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 representatives 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.