THE Bury Times must be grateful to the education service at this time of year for helping to fill its columns with the incidence of the annual admission to secondary schools procedure. As "Numen Lumen" reminds us (April 14) it was ever thus.

Details may change but there is no escaping the inevitable trauma for a considerable number of parents and children of the transfer from primary to high school.

Parents could only know where they stood when the procedure started if expressions of preference were not allowed and all pupils were directed to schools. However, that would not satisfy many parents and would be against the law anyway.

Since the aim must be to try, eventually, to satisfy the wishes of as many parents as possible, there has to be a place for an expression of preference. Twenty years ago, as "Numen Lumen" may recall, a place was guaranteed in the high school serving the area in which the parent lived, but parents could still express a preference for another school. Some of these preferences could be met in the early stages but others had to wait until vacancies occurred at the preferred schools, or an appeal panel ruled in favour. In a few cases parents' wishes could not be satisfied, but at least the original guarantee was met by the council (LEA).

What has changed radically in recent years is that, because of court rulings in other parts of the country, the Government has been forced to change the regulations, as a result of which the council can no longer unconditionally guarantee a place at the school serving the area where the parent lives. The parents have now to make preferences, whether they want to or not, and the council has to give first regard to preferences in order of priority and in accordance with the criteria sent to parents in the booklet they receive before preferences are made.

There is no question of a guarantee of a place at a particular school at the start of the procedure, although it stands to reason that if the catchment area school is given as the first preference, the request can usually be met. Many people may not consider the situation was satisfactory 20 years ago, but the council tried its utmost to be as fair as possible within the law. I have no doubt that this is the aim now, but it is the law that has changed. People must judge for themselves whether that is for the better or not.

It seems inevitable that people, disgruntled with the process, will ascribe ulterior motives behind it. I have seen no justification for this locally, but the law as it stands is difficult to administrator sensibly and no wonder some parents are baffled by the situation.

I trust that, despite this, the vast majority of parents do achieve what they want for their children, though I know there will be some who will be disappointed. And that hurts.

MALCOLM GRAY,

(former director of education),

Bury.