The outcome of the school review having been made public, school governors have now had a little time to reflect on the proposals. As a community governor at Bront' Middle School for the last seven years I am naturally disappointed at the decision to close what I firmly believe to be a first class school providing a first class education to the children of the Worth Valley.

Personally I have no philosophical problem with the decision to revert to a two tier system so I can address the future proposals for the Bront' site from an unjaundiced standpoint.

I find the failure to utilise the school's facilities within the new structure profoundly difficult to understand. It is a perverse decision. Obviously the school's various sites have an immense value for residential building purposes. (This would explain the numerous unofficial surveys that have been undertaken at the site by various developers over recent months, commencing incidentally long before the review consultation began!)

The over-arching objective of this review was to establish a system that would raise educational standards. The land, buildings and educational facilities currently occupied and used by Bront' Middle School are uniquely placed to contribute to this objective yet are to be swept aside. At the same time public money will be spent unnecessarily on adapting and re-furnishing other less suitable sites or building completely new facilities. Is this not the economic reasoning of the mad house?

Re-establishing the current Bront' site as a five form entry primary school would result in the Worth Valley having an unrivalled facility for 5-11 year olds of current and future generations.

We were assured very recently by Cllr Flood that good schools would not be closed. The decision to close Bront' is a manifest contradiction of that statement. The current school performs well educationally, managerially and financially. It has outstanding levels of extra curricular activity. By any standard it is a good school. The necessary closure of the institution as a middle school should not lead to the loss of the community of its ethos and overall educational character.

It could be argued that against existing standards elsewhere the current school would be over-resourced as a primary facility. It has excellent hall space, gymnasiums, science, IT and sports facilities. It offers a safe and welcoming environment for pupils and enjoys an excellent reputation with the parents of those pupils. Why then should this excellence be denied to the future children of the area.? If the review is genuinely about raising educational standards and not about raising money here is a prime opportunity to demonstrate that policy being put into practice.

The laudable aim of raising standards in education should not, as it appears to be, narrowly focused on league table positions; there is also a requirement to consider raising the standard of the learning environment. Indeed, attention to the latter would, in my view, considerably assist in the achievement of the former. It is self-evident that a child will achieve his or her maximum potential more readily if taught in a well equipped and modern environment rather than a portakabin tacked onto the end of the playground.

It fills me with amazement that such a fundamental review has been completed as a paper exercise. No detailed surveys of the various schools' current facilities have been conducted. The ratepayers will simply pick up the tab in two or three years time when the inevitable mistakes come to light - the failure to recognise the need for extra classrooms, extra staffrooms, extra canteen and extra toilet facilities at the retained sites.

Assuming, of course, that the retained sites have sufficient space for those extra facilities in the first place. If they do not, doubtless someone will suggest a review.

M S BOOTHROYD

Broadlands, Keighley.

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