Your leader ("Link between poverty and poor attainment", September 27) makes the simple but profound point that just because "well-off pupils are performing so much better does not mean they are three times as bright as pupils from poorer areas or even three times as good at passing exams".

The report from Education Scotland which contains the damning statistics about underachievement associated with poverty simply serves to underscore the inequality in our current system. This is not just an issue of exam passes; this is about a waste of human potential and destruction of life chances.

But we already know this. What we do not seem to understand is how to change it. Despite the best efforts of local authorities, educational establishments and young people themselves, this correlation (and it is a correlation; being poor does not mean you are destined to fail) seems impossible to change.

So, perhaps we need to think more radically. Irrespective of the result of the forthcoming independence referendum, Scotland has a chance to reflect on the kind of nation it wants to be. If it wants to be fairer, less unequal and more successful; if it wants greater participation of all of its citizens in the democratic process; and it if wants to realise the creative potential of all of every individual, something different has to be done.

In the longer term, eradicating poverty must be the main goal. The notion of the Common Weal is attractive. It could be something which generates cross-party support and the Nordic model, where poverty is less prevalent, could be our long-term goal. In the meantime, we need to challenge the housing and employment policies which have lead to some schools having intakes which are not comprehensive. If all schools were truly comprehensive we would not need parental choice or a private sector.

The challenge is that it is impossible to have a world-class education system at the same time as imposing cuts on education spending. So, we have a choice - spend to save and invest in education for the long term, or resign ourselves to the fact that, every year, similar statistics will emerge and the most pernicious postcode lottery of all will continue.

Brian Boyd,

Emeritus Professor of Education,

University of Strathclyde,

Glasgow.

Your article "Impact of poverty on school results revealed in report" (September 27) illustrates, I believe, the prime weakness of Education Scotland. On the issue of exam results it persistently behaves like a secluded miser who keeps counting his savings in the hope he got it wrong and he might have more than he thought.

The two areas Her Majesty's inspectors of education in Scotland require to address as a priority are: reality checks in the areas of the inclusive capability of a school as an organisation to meet the different needs of all pupils; and being centred on the individual child instead of focused on the school or statistics in its approach.

All schools are staffed to a very tight per capita formula with limited flexibility. Similarly, schools are usually built to a lowest tender price and the limited resources provided through private or borrowed government capital invariably have floor areas and classroom accommodation designed and accounted for with a very sharp pencil. These factors inevitably set out the fixed restrictions when any attempt is made to meet imposed external targets which arrive on the headteacher's desk.

In terms of meeting the needs of all pupil abilities in challenging schools serving deprived areas, the usual system of provision is therefore not always fit for purpose. However, inspection reports and statistics seldom wish to tread on such political eggshells.

Nevertheless, the overriding issue is that, in many instances, I am certain that an inspection of a school is far too late in the process to be of comprehensive value in the study of improving attainment. School inspectors should be visiting the homes of pupils rather than dismissing certain groups as having "social disadvantage". It is surely quite unfair to criticise a school for failing to reflect the individual learning profile of a pupil when one is only comfortable talking on a statistical level. Inspectors should be required to pay a fee to parents or guardians to be permitted to be invited to their home environment. This, at all school stages, would facilitate an interview and witness what quality of learning can realistically be expected at home after school. Perhaps we would then see more qualified and reasonable judging of what schools, for their part, are able to achieve.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.