Surely the 33-period week is all about the money?
It is a pity The TESS no longer appears to be printing letters deriding Curriculum for Excellence - Brian Boyd's piece on April 2 about how wonderful it is (an April fool, surely?) deserves a response from reality. But since it now seems to be an accepted fact that CfE is brilliantnecessary, can I turn to another matter - namely, the 33-period week that has been foisted on many secondary schools.
In my area, consultation, of course, was a key element: we were consulted at length and overwhelmingly rejected the proposals, which were then passed anyway. Since then, it has proved unpopular with teachers, pupils and parents - indeed everyone involved in working within it.
What I want to know is: do the experts who brought in this change (one was quoted in your paper recently as saying it was "more efficient") have "sound educational arguments" that they have made up to justify it? And are we who complain about it simply "cynicallacking in imaginationdon't care about the kids", as is the accusation directed at anyone who criticises CfE?
Or is someone going to admit, for once, that this was all about the money? I think we should be told.
The TESS columns remain open to all shades of opinion on Curriculum for Excellence - Editor
Thomas McFadyen, Royal Court, Glasgow.