THERE are two problems in education that have landed us in the drastic position we are in (“Teachers threaten strikes to win substantial pay rise”, The Herald, January 5). Pay is one; a ridiculously badly thought-out curriculum the other. Having been a maths teacher for 36 years, I saw the polarity of teachers’ salary increases, with largish rises in 1974 (Houghton), 1982 (Clegg) and 2001 (McCrone) but between each the pay level fell behind that of others in industry. The last 16 years have seen teachers’ pay fall, in relative terms, by between 10 and 15 per cent and this is a conservative estimate. That is one reason for the dire shortage of good quality students wanting to enter the teaching profession.

The second problem is in standards, with the Government’s insistence on not only the introduction of the untested Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) around 2010 but also in its continued existence in the face of mounting opposition from teachers, pupils, parents, universities and industry. It is just not fit for purpose and is the major reason standards have slipped so drastically, especially in numeracy and literacy. CfE encouraged every school to develop its own curriculum, both in primary and secondary, with no designated, clearly defined courses and no recognisable set of assessment in primary nor a list of recommended subjects in secondary schools fit to be studied.

That, alongside the move to a broad general education in third year and the removal of a credible examination for National 4 pupils, has worsened the fall in educational standards. Please don’t quote the rise in the number of pupils passing five Highers in fifth or sixth year. The final decision on the pass mark for each subject comes from the Scottish Government and that alone determines the number of pupils passing Higher examinations.

Universities have to provide summer catch-up courses to help bring potential students up to speed in both literacy and numeracy. Also, why do the teaching colleges not use the majority of the fours years primary teachers spend at college concentrating on the basics of numeracy and literacy? Surely the students could be taken through, in depth, the maths and language skills necessary to allow them to feel confident when faced with children from primary one to primary seven and beyond ?

It is a cycle that has to be broken. Falling standards are due to a failing curriculum not producing the right standard of teachers who are then, in turn, lacking in confidence to teach children adequately.

Tom Strang,

1 Gorse Drive, Barrhead.

LAST year may go down as one in which more column inches than ever were filled onhow technology affects our social wellbeing and psychological health. A chief preoccupation is the use of smartphones in school, which polarises opinion. Conservative MSP Michelle Ballantyne has called for powers for headteachers to ban smartphones if they wish, citing London School of Economics research.

The Scottish Government says schools can decide for themselves. But its stance doesn’t appear to be entirely neutral. Last August an official told The Herald that local authorities and schools “are encouraged to think carefully about how to incorporate smart and mobile phones into learning and teaching”. The official guidance, from 2013, admits to the risks of “low-level disruption”, bullying and harassment, none of which is likely to improve attainment or produce the confident individuals the Curriculum for Excellence seeks to nurture.

Research offers grounds for concern as to the effects on wellbeing. Professor Jean M Twenge and her team studied the effects of smartphone use on young people over a period of five years. They found evidence of causal links to depression and suicidal thoughts.

This is unsurprising. Much of the ubiquitous software was designed to produce a dopamine hit. Addictive effects were chronicled by scientists as far back as 2011. Last year the lead author of a Singapore study, apparently without irony, suggested undergraduates should be allowed to retain their smartphones as they were addicted to them.The Government’s official guidance claims that to attempt to impose a ban would be “unreasonable and impractical”.

Unreasonable and impractical were two key thrusts of argument used against the smoking ban in 2006. Prior to that, politicians wary of tobacco interests were hiding out round the back of the bike shed. The smoking ban prompted accusations of nanny-state governance, among other things, but is now generally viewed in a favourable light.

The “attention economy” is not motivated by educational aims. It is a sales-driven domain powered by the stratospheric and barely understood ambitions of Big Tech. A convincing case for smartphones raising attainment in school has not yet been made. The Scottish Government ought to recommend a precautionary approach while more research is carried out.

Therese Stewart,

61 Deanburn Park,

Linlithgow.

I FOUND that your article on entrants to the teaching profession helpfully does much to assist in de-bunking the myth that the abolition of autonomous colleges of education in the 1990’s represented progress in Scottish education (“ Warning from councils over the quality of new teachers”, The Herald, January 5 ).

The presumed hope in abandoning proven teacher training in favour of “teacher education” delivered by universities was that the expectation of these new grandees would be the emergence of a generation of scholarly and reflective teachers. I believe that the recent warning from local authorities must indicate to many observers that we are paying the price for adopting a policy of pretension.

As your article illustrates, continuing problems have become apparent where robust training is not strongly evidenced. You quote young pre-service teachers as noting significant deficiencies in their preparation for the classroom.

The fact that our schools very often have staffing level challenges means that experienced teachers simply have to give priority time to their pupils.

Any notion that university courses can provide the theory of teaching and student teachers can somehow, through a process of osmosis, pick up the practical skills when placed in a school is surely a fantasy. It would be like sending our troops on D-Day onto the Normandy beaches, having only given them lectures on warfare.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.