fought together –again- to protect our school. Thankfully, a group of Hilly Fields parents managed to find a legal loophole that prevented the MAT and school remained in current status. This proved good news for FoPV as parents, buoyed with the involvement and success of the anti-MAT campaign, got involved with FoPV. Staff told us they felt good and began to reach out to us for support with projects. We led several street art projects across various sites, buying Library Books on a yearly basis, Eco Schools project, musical instruments, second hand uniforms and of course our award winning Bleep Test fundraiser with the PE department.

In 14 years of involvement with the school, I had never known so much collaboration between staff and FoPV or had experienced such actively involved parents as part of our team. On top of this new parents were attending each FoPV meeting and more and more parents were getting involved. Around this time both of you came into post which lifted spirits even further. Mr Kamya had been incredibly unpopular with parents - most of whom had seen him as a barrier to engagement. Mr Coogan, you seemed genuine about wanting to engage with parents and work together for the benefit of all. I had never felt so positive about the future of Prendergast Vale. We were finding out more about the Leathersellers and worked in partnership with them to match fund our fundraising. I even attended two events at Leathersellers’ Hall representing FoPV.

Then everything changed with the announcement of plans to re-attempt to form a MAT. Morale of parents and staff nose-dived; the battles I mentioned earlier were too recent and only just healing. Myself, I am not a fan of the academy system but attended the consultation and was slightly reassured by what I heard. I felt that l if there was going to be a MAT, maybe this wasn’t such a bad idea: it sounded like the leadership and governance valued to views of stakeholders and wanted to engage them in the process. I wondered if, unlike the previous academisation attempt, this could end up boosting engagement as parents felt listened to and valued; I was keen to share my views and participate in the consultation.

However, it became clear that the consultation seemed more of a box-ticking exercise than a genuine outreaching to explore views in the community. The response to the consultation was overwhelmingly against forming a MAT - yet it seemed that nobody cared about this. We could feel staff’s pain as they felt no option but to take industrial action.

Next the Governing Body/Leaders sent appalling letters to parents that seemed to be deliberately attempting to turn parents against staff. Parents were divided and feeling like they had to pick a side. They were either ‘team staff’ or ‘team governing body’. Parents rowed with each other on social media and in the streets. Both staff and parents received vicious personal messages via social media accusing them of inciting teen suicide and worse. I had never felt such divide and hatred in our community. Not only were parents speaking this way to each other, they were also speaking this way about staff who taught their children and members of the Governing Body. As if that wasn’t bad enough some governors took to their own personal social media accounts and seemed to actively be fanning the flames of divide between the communities.

Some governors were in WhatsApp groups where parents spoke hatefully about staff. Not only did they not intervene, they only chipped in to conversation to deliberately escalate anti-staff feelings from parents. Governors told parents staff were ideologically opposed to MATs and that they were not prepared to listen or engage. Anyone who engaged with staff on picket lines etc. heard a different view. Staff had felt blindsided and untrusted in the process. For me this mirrored how I felt as a parent. Another aspect was that leadership and governance appeared so determined to undermine industrial action that they were prepared to break strikes through offering unsafe provision to students and without meeting the most basic of safeguarding duties of care.

We then had a glimmer of hope as it seemed there could be a chance of re-engaging stakeholders through a working party to explore other governance options as solutions for the issues raised. Given that parents had never been told there were any issues with governance or that school desired to expand the federation (I don’t think staff were aware either), this seemed like a good solution. We hoped that even if converting into a MAT was the best option then the community could be bought together. There was talk of exploring alternatives as a cross stakeholder group and, if none were found, that we could work together to create a MAT that we could all be proud of.

We were frustrated we had to wait so long for the next ACAS meeting and were confused that the GB wouldn’t meet before or during half term. However, for me it became clear that what the GB had to say they didn’t want staff to find out until it was too late for them to resign, i.e. not before the end of half term. Not only had all options of a working party, collaboration and re-engagement with stakeholders been removed from the table, but the government had stepped in at the request of leaders and governors to push this through in a manner that frankly sent the message to the whole community: “We know what you think and we don’t care, we’re doing this anyway.”

I know that neither of you were not instrumental in this. In fact, I will say that any letters that came specifically from Vale rather than the Federation tended to be worded more sensitively and have a kinder tone.

