THE sugar-coating that county education chairwoman Hazel Harding today attempts to put on proposals to axe 5,000 places in Lancashire primary schools in the next five years - entailing the closure or merger of some - is somewhat thin.

But while she translate this ostensibly drastic cutback in a milder way, equating it to the loss of an average of only ten places per school, and the question mark hanging today over the future of two Burnley primaries hit by falling rolls aptly underlines the need for economic marshalling of resources, there seems more to all this than prudence.

For this huge shake-up appears more budget-driven, than demand-driven.

That is evident from the fact that this slashing of thousands of class places is timed over five years.

And it appears to be taking place without reference to the birth rate from now until then which will say far more accurately how many places are needed.

Furthermore, unless Lancashire County Council has waved some magic wand in the past year and solved the problem of it having almost half its primary school children taught in overcrowded classes - a rate that was said to be among the worst in the country - then this plan would appear to seek to remove places that are needed now and may well be needed in future. We have already seen in Lancashire the failure of forecasting of demand for places in secondary schools creating tremendous problems and anger among parents denied places at the schools nearest them.

These proposals could well visit the same chaos on the primary sector.

Additionally, we fear still more unpicking of the fabric of the community, especially in country areas, resulting from the loss of local schools and the bussing of children to their more distant replacements.

County Councillor Harding's assurance that these cutbacks would not necessarily hit small and rural schools looks decidedly shaky when, in the next breath, she speaks of them being re-evaluated and cites the higher costs of "dwindling schools which are eating up resources."

But what of the cost to rural society when the village school closes?

This is not to deny the need for regular assessment of education resources.

But ought it not to be tuned to need, predicted by the birth rate, and tailored to local conditions?

By that method economies and adjustments can be made without conflict with actual demand or harm to the effort to reduce class sizes or to the structure of the community.

This would be far more preferable than putting up a target figure for cuts that is spurred more by budget considerations than by the right and necessary level of provision.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.