I felt compelled to write with regard to a comment made by researchers from the University of Stirling in your article “Teachers resistant to CfE’s new thinking, say experts” (10 May): “At secondary level, possibilities for curriculum development were limited because teachers saw their role as ‘being ultimately to prepare students to pass exams, which goes against the principles of CfE’.”

This is a total misrepresentation. One of the main principles of CfE is to raise attainment. Is this no longer the case? So long as we have summative examinations, then clearly one of our functions will be to prepare students for such. However, whereas I agree that notwithstanding the tens of thousands of words used in myriad documentation, there has been a lack of clarity on policy, that is not to say that teachers have not taken advantage of opportunities for curriculum development or that these are necessarily limited. What does limit creativity at school level is the notion that there is one model for transformational change. We appear to be being dragged into a position where the delivery of CfE is becoming a weighty bureaucratic exercise, and thereby ultimately completely destructive to creativity and the very transformation we seek.

Bryan Paterson, headteacher, Kilmarnock Academy, Kilmarnock.