I have written to the Department for Education (DfE) on the issue of what happens if all the schools in an area have turned into an academy (which is what the Tories want after all) and declare themselves full.

If there are then a few hundred pupils with nowhere to go the responsibility to educate these children will fall back on the local authority but it will have no schools under its control to carry the task out.

The reply I got from the DfE glossed over the issue in much the same way as Mr Trimmer’s article in The Argus (May 27).

All of the benefits he mentions of becoming an academy can be achieved while remaining under local authority control.

I cannot imagine why he would think that any local authority would want to block anything that would raise standards for its pupils.

The one benefit Mr Trimmer carefully avoids mentioning is money.

This is Mr Gove’s pet project. He has shown obsessive desire in getting it implemented and has made massive amounts of money available to new academies to make it happen.

Keith Wells, Denton Drive, Brighton

I read with interest Hove Park’s headteacher giving his reasons for wanting academy status for his school.

I don’t know the rights and wrongs of the issue but looking at his rendition with all its grammatical errors I suggest he goes back to school.

Why, as my old headteacher Mr Tibbles would have asked, use two words when one will do? He would have despaired at the use of the phrase “reason why” instead of the grammatically-correct “reason for”, and for “join us” I recommend “join with us”. I could give other examples.

At one stage the reader is implicitly promised a list of reasons with the use of the numerically significant word “firstly”, but then the writer goes spinning off into a long-winded tangent and there is no numerical follow-up with a “secondly” or “thirdly”.

By making the explanation so disorganised and unnecessarily long, even the most dogged reader would give up at a very early stage, with the mistakes making it seem not worth the effort.

Another thing I have an issue with are writers who try to fit in as many buzz words, jargon, pedantic terminology or fine sounding words, regardless of whether they are needed or add anything, just to try to impress the reader.

That just makes the reader, in my view, look more cynically at the actual arguments.

The writer would have made more effective points had he stated his case with fewer than half the words used.

He should have taken the piece to the head of the English department to be made more concise.

He seems to suffer from what I call “repetitive word syndrome”.

On reading the piece, my old headmaster Mr Tibbles would have given out a loud cry and stamped on his homburg.

Peter Grant, King’s Road, Brighton