I am sure he will see fit to keep his constituents informed, via these pages, of precisely which questions he asks, of whom, when and the responses they elicit.

I look forward to it.

He is rightly concerned that the community should be consulted before such a major decision is taken about the future of our education system, but what constitutes consultation?

In the case of Boundstone Community College, people were invited to raise their concerns in letters to the very people being paid to make the academy happen.

I am sure Mr Loughton can improve on this travesty of democracy.

Mr Loughton writes of students' failure to reach their full potential.

Potential as measured by what?

Tests taken at the relatively innocent age of 11 or 12?

There are many distractions between then and GCSEs.

"Concerted and urgent" action was required and Mr Loughton was happy at the intervention of the local education authority.

That this intervention consisted of getting rid of the problem should be a cause for concern and not happiness.

Their reaction to a perceived problem was akin to putting a troublesome child up for adoption.

The wording of Mr Loughton's letter was misleading.

He was, he says, delighted when academy status was offered to the schools; the truth is that the schools were offered to the sponsors.

Let there be no misunderstanding that this is nothing short of the transfer of responsibility for our school from professionals, with a wealth of experience, to a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs with a hidden religious agenda.

Mr Loughton claims it is not a matter of throwing money at the problem.

Greater investment further down the system would be welcome to nip the problem in the bud, but what does academy status throw at the problem at secondary level?

An ethos, a good ethos, will solve the social and educational problems of the area.

How?

Freedoms.

Freedom from a national curriculum inflicted on the education system by Mr Loughton's own party and freedom to exclude wholesale and without penalty any students whose faces do not fit, thereby increasing pass and crime rates simultaneously.

Mr Loughton's letter was short on substance, short on specifics and long on flabby rhetoric.

This is Shoreham, not the House of Commons.

Alan Heselden
Brunswick Road
Shoreham

NOTE: All letters must include a name and address which can be withheld by request.

-------------------------------------
Click here to go back to readers' letters.

Where are you? Add your pin to the Herald's international readers' map by clicking here.

Email the Herald: letters@shorehamherald.co.uk