IN YOUR report on Oxfordshire primary schools becoming academies (Oxford Mail, February 7), county councillor Melinda Tilley talks of a “bright new future” for Oxfordshire education.

However, the picture of what is going on is muddy with questions.

Firstly, nine of the 10 schools listed were Ofsted-assessed as satisfactory, making satisfactory progress or good. Presumably, those are all not good enough, though. Why not?

Secondly, there’s an assumption by the Government that sponsors – businesses, charities, religious organisations – could improve the schools in matters of literacy, etc, when compared with traditional providers. On what evidence?

Admittedly, there’s also a reference to more successful schools being sponsors. But doesn’t that mean doing two jobs in the time of, or for the price of one? Or more money?

So, thirdly, who is really driving this?

Mrs Tilley says: “What we want is a local solution – we don’t really want to be told we have to do it by the Government”.

But elsewhere in the article we are told Michael Gove wants the transformation to academies and Mrs Tilley says: “Local authorities have less power in law to affect performance in schools than ever before…”

So, the overall answer is that academies mean the Government taking powers off local authorities and then handing them to unelected sponsors.

That’s hardly ‘local’ and I can’t see how it guarantees stability, let alone improvement for the children in the long term.

What we do know is there will be start-up cash injections for the new establishments, which seems to be the real incentive.

But if these bright new schools set their own admission requirements, does that mean excluding the kids whose low attainment meant the figures weren’t so good? What will happen to them?

Is the county council really behind all this, or just putting up with orders from above?

JOEL KAYE, Purcell Road, Oxford