However, you both stood by and allowed other leaders and governors to tear our community apart. Zoom sessions by leadership and members of the governing body were just inflammatory, providing continually changing information, denial that events took place even when parents were well aware had happened; a willingness to send federation wide letters that undermined staff and turned parents against them and each other; a failure to call out and discipline governors that fuelled parental abuse of staff.

You failed to stand up for your staff and you failed to stand up for your parents. Being the most neutral party wasn’t enough to prevent the destruction across the federation from also ripping the soul out of Vale.

Throughout my time as a parent at this school I have championed the school. When parents didn’t want to choose this school I would be the first person telling them about the great experience we have had: how my children’s actually teachers always went above and beyond; how we were lucky enough to have Place 2 Be; how Vale valued all families, not just the ones who were guaranteed top grades.

I’ve been out in the community and on social media telling anyone who would listen that Vale is a great place for kids and has great staff that seemed to be really valued. Everything has changed. A leadership and governing body that chose to railroad an ideology at the expense of everything is not something I can stand with. We could have got on board with the MAT if we had been brought on the journey. We could have been united across the differing view around MATs.

Instead the people in charge decided that creating the MAT, come what may, was worth sacrificing everything for. Staff were treated appallingly, some have already left, some were tricked into not resigning by the pretence of engaging with a working parting and delaying the ACAS meeting. Teachers who have been at the school even longer than I have been a parent tell me morale has never, ever been as low as it is now. When you consider what they have been through, that is really something. Parents are divided, not only between each other but in hating either the staff and/or the GB. If this had happened despite leadership and governance’ best efforts, I would be throwing myself into reuniting the community right now. However, I cannot get behind working with schools that have deliberately inflicted this pain on their own communities.

I cannot even recommend the school any more as I don’t think that people who think this is an acceptable way to lead an organisation should be involved in working with children. Moreover, I don’t think I can hand on heart say anything other than “look elsewhere” when I am asked if I recommend Vale. We had planned that [my son] would be attending the Prendergast Sixth Form in September 2024; he won’t be doing that. In fact if [my son] wasn’t going into year 11 in September I would be looking to move schools.

I do feel for you both, being relatively new in post and in this situation, particularly as much of this was not your doing. In spite of this the fact remains: you did not do enough to prevent it. If Paula Ledger, Niall Hand, Andy Rothery and the current GB want to do anything to help rebuild the community the only option I feel they have is to stand down. They will not be able to rebuild bridges that they themselves have torn down for a personal vanity project and ideology. They will never be trusted again by parents or staff at Vale or across the federation of schools.

I apologise for writing such a long letter but hope you can understand that my feelings are so strong I was left with no other option.

Heartbroken.

Emma Gray



Sunday, June 11, 2023

Right to reply

In response to the Chat and Q&A Transcript Webinar 18/05/2023 (full transcript here). In italics, the transcript. 

We continue to seek a negotiated settlement that will enable all our staff to return to our schools as soon as possible. We are also pursuing all other avenues to bring the industrial action to an end. 

FALSE: In a communication dated 23.05.23, the Governing Body (GB) stated it would not reopen discussions with the NEU unless industrial action were immediately suspended. One party insisting that specific conditions must be met before any other action can take place is not a constructive way of approaching talks and finding a way to resolve the local dispute sooner. The GB finally agreed to talks on 08/06 (and potentially 09/06) once we (NEU) agreed on a week's strike pause. We had been clear with them from 23/05 that we were ready and willing to go to ACAS at any time, but the GB could not commit to any dates before the second week in June. This does not feel like pursuing all avenues. If they honestly felt that the situation was time critical they could have made themselves available and we could have met sooner.

 

The school uses ParentMail as a key channel for providing essential information about the operation of the schools. It is not used for other purposes.

We will continue to hold open meetings and to be clear and transparent with our community. We know that we will all have to work together to re-build relationships within the community. We hope that when we become a MAT the increased amount of community representation will support us to further develop a cohesive community.

FALSE: ParentMail (and staff mail) have been thus far frequently used to present a one-sided view of converting to a MAT that has not truly addressed staff concerns. It has also used inflammatory and divisive language about the NEU, which is both unprofessional and insulting to the majority of staff who are members of this union. Some assertions have also been factually incorrect. ‘When we become a MAT’ is revealing and shows the commitment to that one direction, come what may. Whether the federation becomes a MAT or doesn’t, we do not believe there will be meaningful cohesion in the community for a lengthy period. The actions of the GB are intended to force conversion to a MAT, and they are ignoring the views of many people in the school community that currently exists by side-lining parents, staff and students. The approach taken makes it hard to believe the GB has that much concern for developing a cohesive school community.

