Response to social media remarks

Since the decision of the Federation to academise, a group of concerned stakeholders have created a group called Protect Prendergast. If preventing the conversion to a MAT is not possible, they are trying to ensure that academisation is done in a just manner. Their campaign has provoked a number of rather provocative comments on social media.

Below are my personal responses to some of these accusations and attempts to dispel some of the misconceptions that have arisen.

	Comments	Responses
1	The push for MAT conversion was not kept from stakeholders for the past three years: it was governors exploring options.	It literally was an option ‘secretly’ explored for years before 'consulting' and ignoring staff and parents.
2	Teachers’ would have reacted badly if they were asked to contribute ideas to sorting out governance issues on top of their workload. It is not our job and it is why governors are elected.	It would have been nice to have been asked and even nicer to have been involved. And the old ‘that would be an abdication of the GB’s responsibility towards the school and thereby its staff’ is hardly a powerful argument.
3	We were never prepared to get on board and were all anti academy from the start.	It would be a little odd if this were not the case. Even if people had been, the Governing Body did not do enough to convince stakeholders. Moreover, the way staff were treated and information was presented in a one-sided way was hardly going to win people over.
4	The working party wasn’t secretly removed.	No, it wasn’t: there are no secrets here. The offer was just taken off the table from one negotiation to the next. It seems as if this practical suggestion by the NEU was never seriously entertained and was never therefore seriously an option.
5	An independent review was conducted coming to the same conclusion.	It may have been independent in name, but it was written by a governors’ lobby group and only interviewed governors. See previous post for more detail.
6	The strikes were never-ending	Twelve days is not never-ending. More importantly, the strikes would have ended earlier if the governors had come back to the table. They did not, and took their time, arguably because they wanted the resignation deadline to pass and because they were potentially negotiating a deal to get the government to pursue the council over PFI costs.
7	The head teachers were all involved and fully supportive.	They were involved and supportive of the conversion campaign. Staff concerns and well-being did not seem to be a priority.
8	We are bitter.	This is pretty dismissive of our position. We are furious, upset and feel betrayed.
9	The schools and children are back in a stable environment.	They are not, certainly not back to the way it was beforehand. Staff are not happy. Some have already resigned (see point 14). More will. Statements such as these show a lack of awareness of the atmosphere at all three schools.
10	The strikes are what damaged the children.	The strikes took their toll on all of us. However, this is another reductive and partisan argument: what caused the strikes? A number of parents have reached out and reassured me that their children are absolutely fine. Yes, they have missed some learning but it has had no long-lasting ill effects. If the plans had been released at a different stage in the term, then the process would not have coincided with exams. You have to wonder why the GB chose the timetable they did.
11	The vast majority of parents are thrilled, relieved, jubilant the strikes are over	It would be interesting to conduct a neutral poll to see if the vast majority of parents were jubilant in the face of actions which have caused such anger and upset among the teaching staff. Moreover, while parents are happy strikes are over, this does not collate with them being happy the schools are to academise or that teachers’ morale is low. Most parents want children in schools where teachers are happy, as was the case before March.
12	We need to move on from the extreme overreaction to a status change and prioritise the children in the schools by returning to a stable environment.	Not an extreme overreaction in our view but a justified position on a significant change with serious implications for children’s learning and wellbeing. We should not really have to point out that as teachers we entirely centre children’s needs; as educators we understand what academies can be.
13	The responses and objections from other parents were collated, and fed back to the school and the governors. They responded reassuringly every time and sacrificed time explaining the process. They were helpful and transparent.	Of course they took time to respond in a reassuring way. That was part of their tactical brief. They went to great lengths to justify their reasons and used all the comms tools they could. This is not transparent and helpful – it is purely PR.
14	The best way to support Prendergast Schools now is to let them get on with educating our children.	“Them?” We teachers are the ones responsible for the majority of the educating. When teachers leave, this creates disruption to learning. Over thirty teachers have resigned this year[1]. Many support staff have too. What is more, there is a distinct possibility that these numbers could have been higher had the final decision to impose academisation come after the resignation cut-off date. Again, it seems that the timetable was carefully selected.
15	With the decision having been made, it is time to move on for the sake of the students and the schools. We need to let this go and move on. It is not in the best interests of the kids to keep fighting. We need to focus on making the MAT work in the best possible way.	The strikes are over now. It is not disruptive for a group of people to continue to make arguments against the Prendergast conversions. It doesn’t affect the children. Furthermore, we did not choose to become a MAT. We won’t have any say in the academisation process. We have no power. The GB alone bears the responsibility to make it work, and this starts with repairing relations with staff.
16	We are a tiny minority with very extreme views.	Neither tiny nor extremist. Most the staff did not want to convert into a MAT, and an overwhelming majority of consultation responses were anti-MAT. Please look at the numbers.
17	It seems that the NEU supported the decision to proceed with the MAT application.	It was not supported by the NEU. The vote was a choice between striking and the federation becoming a MAT in Sept 23 (from which point strikes would become illegal) or accepting the MAT and have a place at the negotiating table re T&Cs. Hardly a thumbs up from us…
18	There really isn't anything to discuss. It's becoming an academy. Just wait and see, instead of ripping into it.	There really is a tremendous amount to discuss if there is to be authentic healing and persuading staff that the GB have their best interests at heart. What sort of advice is ‘just wait and see’? We are professionals who take our jobs and responsibilities seriously.
19	Our academy is going to be different: it will keep the Prendergast ethos. Staff will be treated exactly the same. Children will thrive.	There are no guarantees this will be the case and there is no going back if it is not. It is irreversible. Most schools claim to have everyone’s best interests. Our Federation probably does. However, becoming a MAT takes away many actual contractual guarantees, and this makes it easy to change things at a whim: it is textbook. Sadly, many current staff that came from academies and can vouch for how their schools changed very quickly -for the worse- once converted into academies.

 

---

[1] An apology here: the figures I mentioned are not out of the ordinary – in fact for most Federation schools they have gone down. A similar picture for support staff.