School not needed

What, may I ask, are we going to do with two existing ones when possibly half their pupils are removed?

Perhaps one could be razed and replaced by housing as clearly we do not have enough of this being built already?

So the new school is to be run by teachers and parents.

Do not the group of teachers and parents promoting the idea realise that through the school governing bodies, the two existing schools are already run by teachers and parents?

The article implies the school will be released from state (council) control.

The reality is councils do not run schools.

Schools are autonomous bodies run by the governors.

Local councils are charged to provide support.

Some would suggest the council ought to run the schools.

The schools spends millions and yet for a significant part they are managed by well-meaning amateurs.

In these times of massive cuts in support to those in need, how on earth can a new school be justified?

While a mixed-sex non-church school would, I am sure, be popular, the blindingly-obvious answer is to do something with the current boys’ and girls’ schools, not to add another.

I fear the government’s apparent promotion of such projects is more about diverting attention from the harm being caused by the cuts than it is about doing something that is actually needed.

If the group of teachers and parents promoting the idea want such a school, please could they do it with their own money and not mine.

Alternatively, perhaps they could go and get involved at the current schools or work with the council to explore how a proper cost-effective solution might be progressed.

Or is it just the bandwagon they are interested in, or their one-hour of fame and stuff any logic or rationale?

P West

Chichester