I was pleased to see Elaine Donald’s response (TESS, April 5) to my article about learning support, and its description of the quality of provision available in her school. I am happy to say that we are currently co-operating on organising a national workshop to share more widely the kinds of support she describes.
But I was sorry that I seem to have caused such offence; my heartfelt apologies to any colleague who felt that their work was being criticised.
That was not the intention; nor, on rereading what I wrote, do I feel that it was implied. My thoughts were intended as a reflective critique of some of the assumptions that have shaped my practice over the years, and which I had embraced.
The idea that we have expended an enormous amount of energy upon curricular structures that may not have been as effective as we hoped, seems to have been moving up the political and educational agenda even as I wrote. It is certainly now reflected in the education policies of the major political parties. One defensive note: I don’t think any education authority sends teachers on paid secondment to study for PhDs. The two I worked for during mine certainly did not, and all the costs, in time and money, had to be met personally.
CHARLES WEEDON Kinaskit Kinnesswood, Kinross-shire
