AS headteacher of the Wensleydale School between 1986 and 1990, I read the article and editorial about the school’s sixth form with a mixture of interest and concern (D&S Times, Nov 13).

In most aspects of life – not just educational provision – compromise must be made. Many people criticise access to services in our locality, comparing the situation unfavourably with large urban areas. But would they choose to live in those better-serviced places?

In weighing up the relative importance of factors that make up the quality of life, many would not.

Education is similarly complex, not least in attempting to satisfy individual needs within an effective and sustainable overall system: not all small schools are good, not all large schools are bad; small classes may give more personalised attention to pupils, but they may lack the stimulus provided by a substantial body of bright and motivated peers.

Most parents - understandably - want what they think is best for their child, but decisions about what is ‘best’ are not always made on solid or objective grounds.

The present situation needs some radical re-thinking. While it might be less than ideal for post-16 students to have a long journey to and from their place of study, it happens elsewhere both in this country and abroad.

But why should this be necessary, day in and day out? Most sixth formers spend at most five hours per week being taught an A-level subject.

So, for a three A-level course, why not just attend a school for three days a week with one intensive study day per subject, and then work independently for the other two, at home and/or at a local IT-equipped study centre, such as the Yorebridge site at Askrigg, or the Middleham Key Centre?

Modern technology is severely underused in our system.

In my last full-time role, as Her Majesty’s Inspector responsible for the European Schools, I saw pupils (and not just sixth formers) in a school in Bergen, in the Netherlands, being taught via videoconferencing alongside classes in schools in Luxembourg and Italy, thus allowing them to study subjects that could not be provided, on economic grounds, in their own schools.

The worst solution to local educational problems, at a time when the same edition of your paper reported a delegation to London to protest at the level of funding for rural schools, would be to assume that the status quo must be maintained at whatever cost - and that this would be best for future generations.

A fresh approach is needed, one that takes account of the outcomes desired, irrespective of the implications this might have for the means whereby to achieve them. Assuming that most parents want their children, when at school, to develop their talents (and their social and personal skills) to the highest possible level, then some hard decisions will have to be made.

It should not be difficult, however, to start with the horse in front of the cart, knowing where it has to go.

Andrew Bennett, Thoralby, Leyburn