In my comments about chartered teacher posts (April 24), I expressed concern that the new posts were proving divisive and I gave some examples of this happening.
It was disappointing that your correspondent (May 8) didn't include any arguments to counter the points I raised.
What was printed was an unsubstantiated and unjustified accusation that I was an unprofessional, ill-informed cynic with a misplaced agenda. It is the sort of mindless name-calling that a staffroom bully would be proud of.
I object to the personal nature of the criticism and also to the poor standard of critique offered by a teacher with a Masters' degree.
Effective debate, our well-taught pupils will tell you, involves tackling the points raised and not the person making them.
I can't refer to the critic by name because heshe chose, quite sensibly in this case, to remain anonymous. But I do have some clues: heshe is a chartered teacher who has looked at hisher professionalism. My anonymous critic believes that only those who have participated in the CT programme are qualified to comment on the "big questions raised about its future role and direction". So at least I can thank himher for reinforcing my point about the divisiveness created by the introduction of chartered teacher posts.
John Greenlees, Gargunnock, Stirlingshire.