BURY'S ruling councillors, notably the Executive members, have enjoyed a string of failures during the last year, the most recent being the failed PFI bid to build a "super school" in Radcliffe, alongside an upgrading of Tottington and Derby high schools.

Bury's bid, despite the no doubt expensive consultancy charges associated with it, did not persuade the DfES to accept the £37.5 million proposals, but did manage the magnificent achievement of pitting head teacher against head teacher in the borough's secondary schools, by selecting schools on criteria which do not appear to be open and transparent. Nothing new there then!

Despite Councillor Steve Perkins' assurances that a second bid would go ahead in the autumn and that the borough's secondary schools would, by hook or by crook, be modernised, there seems to be doubt about the efficacy of PFI anyway. Councillor Derek Boden himself rather sensibly expressed concerns about whether the advantages government claims for PFI would be borne out in practice, and LEA officer Paul Cooke advises that hard lessons should be learned from PFI bidding, which is still in its infancy.

Learning committees scrutiny commission member Tim Chamberlain suggested the immortal process of a strategic review of secondary places be undertaken to assess the demands for secondary schools in the area before making further bids.

It is an astonishing admission to be acknowledging that no such review had taken place by the LEA on the instructions of the Executive before they committed themselves to a large expenditure on the unsuccessful -- presumably ill thought-out -- PFI bid. Let's hope such a review, if it happens, follows sound educational principles rather than political ones.

Yet Coun Chamberlain's approach makes more sense than Coun Perkins' desire to jump, unthinkingly, right back into the PFI quagmire.

Given that we are about to lose numerous primary school places on the grounds of surplus, then if the strategic review of primary places has any validity at all it will presumably not take too many years for this surplus to filter through to the secondary sector -- hence, the effects surely need to be properly assessed in advance of bids for funding being made.

It would seem that the Executive are seriously divided on this controversial issue of PFI and the future of secondary education in Bury. Rather than certain councillors spending time attacking the critics of their record on education -- and indeed care of the elderly -- via this Letters page, they would be more productive responding positively to public concerns by formulating coherent education and care policies for "cash-strapped Bury", preferably before the local elections. Then voters would know exactly what they are voting for.

DAWN ROBINSON-WALSH