AS an experienced teacher of more than 20 years, I found much to agree with in John Munro’s letter (November 23). He illustrated clearly that the mere testing of pupils does not, in and of itself, improve attainment. Instead he outlined what really needs to be addressed: the significant indicators of a grinding poverty that we are told up to one-third of our pupils endure every day; in terms of income, health and housing – situations over which their parents have very little control.

Mr Munro goes on to eloquently express the importance of highlighting what is sometimes called the “hidden” curriculum: the social skills, imagination and creativity. All that fun stuff that teachers and children enjoy will be under threat because time will be increasingly spent on that which is more easily measured. What if a child is great at generating discussion in problem-solving tasks, but not so hot at paragraphing skills? Brilliant at making models, but ropey at algebra? Tough luck.

I agree most strongly with Mr Munro when he states one should question a one-size-fits-all approach. I would argue his case is reinforced even further when one considers the ever-increasing number of pupils who have additional support needs. Year on year cuts to education budgets have meant massive reductions to the specialist services for these pupils. These are the many children and young people who are now taught within the mainstream sector, but without the specialist staff ratio and indeed, often without the necessary in-depth training required by the teacher. How fair is it that these pupils be given a standardised national assessment?

Carolyn Ritchie,

83 Holmhills Road, Cambuslang.