Your views on the trust schools row

Ruth Kelly is trying to explain why the reforms will make admissions fairer

BBC News education correspondent Mike Baker wrote about the continuing confusion surrounding the government's school reforms.

We asked for your responses. Here are a selection from those we received.

The only significant thing that these reforms would provide is to allow schools more freedom to run their own affairs. As a governor of a voluntary aided school, I am sure that this would improve education in schools still further. We already have the Office of the Schools Adjudicator controlling admissions policies very tightly, and the Office for Standards in Education driving up the quality of teaching.

What these "Old Labour" rebels seem to object to is the loss of direct control over schools, with the admissions issue being just a smokescreen.
Mark Gleeson, Pinner, UK

Politicians of all parties betray children from poorer families - particularly working-class families in catchment areas of poor schools - by turning their backs on selection by ability. The 11-plus gave a level playing field to all. It may not have been perfect but it provided consistency. What is the logical difference between selection on aptitude for, say, music, art or sport and selection on ability - an embryonic talent for language, science or maths?

There should be more grammar schools, or selection by ability as well as aptitude, and it is perverse that a Tory leader has turned his back on selection. Failure of the 11-plus does not condemn one to life-long failure. I write from personal experience.
Ray B, Stockport

Thank you, Mike Baker. At last a clear explanation of what all the fuss is about. This report should be sent to all parents, teachers, governors and politicians.
Jean Webster

If schools will then be independent of the local authority, what effect will this have on appeals against decisions made by schools about admissions and exclusions? Will the local education authority still make the final decision on exclusions as they do now (forcing schools to sometimes take back extremely disruptive pupils)? Who will decide which school the children should go to if a family moves to an area where there are not sufficient places for all the children at the nearest school?
Rachel

I find the whole debate about choice in schools farcical! What parents want is that the local school is good - not to be able to choose a distant school! In my particular town, my children are precluded from going to the nearest school - due to my (lack of) religious conviction. The next nearest school is very popular and competition for places is intense. There is therefore no choice for parents - only for schools. This will worsen under the current proposals - with some cast into the "bucket" school which will therefore be seriously handicapped as it tries to improve its own offering.

In such an important service for both the individual and the nation, it is a well managed and resourced service we need - not a marketplace where the astute will succeed at the expense of the uncaring or unable!
Martin Chalk, Ruislip, Middlesex

The lack of interest shown - in contrast to when Grant Maintained (GM) schools were announced - is probably a result of financial considerations. There were clear advantages to being a GM school financially; now the financial advantages of trust status are much less clear. Expect the government to change this if the level of interest remains as now.
Ric Euteneuer, Stevenage, England

Giving schools greater autonomy on the surface sounds like the logical thing to do, but sadly the realities are far different. Many schools in a position to continue to excel would inevitably do so, however schools that are failing are likely to slide even further. The solution is to encourage greater co-operation between local schools, to help share the weight of potential problems and to discourage needless competition between them.
Andy, Herts, UK

The concerns by some MPs sound plausible, but I am not sure they have proven their case. It seems the admissions theory is a ruse simply to prevent change. I don't hear them offering any robust alternatives for our failing schools. Some schools may not need this freedom but some may need all the help they can get. Local authorities are not always as prolific as needed to support and enhance their schools, plus head teachers may not have the desire or ability to take up any advantages, but holding back others is not the answer.
Gill Cheasley

Why is Tony Blair so intent on pushing this through when only a few schools will probably take up the new "trust" status? I guess it's all about his legacy. Good on the backbenchers for resisting such blatant spin that offers little practical benefit.
Kevin, Leeds, UK

I think Mike Baker has it wrong. Admissions are not the problem. The biggest problem is the lack of accountability of "trusts" and the potential for compulsion on schools to acquire a trust.
Feargal Hogan, Horley, UK