In the furore on your letters page over the past few weeks, I must admit I find Raymond Soltysek's arguments incoherent. What is it he actually does?
If he is not, as he says, an expert in behavioural management, then I question the wisdom of paying him a salary to train student teachers in such a field.
Furthermore, his dismissal of the argument put to him that he wouldn't cut it in the classroom any more (actually, not what your anonymous correspondent wrote: heshe suggested Mr Soltysek return to the classroom, where he might do some good) does not actually address the point that was put to him: what is the use of spending so much money on Curriculum for Excellence, - and those full-colour newsletters we keep getting - when it will make no difference to the class disruption your other correspondents have highlighted?
Were the same money used on more resources and more teachers (and, therefore, smaller classes), it could make some difference. And these pupils will lose no sleep either over whether the outcomes and experiences are worded "can" or "have", which so exercised Graham Donaldson (TESS November 13).
We have it within us to do our best by most of our young people by employing effective sanctions and making sure the money that is available is spent in schools and classrooms, not on experts (or non-experts).
In this financial climate, surely that would be a better use of money. I assume Mr Soltysek does not work for free.
George McCready, Great Western Road, Glasgow.