Generation motivated by and living with technology

I have never felt pressurised by the school and welcomed their three consultation sessions.

I believe PHGS has an ever-growing reputation amongst parents (and teachers from other schools) and I appreciate their forward-looking attitude.

This generation of children are living with and motivated by technology.

This is an opportunity for them.

In an ideal world, the local education authority would pay for the technology. Unfortunately, this isn’t an ideal world.

A free education isn’t an end in itself; it is a means to an equal education. I agree that we cannot have a two-tier system where some children have tablets and some do not – it should be all of the children or none of the children.

PHGS has reassured parents that they agree with this.

Why don’t we support the school and await the figures of the number of families who have agreed to the take-up?

When I was a child, my mother had to buy me a calculator for school. Time moves and we have to move with the times.

Julie Kotzee, Menston

A fundamental change to our education system

After a difficult few weeks I wanted to write a letter to inform readers about where we are now with the iPad issue at Prince Henry’s Grammar School. So much has happened that only those parents directly involved will know all the details – but this issue is so huge it affects us all.

On Friday the school announced that it is implementing the iPad scheme. For the first time in generations, children in Otley and the surrounding area are going to be paying for equipment that the school believes is essential for the teaching curriculum. This is a fundamental change to how our education system works and it shouldn’t be pushed through when there is so much disagreement.

Parents are understandably divided over whether this is a good thing or not. It seems the majority support the scheme and are happy to make this payment – I wish these families all the best and I truly hope that the iPads are a great success.

However, we should all be concerned with how the school has dealt with those parents who are worried about the scheme.

These parents are not troublemakers and they have not enjoyed being in a position where they are speaking out against the school. They simply have genuine concerns they would like answering before making a decision.

A group of about 60 parents came together and compiled a long list of questions that they have asked the school to answer.

The school has pretty much refused to answer these questions and they have pressed on regardless.

For example, the school is charging £360 for each iPad. Parents have quite reasonably asked for a breakdown of this fee – they want to know exactly where their money is going.

The school has refused to answer this question and simply states that the financial model is ‘robust’.

Parents have also asked for details of the research that the school is basing this scheme on; they want to know more about the educational justification for introducing iPads. Again, the school has refused to reveal the details of this research.

I don’t personally believe the school has anything sinister to hide, but I have been completely perplexed as to why it won’t answer these fairly basic questions in an open and transparent way.

I have asked the school again if they will take another look at these questions. I believe full and proper answers will give parents the information they need to make a final decision.

Nobody wants this issue to keep rumbling on and absolutely nobody wants to undermine the excellent education that our children receive at Prince Henry’s. But it isn’t right to make such a fundamental change to our school without the genuine concerns so many parents clearly have.

Councillor Carl Morris, Otley Town Council (Lab, Manor)

Forgotten words on the formation of a council?

Last week’s letters page carried a letter that I found and read with increasing incredulity.

The letter, written by Coun Graham Latty, seemingly on behalf of his wife Coun Pat Latty, surprised me, firstly because in the Bowe house, my wife would insist on speaking for herself, and expressing her own views.

Secondly because Coun Latty (Pat or Graham?) was expressing a critical view on the current efforts by myself, and others, to collect signatures on a petition asking Leeds City Council, to consider the possibility of establishing a Town Council for Guiseley.

He seems to have forgotten his remark made to the Wharfedale Observer on September 20, 2012, when Rawdon was given the go- ahead to establish a Parish Council He said: “I am delighted that at last headway is being made in getting Airborough Parished.

“I see this as a first step and hope that perhaps Guiseley and Yeadon people will see that it is possible to set up a local council and I promise whatever help I and my colleagues in the ward can give.”

Now Coun Graham Latty seems to have totally changed his view and is seeking to suggest that a Neighbourhood Forum would be a possible alternative. Why?

He goes on to say that I, and other campaigners, have not described any boundaries for our proposed Town Council? Not so, he clearly has not taken the time to read the petition, where the intended boundaries are described quite clearly .

Nor does Coun Latty appear to have looked at the map printed on one side of our A3 campaign leaflet outlining the boundaries that we wish to see for the Town Council.

It’s strange that Coun Latty (Graham) appears not to have seen the campaign leaflet or the petition, as both have been freely available to everyone at the last two Guiseley and Rawdon Community Forum meetings, both chaired by Coun Graham Latty.

Finally, Graham Latty suggests that Aireborough Neighbourhood Forum could act as an alternative to a Town Council in Guiseley.

The work of the Aireborough Neighbourhood Forum has been very useful and helpful; I have worked with them whenever possible.

Its work in developing a Neighbourhood Planning Document for Aireborough has been particularly helpful.

It is however established on different boundaries than those proposed for Guiseley Town Council. It also has limited ability to deal with a range of matters affecting Guiseley.

Nor could it provide financial support to local groups and projects as Town Councils can and do. Aireborough Neighbourhood Forum may wish to continue to exist after it completes its present work. If so, then it may well wish to consider how it will develop its current working relationship with Rawdon Parish Council to include future Town or Parish councils in both Guiseley and Yeadon.

I personally would welcome working with them and utilising their expertise. In conclusion, I would continue to encourage residents of Guiseley to sign our petition, either visit the website guiseleytownpetition.net or call myself on (01943) 876196 if you prefer to sign a paper copy.

David Bowe, co-ordinator, Campaign for Guiseley Town Council

More traffic is making the area lethal for pedestrians

As almost daily now I find traffic queues to get into Ilkley, I wish I could make time to organise a traffic survey, particularly in Brook Street and Railway Road.

This area is lethal for pedestrians and as more and more traffic is brought into the town a major alteration will soon need to take place there unless the problem is anticipated.

Our town is under threat at present from the Strategies and Proposals which will open the door to hundreds of houses in the Wharfe Valley.

Both Ilkley Civic Society and Ilkley Parish Council are holding meetings on January 23 and January 29 respectively to address this major issue.

It is hoped all those who think ahead will attend to consider what the outcome of such development will be.

Another significant issue is that our Manor House Museum – a vital part of Ilkley’s history and currently an active centre for Arts (including access to Bradford’s Exhibitions thanks to the work of the Friends of the Manor House) has been threatened with loss of formal accreditation as a Museum.

Ilkley’s role within Bradford is, and always has been, as a tourist centre and the many festivals show the success in that role. However, all need voluntary input as well as local authority and central funding and it will be impossible for volunteers alone to keep the museum open.

This issue is also to be discussed at the Civic meeting on the 23rd and probably at the Parish Council Meeting on the 29th.

B J Cussons, Ilkley