OVER the past 10 years, the once-dominant Labour Party has dropped to third-party status in Scotland. Labour’s decline will continue if it supports the Tory bid at Holyrood to end Primary 1 assessments ("Minister warns parents not to boycott primary 1 tests", The Herald, September 17).

In Scotland, around 14 per cent of children are living in poverty (below 60 per cent of median income). The poverty-related achievement gap is evident at the age of three.

At age five, socially deprived children are 13 months behind in in their knowledge of vocabulary and 10 months behind in their problem-solving, compared to children in the highest income quintile. These gaps widen as the children move up the Scottish school system – a 20 per cent gap in numeracy skills by P4, 30 per cent in P7 and 50 per cent in S2. The corresponding gap figures for reading are 15 per cent (p4), 13 per cent (P7) and 25 per cent (S2) (Source: OECD Report 2015).

Assessment, on an individual pupil basis, is particularly vital for a socially-deprived child, in order to allow the teacher to diagnose the pupil’s educational needs. Local authorities have been conducting P1 assessments for many years. The Scottish Government is simply standardising this nationally. The Scottish Government has, in addition, introduced Pupil Equity Funding (PEF) to target the needs of the poorest children in our society. The nine most socially-deprived local authorities have further benefited from the Scottish Attainment Challenge funding.

Assessment is a positive action which helps children. Does the Labour Party wish to close the poverty-related attainment gap from age three, or does it simply want to join the Tories in wrecking educational policy in deprived areas?

Councillor Tom Johnston,

Education Spokesperson,

SNP Group,

North Lanarkshire Council,

5 Burn View,

Cumbernauld.

GAVIN Prentice (Letters, September 18) seems to suggest that some people like myself who critically question our existing post-school education system are guilty of promoting "creeping anti-intellectualism". He appears to argue in an educational context regarding the value of the vocational versus the esoteric. I believe therefore that what he really meant was “anti-academic” if you accept that the intellect is involved in most vocational study and workplace activities and is not confined to university studies.

It is a characteristic of many university graduates that they enthusiastically accept the burden of maintaining that institution as unchanged as possible and indeed I find they often seem to display propitiation towards their own alma mater.

Mr Prentice, rather oddly I feel, suggests that " if university isn't the place for thinking about 'the meaning of meaning' then where on earth is?"

I consider this a dubious example as I expect the topic is almost certainly a debate to be often found richly discussed in many walks of life where empirical and original evidence from personal experiences are tabled. I am certain, for example, that many "meaning" means.

Accordingly, I propose that the issue being raised is not about anti-intellectualism as such, but about perceived ownership of academic capital, of which our universities act as if they hold the absolute monopoly.

I would argue that the view of Mr Prentice perhaps does vocational education a little disservice by assembling a perspective seemingly biased towards the abstract and abstruse. In my own experience it is anti-vocational education attitudes which are the real scourge in our society and our independent universities have held too much influence for too long.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.