OUR MP Neil Carmichael, chairman of the Commons Education Committee, spoke recently in the forced academies debate in Parliament.

He has previously avoided making his views on this topic clear so far, and many in the sector were looking to him for an informed and cogent intervention.

Instead, however, he delivered ten excruciating minutes of inaccuracies and distortions.

Point by point, he claimed: • That primary school results in 2012 were exceptionally poor compared to previous years. They weren’t - they looked at different things.

• Improvements since then were driven by academies. They have actually been driven by the Local Education Authorities.

• 80 per cent of academies are currently rated good or outstanding, implying that this is due to the quality of their teaching. It is because of organisational changes - as Ofsted acknowledges.

• He missed out the fact that LEA supported schools do even better than this - and that this is actually due to the quality of their teaching.

He used these ‘facts’ as an argument that the country needs more academies, but they argue no such thing.

If anything, they actually argue for leaving the schools well alone.

He went on to say: • That the Education Committee would like to see more evidence of what a good Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) looks like.

But he chose not to point out that this work is required precisely because there aren’t any that perform significantly better than the LEAs they are replacing.

In fact, the lack of democratic accountability makes these schools far more susceptible to inefficiency and corruption in a way that is impossible within LEAs.

• Only academy chains could bring schools and teachers together to share best practice, ignoring the fact this is common practice across the sector, especially in smaller schools, directly because of the work of their LEAS - to drive standards upwards.

• Too many schools are, to use the jargon, ‘coasting’ but he did not mention that at least 44 per cent of schools run by MATs are doing just that. Further, even Ofsted points out that the Education Secretary’s definition of a coasting school just does not work.

• LEAs do not intervene quickly enough in struggling schools. Yet according to the Commons Public Accounts Committee, in 2013, MATs intervene in less than 10 per cent of their schools that fit the criteria. LEAs intervene in 100 per cent - as they are statutorily required to do.

• Parental governors are not required. Apparently the interest one has as a parent is of no use to a school ‘per se’.

To be fair, Neil did say a couple of other things about governance and catchment areas but even though I have now watched his speech four or five times, I could not really understand what these points were.

He was literally incoherent.

I think that most of us know that we are poorly served by by our current MP.

However, his performance in the Commons was truly shocking, an ill thought through and poorly delivered series of points that were simply either untrue or misleading.

Neil probably made the speech because he thought he had to.

Watching him, I rather had the impression that he really did not want to do it.

There is no mandate for the forced academisation of schools.

There is no educational rationale for it.

It is not in the interests of children, parents or society in general.

It is not democratic.

Neil knows this, as he must know the points above.

He could still use his position to make a positive impact on the education of millions of children and parents, teachers, and save millions of pounds and years of pointless arguments.

I, and the overwhelming majority of his constituents, hope that he can find his principled, moral voice, and do just that.

Hereward Corbett

Chalford Hill