Open Letter - To CEO Vantage Academy Trust: Jill Messham
Open Letter to Jill Messham, CEO of Vantage Academy Trust
Dear Jill,
I am writing in response to your Trust Update of 20 May 2026. As Branch and District Secretary for NEU Trafford, I think it is important to address a number of the assertions made in that letter directly and publicly. Where statements are fair, they should be acknowledged. Where they are incomplete, misleading, or framed in a way that seeks to shift responsibility away from those making the decisions, they should be challenged. That is what this letter does.
NEU members at Flixton Girls School have taken lawful industrial action as a last resort in response to a proposed restructure and redundancies which threaten curriculum breadth, pastoral provision, workload, and job security. The union has remained clear throughout that its aim is not disruption for its own sake, but a negotiated resolution that protects both staff livelihoods and pupils’ education. That position has been set out consistently in our public statements and campaign materials. The suggestion that the union’s actions are somehow illegitimate because they are visible, public, or involve engagement with the wider school community is not one we accept. Parents, carers and students are stakeholders in this dispute, and they are entitled to clear information about decisions that affect them. This has been central to NEU Trafford’s public position throughout the campaign.
On “I do, however”
It is entirely within the remit of a trade union to produce and distribute information relating to an active dispute in whatever lawful way best suits the needs of the campaign. Students and parents are not peripheral observers here; they are key stakeholders. They are directly affected by cuts to staffing, subject offer, curriculum time and pastoral provision. The NEU will not apologise for ensuring that those groups are informed. To characterise briefings for parents, leaflet distribution, or public-facing campaign materials as somehow improper is to imply that only management has the right to shape the narrative. That is not acceptable. If the Trust wishes to reduce anxiety in the community, the answer is not to criticise the union for communicating openly; it is to make better decisions and engage honestly with the substance of staff concerns.
On “Like many educational…”
It is true that schools nationally are operating in a harsh funding environment. The NEU has said so repeatedly and continues to campaign nationally for proper education funding. But the existence of wider sector pressure does not absolve an individual trust of responsibility for how it has managed its own finances. If matters have reached the point where the proposed remedy is to reduce subject options, cut curriculum time, increase workload, weaken pastoral provision and place members’ livelihoods at risk, then serious questions arise about financial management and strategic decision-making within the school and the trust. The problem cannot simply be externalised and presented as though there were no choices involved.
Your letter states that the Trust has made “repeated efforts” to resolve matters. That is not a convincing account of events. The Trust was the first party to contact ACAS without first inviting discussion without a moderator, and only one such meeting has taken place to date. The further meeting now scheduled for Friday 22 May is taking place at the request of the NEU after multiple requests to ACAS for this to happen. Equally, the Trust’s offers thus far have been tokenistic. They have not addressed the core of the dispute, and in key areas the Trust has merely committed to conducting “impact assessments” rather than working with the union to secure substantive changes. In relation to overspend, NEU has asked for an up-to-date status quo forecast reflecting staff resignations and potential voluntary redundancies. The most recent forecasts we have seen indicate a substantial surplus even when including the additional cost of an extra Deputy Head Teacher post. That matters. It is difficult to accept claims of unavoidable financial emergency when the structure appears capable of supporting expensive ongoing management commitments while cuts are pursued against classroom staff. The message that sends is clear: not management staff, but the workers, are expected to carry the burden. That is precisely why members are in dispute.
On “It is also not possible…”
We acknowledge the Trust’s position on this point and recognise that current legislation and regulatory requirements may well constrain what can be agreed in relation to early release from contract while retaining redundancy pay. While this may have been handled differently in other times or contexts, we accept that the legal framework now in place provides a valid point of limitation.
On “However, where there is…”
This is a central point of disagreement. The Trust has not, to date, committed to a meaningful solution here. It has committed only to an “impact assessment”. By contrast, the NEU has put forward a practical alternative: redeploying the unused library session for Modern Foreign Languages in order to restore Key Stage 3 curriculum time. That is not a vague objection; it is a concrete proposal. Yet the Trust’s response has been to promise to “look again” rather than engage seriously with a viable route to preserving educational quality. We continue to challenge the reduction in Key Stage 3 MFL time as significantly below benchmark, and we continue to maintain that reducing language provision from two languages to one is a narrowing of the curriculum that cannot be dressed up as routine or unexceptional. NEU Trafford has already set out publicly that the move from French and German to French alone, combined with a reduction in teaching time, undermines GCSE readiness and weakens a broad and ambitious curriculum.
In particular, the statement that the proposals would not make Flixton “an outlier locally” does not withstand even basic scrutiny. Your own figures show that 41% of schools locally offer two languages, 35% offer three languages, and 23.5% offer only one. That means the proposal would place Flixton in the minority and leave it offering a more limited MFL curriculum than 76% of schools locally. That is what the figures say. To present that as evidence that the school is not becoming an outlier is not a matter of interpretation; it is a matter of framing statistics in a way that downplays the reality. Readers are entitled to better than that.
On “We have taken action…”
NEU does not accept that this point has been fully or accurately represented. The offer of 12% PPA is a welcome starting point, but it is not the whole picture. There are members of staff who currently receive more non-contact time than this, including some without a TLR. The union’s wider position remains that 20% PPA should be applied across the board. That said, we have recognised the Trust’s claimed financial position and reduced our ask in this dispute. What we are seeking is parity, fairness, and a credible commitment that additional time attached to TLR and pastoral responsibilities is actually sufficient for the work required. Under the current proposals, pastoral roles risk being under-resourced. If staff do not have the time needed to discharge those responsibilities properly, then the students most likely to feel the impact will be the most vulnerable children in the school, because support will simply not be available at the same level or in the same timeframe as it is now. Public assurances are not enough if the underlying time allocation does not match the reality of the role.
On “My sincere hope…”
This closing section sits uneasily beside the earlier claim that the Trust recognises the role and rights of trade unions. The union has made itself available for negotiation and has, in fact, pressed for it. The record does not support the suggestion that meaningful progress has been obstructed by union intransigence or by staff standing on a lawful picket line. On the contrary, the Trust has too often been silent when substantive engagement was needed, while continuing to issue communications that lean heavily on emotion and managerial reassurance without answering the central concerns raised by staff. If the Trust genuinely wants a resolution grounded in dignity and respect, it should begin by engaging seriously with the proposals and evidence put forward by the union, rather than implying that visible industrial action is itself the obstacle. Industrial action is not the cause of this dispute. It is the consequence of decisions that members believe are avoidable, damaging, and still capable of being changed.
NEU Trafford remains ready to negotiate seriously and constructively. But constructive negotiation depends on transparency, meaningful movement, and an honest account of the choices being made. We therefore repeat our call for an up-to-date status quo forecast, for genuine engagement with alternatives that protect curriculum breadth and staffing, and for a reset in tone away from criticism of lawful union campaigning and towards resolution of the dispute itself.
Yours sincerely,
James Starnes
Branch and District Secretary
NEU Trafford