Letter: Clarifying views

My comments (Letters, 15 February) were not intended as an attack on Henry Philip. They were an attack on the oft expressed view that financial considerations are not a legitimate component of council decisions.

However, Mr Philip (Letters, February 18) claims I "agreed that a 'faculty system is inferior to that of principal teachers'". I did not.

My letter said: "Mr Philip. . . may be correct in asserting that a faculty system is inferior to that of principal teachers."

The next paragraph built on that uncertainty, (note the contextual meaning of "may"), by noting that there are differing views and evidence on that point.

This first misrepresentation of what I wrote is immediately followed by another, equally untrue, that I agreed that the decision was taken for "financial rather than educational reasons". I did not. My words were: "It is not an 'either/or' choice but a difficult balance."

Nor is he correct in saying that Edinburgh Council has decided to abolish the post of principal teacher or that it has "decided that all PT posts should go. . . " (emphasis added).

He makes a further argument from omission - that I failed to produce any educational reasons for the decision to move emphasis from a principal teacher structure towards a faculty structure. That is because I was not addressing that issue in my letter.

Mr Philip might like to know that one educational reason given for the reduction in PT posts is that it would align the delivery structure more with the intent of Curriculum for Excellence.

I add this information, not because it is my view, but to correct the distortion.

The above corrections do not mean I voted for the Lib Dem/SNP budget proposal on principal teachers. Actually, I did not.

(Cllr) Cameron Rose

Conservative education spokesperson

City Chambers

Edinburgh