Sir, Whether the Curriculum for Excellence is a good thing for Scottish schools or not remains to be seen, but it is just one more change in dozens which have been imposed on teachers. The excellence of Scottish education pre-1960 is a widely acknowledged historical fact.
The Scots benefited from the legacy of the Reformation and the Presbyterians’ aim of a school in every parish. For centuries, that excellent system endured, with hard-headed elders and enlightened ministers laying great emphasis on the three Rs.
The result was that Scottish children in the 18th,19th and well into the 20th century left school even at 14 with excellent reading, writing and counting skills and a good grounding in other subjects.
The state took over responsibility for education in 1870s, but the old traditions survived and Scottish schools’ standards remained high.
Unfortunately, after 1945, a beast called social engineering raised its ugly head and the Scottish education system was completely destroyed by modern theorists whose aim was to reform society through education and, mistakenly, not only to give every child an equal opportunity, but to make every child equal.
The result has been chaos almost ever since, with teachers trying to maintain standards amidst sweeping changes which have made their task well-nigh impossible.
What we need is not another attempt such as the Curriculum for Excellence at rescuing previous failed reforms, but one really all-embracing reform, returning Scottish education to basics putting the power back in the hands of teachers, backed by headmasters and education authorities and with parental support and ensuring that every child has every opportunity to start life with the educational strengths Scottish children used to have.
We should return to a system which proved itself over the centuries and leave the teachers to get on with it, with as few directives from above as possible,
George K McMillan. 5 Mount Tabor Avenue, Perth. (Former Assistant Rector, Perth Academy.)
Wrong time to highlight this subject . . .
Sir, Your investigation into the new Curriculum for Excellence and the coming exams will no doubt reflect public interest and concern regarding this important subject.
These concerns have already been widely publicised and I recall similar concerns at the time when Standard Grades were being introduced.
I would, however, question if such publicity is appropriate or helpful at this particular time a time when pupils, supportive parents and teachers must be fully preoccupied, and often stressed, with preparing for the forthcoming exams.
I suggest that the somewhat negative tone of Tuesday’s first report, with its references to “lottery”, “shambles” and “dummies”, is an unwelcome and ill-judged distraction.
Ken Anderson. 10 Douglas Terrace, Broughty Ferry.
Both views are well covered
Sir, Mr S Brett of Carnoustie (letters, Tuesday) suggested that the recent Courier pull-out trying to clarify certain referendum issues for the general readership, was biased in favour of the “Yes” vote. He went on to suggest the paper was a mouthpiece for the SNP and asked if it was true that The Courier only prints what it is told to by the SNP.
Not knowing how long the said gentleman has resided in “Courier country” it might be wrong to assume that he is a newcomer, but what you can’t accuse the paper of is dancing to the SNP tune, even though you may disagree with some of the opinions expressed.
As a regular reader it seems to me that taken over time the views from both “Yes” and “No” camps have been fairly represented in equal measure.
Allan A MacDougall. 37 Forth Park, Bridge of Allan.
First time he has read it?
Sir, With regard to the letter from S Brett on your letters page March 25, I really think the Referendum 2014 pull-out he refers to must have been the first time he has read The Courier otherwise he could never make the ridiculous claim of a “Yes” bias in your paper.
The Courier’s letters page has been inundated with anti-independence letters for months especially from a hard core of half a dozen or so very regular correspondents.
Your regular comment article writers are indeed, I would say, biased towards the “No” camp with the shining light Mr Jim Crumley being the only one illuminating any sense towards the “Yes” campaign.
So, S Brett, get your facts right. The Courier has been quite impartial in its distribution of views. It is the letter writers who hold the “anti” bias.
Ian Allan. Marchside Court, Sauchie.
This change of mind welcome
Sir, I am glad that some senior members of the Scottish Government are changing their minds on having the English monarchy as our head of state if we become independent. The SNP’s decision to have an outdated monarchial system deciding who our head of state will be is ridiculous, we should have a democratically elected head of state, if we need one at all.
Alister Rankin. 93 Whyterose Terrace, Methil, Leven.