However, it is a shame that constraints of space within the article led to our support and advisory service being branded inefficient, when in fact the inspectors found just the opposite to be true.

The work of the service was found to be “good” and some of its work “outstanding”. Our support for schools causing concern is “effective” in bringing schools out of special measures, and the service overall was found to offer “good value for money”.

The recommendation you refer to stated that support needs to be targeted mre effectively to schools that need it most, which hardly warrants the service overall being publicly accused of “inefficiency” in your newspaper.

Cathryn Goodwin

Strategic director

Lifelong learning

City of Coventry education service

The editor writes: The report refers to a consensus that standards need to be raised and that “good though the work of the service is, too much of the key resource, the time of the service, is deployed to schools whether they need it or not.” To that extent it is inefficient. But it was not our intention to label all of its work so and we apologise for any such impression.