I HAVE followed, with great interest, the correspondence bemoaning the parlous state of the Scottish education system (Letters, May 11, 12, 13, & 15).

In August 2015, the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, indicated, in a speech to education leaders at Wester Hailes Education Centre in Edinburgh, that she aimed to close the attainment gap completely. Moreover, she said plainly that she "wanted to be judged on this".

Over the decade in which the SNP have been in power, and fully responsible for Scottish education, it is apparent that there has been a steady decline in standards. I suspect Ms Sturgeon is well aware of this, as despite staking her reputation on closing the gap, she has sought to sidestep the issue by delegating responsibility to the unfortunate John Swinney.

Let's not forget it was Ms Sturgeon who asked to be judged. The judging should take place on June 8.

John Scanlon,

Colonsay Drive, Newton Mearns.

I WOULD like to make a few points in reply to Carole Ford (Letters, May 13).

First, "recently graduated primary teachers" will have received their primary, and at least early secondary, education under the aegis of the previous Lab/Lib administration (as the Scottish Government was then known).

Secondly, the Curriculum for Excellence against which Ms Ford frequently fulminates was commissioned and introduced by the same administration. I know this because, as a "school leader" (depute head teacher in an academy in an adjacent authority to the one in which Ms Ford was employed) I was responsible for the initiation of its implementation. I retired in 2007.

Thirdly, as a former school leader herself, Ms Ford knows well how long it takes to introduce, implement and evaluate any change in the education system, and how much it costs in time, money, training, resources and stress on staff already burdened with long hours and often unrealistic expectations on the part of the society they serve. Constant change adds to this stress. John Swinney has been in his job for a year. It is hardly long enough to come to grips with a challenge of this scale, let alone make changes.

Fourthly, a semantic point. The article Ms Ford refers to states that these "recently graduated primary teachers" are "probably not confident of teaching maths to 11-year-olds". In her letter, Ms Ford translates this as "unable to teach arithmetic". There is a. big difference between "probably not confident" and "unable". Nearly 50 years ago, as a newly certificated secondary teacher, I was "probably not confident" of teaching O Grade and Higher English, but never felt I was unable to. A bit of application and on-the-job experience greatly increased my confidence.

Jean Park,

33 Bank Street, Irvine.

EXACTLY what is mathematics in primary schools? I was a pupil in the 1940s through to the early 1950s. At that time we were taught arithmetic in primary school. At secondary school mathematics – that is, algebra, geometry and trigonometry - were introduced and were taught in addition to and separately from arithmetic. The leaving certificate was sat in the fifth year and you had to obtain a group of several subjects to be awarded the certificate. That group had to contain Higher English and arithmetic as two of your subjects.

So what is primary school mathematics? I feel it should not contain any "real" maths. The primary teachers should concentrate on the three Rs and the teachers should be well prepared to teach these basics. Leave mathematics, foreign languages and science to secondary school with specialist teachers. That way we may hear fewer complaints about the poor performance of some secondary pupils.

G Braidwood Rodger,

6 Woodhouse Court,

Glasgow.

I WISH to endorse your leader on special needs education (“Schools inclusion policy failing pupils”, The Herald, May 15). When my 40-plus son with a learning disability but now in full employment was at school he was assigned to a local secondary because he could not be stretched at the special needs school. The net effect was that despite a demanding job I spent night after night for four years helping him through various subjects. The special needs teacher gave limited support, no doubt making judgements of parents

In deprived areas I suspect this is a more significant problem. As a society we have to ensure sufficient resources are provided to support special needs pupils with additional money awarded to those schools which achieve significant results for its disadvantaged pupils.

James McAleese,

53 Meadowburn, Bishopbriggs.