RICHARD Lucas (Herald letters, April 30) hits out at the “progressive” moves in Scottish education, which he sees as political.

Without offering any evidence to support his assertion, he states that the education review would consist of “more emphasis upon wellbeing and mental health, children’s rights, pupil-led learning, and gender equality (ignoring where girls out-perform boys), extra resources for poorer areas, better behaviour while dismantling disciplinary systems, and more inclusion, equality, equity, diversity and tolerance lessons”.

Exactly what is wrong with any of these?

I would particularly like to know what his problem is with wellbeing and mental health. Does he seek to ignore and further stigmatise mental illness, at the very time when there are many of us who are trying to raise awareness and normalise it?

If Mr Lucas broke an arm, he would seek professional help. What is wrong in seeking the same for a broken mind?

What is wrong, indeed, in addressing the root causes of mental illness, which can often stem from childhood trauma?

Strange as it may seem to him, children do indeed have rights, fully recognised by the UN.

Pupil participation, not pupil-led learning, gives a greater understanding and awareness. Where have the Scottish schools ever ignored girls’ academic excellence? Perhaps where children’s rights have not been addressed?

Yes, there should be more lessons in not only gender equality, for children of all genders, but more emphasis upon inclusion, equality, diversity and tolerance; doing so engenders greater understanding and reduces bullying.

And what is wrong in increasing resources for poorer areas, which helps children from poorer backgrounds to achieve?

Disciplinary systems are not being dismantled; they just take a different shape nowadays. Teachers no longer are expected to strike children with the Lochgelly Tawse on the slightest pretext.

In case Mr Lucas has not noticed, the use of corporal punishment in schools never was a deterrent to bad behaviour.

Frankly, if these are his views of education, then given that he is a teacher, it alarms me that any educational professional could come out with such antiquated notions of schooling, and such a cynical snipe at progressive measures.

Finally, he says that the Scottish Parliament reviewing education is “about as useful as asking the Sausage Appreciation Society to consider vegetarianism”.

I suggest that he examines just how many meat manufacturers have had to respond to the growth in vegetarianism and veganism by offering meat-free alternatives.

Just as education has to adapt to the realities of our more enlightened, inclusive, and diverse Scotland.

Leslie Thomson,

Edinburgh.