Readers' letters: Curriculum for Excellence flawed from outset

My only surprise at the findings of the University of Stirling research that Curriculum for Excellence has had the effect of narrowing the curriculum (Scotsman, 22 February) is that it took so long to establish this, for it was actually a design feature of CfE – and I write as someone who was on the main development committee for the programme.

The original idea was that all secondary school pupils would study a broad general curriculum for their first three years – S1 to S3; make their subject choices in S3 and then develop these subjects for examination or assessment at the end of S4, meaning they had just one year of study for their exam subjects.

However, from the outset it was obvious that it would not be possible to do more than six subjects for examination because there simply isn’t enough time in a school year to study more. Just for clarity, the SQA helpfully published the number of hours of study required for each subject, making it beyond doubt that six subjects was the absolute maximum that could be fitted into the year.

There were some on the committee, like me, who pointed out the problem but our concerns were dismissed by the important people who’d already decided what should and would happen – I was only on the committee to give the appearance of broad consultation, not to be listened to. The bigwigs dismissed our worries on the basis that the SQA-advised time would not be needed because pupils could bring forward earlier learning from the first three years.

The University of Stirling research reveals S4 students are studying fewer subjects than before the new curriculum’s introduction

It is noteworthy that large secondary schools in middle class areas had no time for such tosh, knowing that their parent bodies would not have stood for it. They continued to offer subject choice in S2. Pupils were able to, and did, take eight subjects over the next two year because there was time. Pupils continued to be able to take three sciences, or two languages or a new subject like psychology. There was no narrowing of the curriculum in these schools.

Youngsters in smaller schools, often in deprived areas, played a heavy price for the flawed vision of CfE.

Judith Gillespie, Edinburgh

Proud legacy

Not only is Murdo Fraser jaundiced, he is also being churlish when writing about Nicola Sturgeon’s legacy (Scotsman 22 February). Our First Minister won widespread praise for her calm, effective leadership throughout the Covid pandemic and is globally recognised as a leader in tackling climate change. Just this week, England’s chief medical officer Sir Chris Whitty told MPs that “We learn a lot, because Scotland has actually blazed a trail in many areas of public health that we have learnt from” and this was echoed in a Nuffield Trust article on adult social care which highlighted the work being done in Scotland in tackling low pay staffing issues and urged the UK Tory government to follow suit.

Nicola Sturgeon’s achievements are too numerous to list, but these include building the magnificent Queensferry Crossing delivered on time and well under budget. She saved Prestwick Airport, nationalised ScotRail, scrapped dentistry charges, introduced the small business bonus, set up the Scottish National Investment Bank and inward investment outstrips the rest of the UK. We benefit from the best performing NHS in the UK, the lowest crime rate in 40 years and the introduction of numerous welfare provisions including the Scottish Child Payment to help those less well-off as a result of Westminster austerity. She also extended free personal care and child care.

Despite the economic limitations of devolution, Nicola Sturgeon can be proud of her record in tackling poverty. 15 of the 20 most deprived areas in the UK were in Scotland in 2014, now all 20 are in England. Scotland has a lower rate of overall poverty at 18 per cent than England’s 22 per cent and 24 per cent in Labour run Wales. That’s some legacy.

Fraser Grant, Edinburgh

Gone for good

Some time ago, I counted myself an SNP follower and indeed a supporter, in heart, of independence; but departed as I watched education, health and drug problems become relegated to “challenges” and “committees”.

I felt, perhaps, a resurgence and redirection with the impending departure of the First Minister. I fe It I might return to the fold if there was a re-focusing on Scotland’s challenges.

Needless to say I find myself disappointed and forever departed from the party. I cannot accept as a focus a candidate who, in my view, mismanaged education and the health service and wasn’t blameless in the ferry fiasco.

The candidate who brought fresh hope has now been vindictively attacked and deemed inappropriate for personal views and ideologies, sincerely held, even though she declared she would not let her personal beliefs impact on the party’s decisions.

A party that tolerates such personal tirades over and against policy matters is, in my opinion, not fit to govern anything, far less our country.

James Watson, Dunbar, East Lothian

Let us pray

Faith, Hope and Charity were supposedly infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children.

It would seem, in a modern interpretation, that these have been infused in the would-be disciples of our soon-to-be- departed First Minister. Current debate seems to be solely focused on Faith at the moment, to the detriment of the things that really matter to our everyday lives here.

While Charity may be interpreted by our two main hopefuls as love for God, I fear that it is what many in Scotland will be depending on given this focus on Faith and a complete lack of Hope.

Is this pair really the best on offer? We’d be better off putting our five million Scottish names in a hat and drawing one at random.

Ken Currie, Edinburgh

Personal beliefs

The current media coverage would seem to suggest that Kate Forbes’ campaign to become First Minister is all but over.

Articulating her personal religious objections to same-sex marriage has stirred up such a backlash that it’s difficult to imagine her candidacy maintaining any real momentum. It would seem that being honest and announcing one’s beliefs to the country has no place in the modern political arena, yet surely the most important aspect is whether taking such a stance is likely to conflict with one’s ability to become an effective and unifying First Minister.

With Ash Regan remaining relatively anonymous, it would seem that Health Secretary Humza Yousaf, who is still presiding over sliding A&E treatment numbers, is well ahead and one can therefore assume that the influence of Nicola Sturgeon on the party is likely to continue for some time to come.

Bob MacDougall, Kippen, Stirling

Parallel contests

The SNP and Conservative leadership campaigns are remarkably similar: a “car (or scooter) crash waitingto happen” candidate, and a “blindingly obvious” candidate who, despite powerful forces in their party plotting against them, are more popular with the electorate. Quite important, you’d think, for parties facing defeat at the next election.

And if Forbes wipes the floor with Yousaf in televised debates, and SNP members inexplicably choose him, Yousaf may well crash, burn and resign, and Forbes take over – our third First Minister in perhaps even less than Truss’s 49 days.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Jock Tamson

Does every news item and social media comment regarding Kate Forbes’ possible election to SNP leader need to mention her Free Church background? Would the same rationale be applied if she were Jewish, Catholic, atheist? Jock Tamson will be spinning.

Vince Macari, Edinburgh

Politics secular

Why do you think that most “atheists and agnostics” accept that religious leaders “play a valuable part in public discourse” (Leader, 21 February)? I certainly don’t. The US Pew Research Centre found that, when asked about the role of religion in society, most atheists express negative views. Many atheists are also secularists, who, while accepting that everyone can hold whatever beliefs they choose, want public life to be free from religious influence or interference.

Please note that an agnostic is not someone who is equivocal about religion, as you imply, but someone who is certain that nothing is known or can be be known of the existence or nature of God. This is a common mistake.

Steuart Campbell, Edinburgh

Female bosses

Ana Stewart’s important new report, Pathways: A New Approach for Women in Entrepreneurship (Scotsman, 21 February), is right to stress the importance of delivering the right skills support from an early age to help more women start-up and run successful businesses.

The low participation rate of women in the start-up business community is seen as a consequence of innate societal attitudes and that needs to change.

Our experience running a programme called #FemaleBoss is that young women have ample drive and ambition to succeed in business, but those whose entrepreneurial behaviours and aspirations are shaped at school have clear advantages.

Enterprise learning can empower and support young women to develop confidence, self-esteem and resilience. By targeting S3/4 pupils we can inspire them ahead of their course choices in S5 and offer them a future in business without limitations.

Emma Soanes, CEO, Young Enterprise Scotland, Glasgow

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line - be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.

Subscribe

Subscribe at www.scotsman.com/subscriptions