curriculum (TESS, November 11). It was accurate and gave a good summary about the concepts and content of our work. There are, however, one or two points that we would like to clarify.

We can understand Shonah McKechnie’s difficulty in getting quantitative results. Both North Ayrshire and Grassmarket Nursery in Edinburgh took only one of the 12 modules and we would be surprised if more than a qualitative assessment of improvement could be achieved on 20 minutes per week of the key to learning curriculum.

Several schools in the UK have taken all 12 modules and an evaluation of these schools should be available next year.

With respect to the quality of the materials and the time taken in preparation, the overriding factor here is that of cost. We have to work within the limitations of school budgets. We are in the process of sourcing all the materials. This will, of course, mean that the modules will be more expensive and some schools have indicated that they would still wish to prepare the materials themselves in order to keep costs to a minimum.

Most of the comments about quality were new to us and we will be asking for specific examples so that the second edition will remove any glitches there are in the pilot version.

David Higgins, Galina Dolya

Key to Learning