Last updated 14:42, Friday, 24 October 2008

IT was disappointing to read that Councillor Burns blames the public for the failure of the latest consultation meetings on the academy (Evening Mail, October 18).

The “divide and conquer” plan to sit everyone in “working groups” was rejected because those present just wanted straight answers to straight questions. There were plenty of questions but few answers.

Cllr Burns is also wrong to state the public was making old arguments against the academy. The public view, correctly reported in the Evening Mail on October 16, was that without answers to key questions it was impossible to come to a conclusion. Many contributors stated public doubts and concerns could not be satisfied as long as the county council continued to bulldoze ahead with a 2009 start. A vote was taken at the Thorncliffe meeting and there was not one person in favour of handing over our schools to the sponsors on September 1 next year.

Cllr Burns certainly picked up anti-academy feelings, hardly surprising because time and again it has been shown these views are shared by the vast majority in the town. Many suspect Cllr Burns shares these concerns. She is an honest politician and she certainly gave that impression.

The few answers that came from the platform were deeply troubling. We were told: The academy couldn’t be postponed because this would risk allowing too many teachers enough time to leave. (Is this a major cause of the Carlisle catastrophe?); plans are being developed for pupils to start ‘vocational courses’ in Year 9. (Are parents going to be asked about this? If all pupils now have to stay in education until they are 18 why do they have to start learning a trade at 13?); the head of Walney School could not avoid taking large numbers of town centre children by changing to trust status. (Is this confirmation that after the 2009 intake most town centre children will have to go to Walney?); Parkview will be too full to take the Alfred Barrow pupils. (Does this mean that the only places for them in the academy will be at Thorncliffe?)

From the comments about the curriculum it appears that ‘vocational studies’, including hairdressing, will feature strongly. Is this about widening opportunities for Barrow children to progress to top universities or is it to bring about a huge increase in ‘bums on seats’ and hence income, at Furness College? Is this why huge building programmes have been approved for the colleges when the main rationale for the academy plan was falling school rolls?

Cllr Burns promises answers “later” to all these questions. The academy sponsors promised much when the feasibility agreement with the government was signed in April, yet we know little more than we did a year ago, and the bits we have found out we don’t like. There has been no sign of the promised involvement of parents in the plans. Pupils, however, are telling us they are on the receiving end of a major propaganda campaign.

If Cllr Burns really believes an academy will be good for our children she should insist on taking the time necessary to get it right so answers to the many questions she said were, “entirely reasonable” are forthcoming. This obviously means no academy in 2009.

ROGER TITCOMBE

Our Schools Are Not for Sale