Letter: Rhetoric and reality in education reforms

Sir: John Patten wrote in his article today that the 'thoroughly modern role' for a government is, among other things, to 'supply money', and is also about 'providing a light- touch framework within which local people can develop the sorts of schools and determine the range of choice and diversity they feel they need'.

I write from Broomhill in Sheffield, where my local infants' school is under threat of closure, along with several others in Sheffield. Local people see it as a good school and wish it to remain open. The major reason for the school being under threat is that the Government is putting a financial squeeze on the city council, forcing it to cut so- called 'surplus places' in the school system. Because small schools are more expensive they are most vulnerable to such a financial squeeze.

As a local person I have no say in how much money can be put into education in Sheffield; I cannot even vote for an adequate council tax to support the maintenance of good small schools - the Government determines what level of council tax is appropriate. I note too that the Government pays Sheffield a less than average support grant by some pounds 20m, double the supposed extra cost of maintaining its small, and parentally desired, schools.

Later this year the decision to close Sheffield's threatened schools will be with Mr Patten. Can local people here expect him to display a 'light touch' and a 'modern role' to enable them to have the 'range of choice and diversity that they feel they need', something which has not been apparent so far in the Government's pressure on Sheffield education, or will his decision expose his words as empty rhetoric?

Yours sincerely,

IAN WRAY

Sheffield

5 April