IT was refreshing to read a well-informed letter from a member of the Executive, (Councillor Maggie Gibb, lifelong learning, Letters, September 3) in response to correspondent "Pinocchio". This is an issue I would dearly love to put behind me, but there were one or two inaccuracies which I am sure Coun Gibb would wish me to correct.

Firstly, Bury's school closure issue was not directly considered by the Secretary of State for Education. The system changed so that a "new to the post" civil servant (her rather more sympathetic predecessor having being swiftly moved sideways) decided that the petition would not reach Charles Clarke, who therefore did not have the opportunity to intervene.

Additionally, neither the council nor the Schools Organisation Committee (SOC) was vindicated as Coun Gibb claims. Indeed, the DfES wrote to the chairman and secretary of the SOC expressing concern that the department's correct advice on rural schools was not drawn to the SOC members' attention and suggesting that they reviewed some procedures, including the content of decision letters. This was censure, rather than vindication, but no action was enforced.

In terms of the High Court, the action may have ultimately failed anyway, but the constitutionality point raised failed on a point of law. The judge decided that he would not hear it because the case was brought against the independent SOC and should have been brought against Bury Council who were, it seems, not represented at the hearing, despite the two separate organisations sharing the same legal team and case notes. Again, not exactly vindication for Bury Council.

Coun Gibb is obviously knowledgeable and articulate -- she will therefore have at her disposal not only the details of the undisputed savings made by school closures which she outlined, but also the considerable (and still ongoing) costs of closing some schools and amalgamating others.

If the school closures scenario, based around competing explanations of school capacity and falling rolls, was not about funding, then perhaps Coun Gibb would enlighten us all by explaining what it was about.

At the time of the Strategic Review, the director of education promised us more reviewing of both the primary and secondary sectors. The key remaining question is surely whether those schools whose numbers were temporarily sustained by the closure of neighbouring schools, will be the next to be axed, when rolls fall still further, as they are predicted to do.

Coun Gibb would presumably know the answers and hopefully will choose to enlighten us all. Then, perhaps we can all move forward.

DAWN ROBINSON-WALSH