SIR - For those of us with concerns at the proposed changes to educational provision in the Worth Valley what better disclosure could we have requested than Cllr Cope's letter (April 17). He openly admits the chan-ges to present arrangements (for which there is no empirical evidence that improvements in educational standards will be achieved) will involve capital costs of between £93m and £145m.

He adds that 'Nothing is without a price.' Some price!

He estimates the net capital cost after sales (including the site of Bront' school) at bet-ween £48-£100m plus the finan-cing charges that will arise. By any standards this a rather wide range. After all this, running costs at the sites to be disposed of are estimated to fall by a mere £4m per year.

According to the review document the DfEE require re-organisation to be cost effective and will expect revenue savings to be some eight per cent of the capital grant sought. In addition the council will have to repay the Public Works Loan Board the capital sum over 25 years at four per cent pa. Therefore, at the lower end of Cllr Cope's estimate of £48m the cost will be 12 per cent of this figure ie £5.76m. This to achieve savings of £4m?

At the higher range of £100m the cost will be £12m for the same saving of £4m. If all this impacts on the education budget we appear to have a review outcome that will eventually reduce spending on our children's education of between, at best, £1.76m and, at worst, £8m. Add to this the cost of all those enhanced pensions for teachers taking early retirement and you do not have to be a financial genius to see this does not appear to make much sense.

Your April 10 editorial quite correctly highlighted the paper exercise nature of this review. Surely by now the consultation process has been adequately discredited and sufficient evidence and informed opinion is now to hand to consign this shabby piece of work to the dustbin.

Worth Valley voters have a perfect opportunity at the local elections on May 7 to make their voice heard at City Hall. They cannot change the balance of power as too few seats are due for re-election so they have little to lose by putting their true political beliefs to one side and simply voting against Cllr Cope on the single issue of the schools review. This would at least send to the council a message that voters should be regarded rather than ignored.

My message to all Worth Valley constituents is that you have one, and only one, opportunity to have your children properly and effectively educated. Don't waste that opportunity and don't let anyone else waste it for you.

M S BOOTHROYD,

Community Governor,

Bront' Middle School.

SIR - Omitted from our letter last week was the important comment that we did not know the criteria as to why some schools survive while others are proposed for closure. This criteria was particularly sought for the decision to close Old-field First School. Since last week we, among other Oldfield supporters, attended the Worth Valley surgery where we asked Councillors Cope, Woodward and Young just that question.

The review team told them the reasons for selecting Old-field was that it was too small, and only three children from Oldfield attended the school. We were astounded. The facts are that 80 per cent of Old-field's pupils live within its catchment area, an area that includes many isolated farms and extends for example from Scar Top to Providence Lane. The other 20 per cent have strong traditional ties or have exercised their right to choose the best start to their children's education.

It was quite apparent the review team had misinformed councillors.

We echo strongly SJ Scott's comments that the review team have come across as 'small minded and ludicrous', but would go further to say it's incredulous that people making these important decisions which will have detrimental effects on our children's education and rural community, do not do their homework and make sure they have worked on facts and local experience. How many more decisions by this review team are based on inaccurate and incomplete data?

SJ AND PG IVES,

Farley Crescent,

Oakworth.

SIR - With reference to Mr J Scotts letter in last week's KN. I am writing to wholeheartedly echo his sentiments for who in their right minds could even consider the closure of a well placed and very well run school - Bront', with excellent facilities and plenty of room for expansion, only to spend taxpayers money trying to update a school which at present has poor playground facilities, no playing fields, horrendous parking problems, and no space for necessary extensions except upwards!

The intelligent answer would seem to be to transfer this school to Bront'.

As for playing fields, the ones at Bront' are superb, very well used by both the school and very extensively at evenings and weekends by many sports people.

To my mind it smacks of jiggery pokery for I too saw surveyors on the fields looking at the prospect no doubt of grabbing prime land for housebuilding long before any proposals to close the school came to light. It's utterly disgraceful.

Bradford Council seem to be flying in the face of the government's promise to stop the sale of playing fields. There was also the promise not to close, in fact to protect village schools.

How then comes the proposal to close Oldfield School? This is a superb little school, with a record of excellence and very much cherished by children, parents and villagers alike. The only place in Oldfield to hold many activities and which should be helped to stay open for future generations.

These are some of the reasons why I, a lifelong Labour supporter, will certainly not be voting Labour at the forthcoming Council elections.

I shall vote for the independence party, in the hopes of getting free from Bradford altogether.

K PHILLIP,

Oakworth.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.