You are spot on in your leader (March 5) on the SNP government's decision to phase out the Schools of Ambition project.
The Scottish Government's programme is not adequately costed or budgeted for. In such circumstances, it is a classic political ploy to declare that an initiative of a previous administration is flawed in principle and deserves to have its funding removed. Thus, Fiona Hyslop's opposition to Schools of Ambition on the grounds that it benefits only 52 secondary schools.
The notion that all secondary schools have equal need of targeted extra funding is palpable rubbish, given all the recently published research on the relationship between educational achievement and the socio-economic character of the catchment areas of individual schools. Scotland is near the top of the international league for postcoded delivery of educational outcomes.
This situation will never be remedied if we insist that limited special funding be spread evenly across all schools. Furthermore, it will not change unless individual schools are allowed to develop and advertise their own educational programmes and specialisms. Hence the insistence of the previous Scottish Executive that each school funded under the scheme should identify at least one area where it would be recognised as having a particular strength.
Since the 1970s, we have had, within the state system, specialist units in music and dance, for example at Knightswood Secondary School in Glasgow and Douglas Academy in Milngavie. Admission of pupils to these units is on a non-catchment-area basis. The existence of this sub-sector has never been challenged, partly because of a Scottish belief that special talent in aesthetic subjects is different from mainstream aptitude and talent. It is time to review this unjustifiable approach and to extend specialism to curricular areas such as modern languages, physical education/sport, science, information and communication technology, business/ commerce, offered within the context of a full secondary curriculum.
Schools for Ambition was only a tentative move in the direction of more choice, variety and specialism, but it could have been built on. Now it is to be snuffed out. This decision by Ms Hyslop will only add to the numbers of parents seeking good schools for their children through placing requests, including the cross-boundary requests that cause difficulty for East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire councils.
Fred Forrester, Dunfermline.
Following your article on Schools of Ambition, I wanted to make our position clear to your readers and, indeed, to those attending the 52 schools in question.
The SNP government is continuing to fund the Schools of Ambition programme for the lifetime of the Parliament and is investing £11.5m compared with the previous government's £10.6m.
The Scottish Government is committed to improving the education of every single child in Scotland.
Children come to school from a wide variety of backgrounds and they all deserve the best possible education to meet their individual needs and achieve their potential.
I am in full agreement with Ewan Hunter that we need to spread excellence across the whole school system. That way, lessons learned from the project can be put into practice across all schools so that all schools can be schools of ambition, which is this government's intention. That is why two conferences to share best practice are being held in June to do just that.
There are 52 schools involved in the transformation programme. We are monitoring schools' progress continuously, looking at flaws and successes of the scheme and drawing out key learning that can be used by other schools in raising ambitions across Scotland. This process will begin at the two national conferences being planned for June.
All of us have a responsibility not unnecessarily to alarm those involved in the Schools of Ambition programme. I hope this clarifies our position and makes clear our commitment to improving education for the benefit of every child in Scotland.
Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for Education, Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article