 

Our schools are inclusive, energetic and dynamic places to work, where we invest in our teachers and support staff, and they have agency in the work that they do. This culture had led to very low levels of staff turnover and good relationships in our organisation. These elements will not change in the future regardless of the status of our schools. There is a disagreement about the status of our schools, in all other matters we are aligned.

FALSE. Retention has been an issue for schools in the federation. Teachers are leaving, and not for the reasons outlined by governors in the online meeting. Teachers and support staff are leaving because they lack trust in the leaders in the organisation. Clearly staff would like to have a culture of good relationships and low staff turnover, but this is far from the truth.  Staff concerns about the MAT are repeatedly being ignored: in the all too brief consultation which was entirely disregarded by the GB when the overwhelming majority of responses were against the MAT; secondly because it seems that a Headteacher finds it useful to create a blame culture; and thirdly because the GB would not prioritise sitting down to discuss how to resolve the dispute at ACAS. The GB seems to want to convert to a MAT at the cost of positive relationships with students, parents and staff. Reps have reported staff morale at an all-time low, with many teachers actively looking for new jobs in September. If there are a number of new appointments that need to be made, it will mean a bedding in period for those new teachers. Whatever the outcome, the divisive nature of the GB’s approach has actively fragmented what was a flourishing school community. It will, as noted above, take some time for the situation to resolve and settle.

 

It should be noted that 80% of all secondary schools in England are already academies. 

TRUE, but this is only 20% in Lewisham. And far fewer primary schools. Does the Leathersellers’ Federation really want to be responsible for a domino effect in our community, especially when conversion to MATs is no longer a policy priority for central Government?

 

The governing board has the legal duty to consider the strategic direction of the schools. That is not determined by a popular vote.

TRUE. However, this does not mean that it gives the GB any right to ignore the concerns of so many its stakeholders. Along with this legal duty is the responsibility to consult with and to take into consideration all the stakeholders’ views, and to work collaboratively to reach an informed decision. It is patronising to dismiss the consultation as ‘a popular vote’. If it had found in favour of converting to a MAT would it have counted for more? And just because it was an open forum should not mean that the contributions do not carry weight. Those responding were obviously representative of the school community and with a stake in the school’s future. Finally, there was simply no other way to express these concerns other than the consultation, so we had thought it would count for more with the GB.

 

Staff tell us that they choose our schools for the same reason as parents – for the culture, ethos and values embodied by staff and leadership in those schools

TRUE. Prendergast staff truly care for the schools they work in, deeply valuing the culture and ethos that the schools embody. This is why they voted in a huge majority to oppose academisation, and it is the same reason why a number of staff are now considering resigning.

 

We recognise unions in our schools and support their right to strike. We have asked that they suspend strike action to allow the proposed working party to look at alternatives to academisation…

TRUE. Recognising unions and supporting the right to strike may be no more than lip service, given the negative references to the NEU in the GB’s communications on Parentmail and staff mail, but it is true that we have been receptive to looking at alternatives. It was us that put forward the idea of a working party, and we have offered several concessions in order to get our teachers back to class, which is where they want to be.

 

There are no minutes from the ACAS meetings.

TRUE. However, a few facts:

1. The NEU was never made aware the content or outcomes of these meetings were to be confidential as Andy Rothery (AR) and ParentMails and staff mails suggested. We represent members, so we would not have agreed to confidentiality because of this responsibility to report to members after all events such as these.

2. AR claimed there were 14 of us at the last ACAS meeting – there were 10. How can he have got this wrong?

3. He also claimed that there was a national representative present – there wasn’t.

4. Governors claimed that the last meeting was cordial – this is not right. At several points GB representative raised their voices and made personal attacks.

 

We would like (…) to increase capacity for formal collaboration, mutual support, and staff development. We have seen significant improvements in pupil outcomes in our secondary schools (14 forms of entry) and want to provide similar opportunities for improvement in our primary schools (3 forms of entry by comparison). 

The opportunity to collaborate is readily available, and already happens, in Lewisham. Also, this suggests that pupil outcomes in primary schools have not improved.

 

We apologise if the tone of any of our communications has caused anxiety or upset to any members of our community. We know that everyone working in our schools has the interests of our children first and foremost, and we hope that we can work towards a greater consensus about the way those interests are best served in the future.

