BELOW is a copy of the letter that I sent to Bury's Children's Services Department as part of the consultation they are conducting on the review of secondary school provision.

I hope that your paper represents the strength of feeling that the people of Prestwich have about these proposals as I witnessed at the special Prestwich Area Board meeting last month.

'I am a lifelong resident of Prestwich and attended Prestwich High School as a child.

I have three children, the oldest of whom attends Park View Primary School.

I fully intend that all of my children will attend local Prestwich primary and secondary schools.

I believe that the social and community aspects of education are extremely important and therefore, I want my children to make friends and be involved in their local community.

I do not believe that children should be transported to schools miles away which would reduce their ability to travel independently and increase the length of their already tiring school day if they have access to good schools locally.

It is with these aims in mind that I strongly object to the proposals to either amalgamate or close one of the Prestwich secondary schools for the following reasons:

1. I recently attended the special Prestwich Area Board meeting to discuss these proposals and at the meeting it became apparent that the falling pupil roll numbers being quoted by the council are misleading in that Prestwich is not as adversely affected as other areas of the borough. My main concern is that reducing the number of places in Prestwich schools will result in children in Prestwich having to travel outside of the area to be educated, which is unacceptable given that there is current capacity in Prestwich to educate all of its children. I might add that I was disappointed that the council did not publish these figures in the first instance, as they are critical to this review.

2. Both Parrenthorn and Prestwich are excellent, successful, schools and there is no reason in terms of education standards for them to be closed or combined into a bigger school. They are situated within the community they serve and offer the children of Prestwich a real choice in which school they wish to attend.

3. Sizing schools at 900 to 1,100 pupils seems a very arbitrary figure given that most schools in the borough - including successful schools such as Parrenthorn and Prestwich, have never been this large and they currently offer the breadth of the curriculum. It seems to me that this is just a number dreamed up by those headteachers who are interested in empire building and larger salaries.

4. I accept that falling birth rates are an issue and applaud the council for proactively tackling this issue. However, I am very disappointed at the lack of innovation or vision that these proposals demonstrate. I am not an educationalist and haven't the time or resources to see how other councils are tackling this countrywide issue - but you are. Surely there must be more innovative solutions other than closure or amalgamation that would ensure the range of education provision but retain our community schools that already have such a strong identity and success rate?

5. Given that the falling birth rate is a countrywide issue, shouldn't councils be campaigning for the government to fund schools with a more flexible approach, rather than just on headcount, so that smaller schools have an opportunity to be able to serve their community and be able to offer the full range of the curriculum?

In conclusion, I believe that both Prestwich and Parrenthorn should be retained as two separate schools for all of the reasons I have stated. I cannot comment on the rest of the proposals for the borough as I do not know enough about the schools or the communities they serve.

I trust that you will take my views into consideration when making your decisions.'

HELEN ROGERSON

Prestwich