I HAVE read with interest about pending school closures across the borough.

My understanding is that certain schools are due to close because of falling roles; that is schools are unable to fill classes with children. Such schools are costing the LEA too much money, therefore it makes sense to close them and filter their children into other schools.

However, I then read about the plight of St Andrew's C of E in Ramsbottom which faces closure or being merged with neighbouring St Paul's.

St Andrew's is a school that is far from empty. Indeed the head and his staff have to turn away children because there is no room in certain classes. St Andrew's is full, with approximately 250 children.

By contrast, St Paul's is a very small church school struggling to survive. I can understand the Church of England wanting to keep a church school in the village; however, I don't understand where St Andrew's comes into the equation.

Where is the justification?

St Andrew's has a fine reputation, good yearly SATs results, excellent Ofsted reports, a large dedicated staff and, most importantly, it is full to the brim with children!

To any bystander it would seem logical to leave St Andrew's as it is and close the unfortunate, floundering St Paul's.

I have every sympathy with St Pauls' staff, children and parents facing the idea of losing their school, but I have even more sympathy and can fully understand any anger or frustration felt by the staff, children and parents of St Andrew's.

There is an old saying: "If it aint broke, don't fix it!"

BAFFLED BYSTANDER