SIR - Your article headlined MP's attack on schools funding is rubbished (January 16) reports on the widening gap between local schools for their pupil funding.

It wrongly claims that I admitted my figures were wrong.

The figures quoted, far from being incorrect, were given to me by the county council and do state that the gap between the highest and lowest funded primary school has grown from £2,079 to £4,002 in six years. This is a near doubling.

The whole issue of school funding is complicated, and matters are made worse when leading councillors claim (December 27, 2007) they do not know why per pupil school funding varies, at the very time that they are managing the system that has seen the gap double. One of my concerns is that in 2007/8 there are two Worcester city schools in the bottom 10 funded and none in the top 10.

I accept and support variations in pupil funding - I want children with special needs and additional educational needs to get extra support over and above the norm.

That costs money to deliver. That is why when comparing figures for per pupil' funding it is important to recognise that different schools have pupils with different needs, so schools will get different levels of funding.

The same principle also applies to money allocated from central Government to local councils.

I have always set the test of fairness in school funding to be that children with similar needs should get similar funding levels, regardless of where they live or what school they go to. That is a principle I will continue to fight for because I know it to be right.

If, occasionally, I ruffle the feathers of those who would take us down a different path, or those who mislead people on this issue, then so be it.

But, I can assure readers that in my fight for more funding for local schools I use official figures and that I am most conscientious in using them accurately.

MIKE FOSTER, MP for Worcester.

Editor's note: In an article about school funding in Wednesday's Worcester News we reported that Worcester MP Mike Foster had been forced to admit figures he had quoted were wrong. We are happy to clarify that the figures used by Mr Foster were correct but that their use is open to interpretation.