The national educational reforms known collectively as Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) are still undergoing development, implementation and modification.

Understandably teachers are still cautious, often donning belt and braces and possibly contributing to what has been perceived as excessive red tape. The Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), also suspects some schools have resorted to over - detailed planning and record keeping as insurance against the day an inspector calls.

Therefore, the decision by school inspectors to identify and report on overly bureaucratic procedures has been generally well received. As a result the bureaucratic trees should be less likely to obscure the curricular wood. The additional challenge for inspectors will be to identify the ways in which the freed up time is used to improve youngsters' learning and further the transformational changes envisaged by the architects of CfE.

Concerns surrounding excessive bureaucracy and other nuts and bolts issues such as the number of subjects to be studied and assessment practices have restricted opportunities for teacher to debate the high ground. For example, how many teachers have had the opportunity at school level to discuss the fundamental educational, social, economic and technological purposes and benefits of CfE?

Bureaucracy has been shown to reduce flexibility and responsiveness within any system. Inertia is a characteristic of most educational systems and ours is no exception. The common feature of most Scottish educational developments of the past 40 years is the inordinate time it has taken to implement them. In many cases, the world has moved on before full implementation. I remember a modern studies teacher's startled look when I suggested he might have to "tweak" his courses following the crumbling of both the Berlin Wall and the apartheid system.

There are many reasons why past and current changes have been slow and less than transformational. In educational terms, Scotland is conservative and change, especially far - reaching change, is viewed with suspicion. Parents, particularly the more comfortably off and articulate, are often the most resistant to change. It's not difficult to work out why. They tend to belong to the social and economic groups that have done best out of the existing system. For them it was the passport into higher education and the comfortable lifestyle that they wish for their children also. Nothing's broken, so why fix it?

Articulate and well-informed parents carry considerable clout at school, local and national levels. Theirs is the voice heard most often and most loudly. They dominated the old - style school boards and, possibly to a lesser extent, the successor parent forums and councils. They know their way round the system and how to bend the ears of local and national politicians. Their default position tends to be the status quo and, if all else fails, there is always the independent sector.

Politically, teachers generally lean towards the left. Paradoxically, they tend to be more conservative in their professional lives. They are understandably and justifiably cautious about change that is not fully thought through or adequately resourced. They are suspicious of change that could be detrimental to their pupils' education and life chances. Some, no doubt resent the additional workload that inevitably accompanies change and increased professional responsibility and accountability.

The combined influence of parents and teachers should not be underestimated. Their coalition successfully thwarted many of the most ill - advised proposals of the Conservative governments of the 1980s and 1990s. With parental support, teacher unions were almost unique in emerging largely unscathed from the fallout of the disputes of the 1980s that so weakened larger industrial unions.

The influence of parents and teachers has undoubtedly helped shape discussions and priorities surrounding the future direction of CfE. In some of the country's most prosperous areas the main concern of articulate parent groups has been the possible reduction in the number of National 5 qualifications their children would accumulate by the end of fourth year. Some even expressed concern that a reduction could disadvantage their children when it came to university entrance one or two years down the line.

Inertia and self - interest continue to lie at the heart of a system distorted by undue and premature preoccupation with Highers and university entrance. Of course these are hugely important but they represent a drag on the transformative intentions that supposedly underpin CfE. The programme started off with the best of intentions but to the outside observer at least, it is difficult to identify where meaningful change has occurred.

As demonstrated by the reforms of the past 50 years, children from the most affluent areas and supportive backgrounds do well, largely irrespective of the curriculum and on occasion, the quality of teaching. The real benchmark for CfE should be the extent to which it helps transform the experience, achievements and prospects of thousands of children from the poorest backgrounds. Their interests are rarely represented by articulate and well-connected parents and pressure groups. Their underachievement is a national scandal. Recent research indicates that less than 20% of children from the lowest income group achieved five or more of the old - style Standard Grade qualifications. In prosperous Aberdeen the figure was a shameful 10%.

It is hugely ironic that it has been left to Mary Scanlon, Scottish Conservative education spokeswoman, to highlight that scandal. Her realisation there just might be a link between poverty and poor educational performance is as belated as it is welcome. Ms Scanlon is wrong to think this is purely an educational issue, but she is surely correct to argue, " If we do not have radical reform of Scotland's educational system, the country's poorer children will continue to suffer."

The transformational potential of CfE is being sapped and absorbed by the conservatism of the system. We should not be measuring its success or otherwise by Higher Grade pass rates or levels of university entrance, but on the extent to which it engages and enhances the lives of thousands of youngsters living on our poorest estates and whose lives are blighted before they even start.