This is not an apology, and sounds hollow when consensus thus far has meant the will of just 16 governors. The GB has intentionally put pressure on staff members, by threatening them with legal action in correspondence, by telling teachers not to strike because it is ruining students’ education, by not engaging purposefully in ACAS talks to resolve the issue and leaving the NEU alone to look for and propose solutions. While we absolutely want to resolve the dispute it seems they come to the table with nothing to help take us forward.

 

We regret that members of our staff are taking industrial action on this proposal. 

Staff do not see any genuine remorse. In fact one governor went as far as to blame staff for potentially lower results in exams this year – on two occasions. The controversial and upsetting proposal to academies without respecting stakeholders’ opposition came before the strikes.

 

We want to secure the Federation in its current form, which requires governance reform, and to improve it through further formal collaboration particularly at primary phase.

If this is true, then let it happen with all stakeholders involved in a working party. Let’s see this collaboration genuinely happen between us first.

 

Governors worked together to develop the PR strategy and were supported by a communications agency. A criticism of academisation in 2015 was that the communication was not good enough. We wanted to ensure that the Comms and FAQs this time were comprehensive. We are sorry if teachers or parents feel that the tone of this consultation was not appropriate. That was not our intention.

Again, being ‘sorry if’ is not the same as apologising. This is a poor response when we know the costs of this exercise and freedom of investigation requests have revealed some of the dubious communications involved. Communication is the exchange of information, in an objective manner. Staff have not been communicated with appropriately in 2023.  The views of staff and parents have not been acknowledged, and their views belittled in an attempt to discredit them.

 

At the close of consultation governors were asked whether they wished to proceed to MAT status.

The consequences of this are the reason why industrial action is happening. This ‘wish’ is the reason for potential lower exam results, and for the community being fractured. Industrial action is another consequence – not a cause.

 

A school becomes an academy when the relevant governors sign the Academies Funding Agreement. Until this point all other procedures are reversible and non-binding. The GB said they would not sign this agreement until June 2024. The intervening period would be given to genuine engagement in a working party to build trust and consider alternative proposals. We asked that in return there would be no strikes until June 2024. This was rejected.

This is not telling the whole story. The GB stipulated that they would be allowed to start laying the groundwork for becoming a MAT from December 2023. The agreement stipulated that the working party would convene until March 2024. We only expect a pause for a pause.

 

The duty in a consultation is to seek views on the proposal being made. It is not to lay out all the alternative views that may be held on the proposal. In practice, very little should change within the schools – this is primarily a governance change to improve sustainability of governance and to enable growth at the primary phase. The leadership, culture, ethos and values of the schools should not be changed by the proposal.

Trust in the GB is at all-time low. Staff that remember the 2015 process have stated that this time round the experience is even more poisonous. How can stakeholders believe the GB’s statement?

 

In practice, the day-to-day experience of staff and pupils should not change on conversion to a local multi-academy trust, so the governance sustainability was not covered in great detail at the start of the consultation but was discussed in depth in the public meetings.

This is hypothetical, and is not a fact. What changes are the Governing Body not letting us know about? Perhaps restructuring of staff conditions of employment, larger class sizes, greater accountability and eroded trust? It also does not explain/excuse the volte-face of the GB’s narrative. 

                                                                                      

We understand that our staff members have views on the proposal and how the consultation has been conducted. We also believe that the NEU does have a political ideology and that this has impacted on the way that their campaign is being run.

The GB claims it is being pragmatic – not ideological. Are inflammatory statements from governors such as this pragmatic?

‘Because we value the education of our 3,000 students. Because our parents are not being reimbursed for your local strike days when you are paying your members to strike. Because looking after our more vulnerable students is important. You are trying to blackmail us (at) their expense.’

The NEU is not paying its members. The NEU is sustaining its members so they are able to freely exercise their right to strike. Members pay monthly fees to the union for eventualities such as these. 

We have been accused of employing ‘lazy tropes’ by another governor. Pragmatic?

 

There are various ways to protect these, not least the legal requirement under TUPE for current staff transferring to the proposed MAT. We do not agree with the assertion that it is impossible to do this.

It is not a question of agreeing. It is simply that only assurances can be offered. Nothing contractual. We are being asked to rely solely on good faith when trust in the GB is fractured and at an all-time low.

 


 


Curiouser and curiouser…

After the odd comments from 25.02.24, this week began with another corker:  Mate, people are sharing screengrabs of this blog left right a...