Letters: Higher and further education are divisive terms that must go

I hope Mr Swinney has given serious consideration to the recent heroic paper by Tim Blackman, Vice Chancellor of Middlesex University. It is called The Comprehensive University; an Alternative to Social Stratification by Academic Selection.

He states: “Most secondary schools in the UK do not select their pupils on the basis of prior academic achievement. They are deliberately comprehensive, with this principle based on a positive education argument that it is best to educate young people of different abilities together. Almost all universities are based on the opposite principle: academic selection and stratification by ability into different types of institution. This contrast attracts little public or political debate.”

The paper takes the Scottish Government’s notion of wider access a stage further and presents a well-argued case, with certain reservations, that, if our secondary schools offer a non-selective mixed ability education to young people, why do our universities have to be so very elitist ? Our university staff are used to lecturing to the academic creme de la creme and perhaps it is time they adopted teaching techniques to reach the needs of a wider range of abilities and aptitudes.

My position on this issue is that much of the challenge can be traced back to the divisive terms higher education and further education which are now well established labels and I am convinced we cannot move forward until they are disestablished. It is time the two sectors came together as one.

Bill Brown, 46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.

IT would seem the SNP’s grievance against middle-class Scots continues. Not content with skewing the housing market they have turned their attention to university entrance requirements.

Reducing the “attainment gap” in education, whilst laudable in theory, is rather more difficult to realise in actuality. The SNP is manipulating entry to university in favour of children from lower socio- economic backgrounds by cutting the places for children of better off parents. This is not the solution.

Creating more university places overall and expanding, not contracting, college places would be the real answer but that requires not only more financial input and more teachers but also a rethink of the SNP’s unaffordable fixation with free university tuition which is at the root of the problem. The SNP has put the cart before the horse.

If it could improve the economy and consequently bring in more tax revenue first thist would allow it the leeway to offer free university education and more college places. This requires the help of the middle classes, hindering them. A bold step in the right direction would be reducing personal taxation, stimulating the housing market and encouraging new business start ups; the exact opposite of what SNP policies are achieving .

Dr Gerald Edwards, Broom Road, Glasgow.

IT IS not often that I agree with Stephen McCabe, education spokesman for Cosla, but he is correct when he highlights the damaging actions being taken by John Swinney and the SNP Government in removing democracy from the education of our children (“Councillors must stand up to Swinney”, Agenda, The Herald, August 7).

The new regional education authorities will be unelected, barely accountable bodies that will no doubt cost a fortune to set up and run, with chief executives probably earning more that directors of education, as is the case with so many government-appointed quango staff. They will not be accountable to the people; they will no more improve educational standards than any other so-called “reforms”; and the link between councils and residents will be destroyed.

People like Finance Secretary Derek Mackay, who once led Renfrewshire Council (with me as his deputy), seemed to believe in local democracy when he represented people at council level. What has changed his tune? Does he believe in this policy of dragging more and more power to the SNP Government and away from local, accountable councillors?

This is another example of how little democracy matters to the SNP. Using children’s lives and education to empire build for the party’s own sake is just not acceptable.

Councillor Eileen McCartin, (Scottish Liberal Democrats), Renfrewshire Council, Cotton Street, Paisley.

THE massed choir of government-funded children’s organisations sings in unison: smacking children should be banned (“Lawyers back calls for smacking to be banned”, The Herald, August 8 and Letters, August 9). However, the evidence relating to physical punishment is contested and some studies have found positive effects.

We must see the proposed ban in its wider context. The Scottish educational/social work elite is wedded to the philosophy that children are naturally good and that they will develop into virtuous adults if we treat then with enough respect and talk through issues. But kids can have rebellious and unkind tendencies and punishment can play a part in reining these in.

However, all must adhere to the state philosophy as all other approaches are seen as dangerous and irresponsible. The Named Person will always be on hand, armed with intrusive “wellbeing” questionnaires, ready to pounce when a kid says he was smacked by dad after driving the family car into the neighbour’s pond.

The emphasis is on children’s rights and protecting their emotional wellbeing. Respect for authority and obedience are out of fashion. The solution to child-rearing issues is the same: more teaching on rights and more counselling. Any hint that a more balanced approach is required is regarded as reactionary extremism. It’s hard to imagine the smacking ban Bill being defeated at Holyrood as no party coherently challenges the dominant flawed philosophy.

Richard Lucas, Scottish Family Party, 272 Bath Street, Glasgow.