ANDREW Denholm's report that Nicola Sturgeon was in talks with parents in Milngavie to set up a school run by an independent board was mind-boggling (“Sturgeon enters talks over radical plan for new school”, The Herald, October 24). Not content with picking up Michael Forsyth's much-hated Tory policy on national testing, she now appears to be moving on to his equally hated policy of opted-out schools. Mark you, there is one big difference between Mr Forsyth's approach and Ms Sturgeon's. Mr Forsyth held consultations, albeit he ignored the results, whereas with Ms Sturgeon the policies appear to be coming in on the say-so of the leader alone.

Your report suggests that this policy is seen as not particularly radical as the Government already directly funds a handful of schools. However, all the schools that are currently funded in this way are special cases. What is different about the proposed independent school in Milngavie is that it is coming about because parents do not like a policy that is being implemented by their local authority. This sets an important precedent for parents in other areas who decide that they don't like what their local authority is doing. Moreover, the history of opted out schools is that they tend to be better funded than local authority schools and to escape the cuts that the latter inevitably suffer as local authority budgets are squeezed. In other words, they are hugely advantaged.

The suggestion that the new school could be used for research into closing the attainment gap is laughable. As is re-discovered by "research" with depressing regularity, poor attainment is tied to poverty. Milngavie is not noted for its poverty. Indeed, only middle class, skilled parents could contemplate taking on running a school. This is a policy for the affluent and will deliver no information on how to close the attainment gap. Moreover, the school doesn't need to be "selective" any more that than Jordanhill does, because in both cases the area is already selected.

What is even more astounding is that a few weeks ago, Ms Sturgeon was parading her supposed progressive credentials and announcing that her purpose was to close the attainment gap and eradicate poor literacy in areas where it is mostly found – areas of deprivation. Now we see her and the SNP's true colours. This policy, along with others like free university tuition paid for by cuts to colleges, a council tax freeze resulting in cuts to services, favours the middle class over the poor. The SNP can forget their "Red Tories" jibes at the Labour Party, for they are showing just how much they thoroughly deserve their old nickname of the Tartan Tories.

Judith Gillespie,

40 Findhorn Place, Edinburgh.

I WADE into the controversy over the future of St Joseph’s Primary School in with some hesitation, having been educated at Jordanhill College School (as it was then). As the only state-funded school in Scotland outwith local authority control, its governance is unique. Its circumstances should not, however, be used to bolster the argument of parents of children at St Joseph’s Primary School in Milngavie who wish to take it out of state control and run it themselves.

Everyone living in its area knows that in much of what East Dunbartonshire Council does is incomprehensible. Through my involvement in one of its primary schools, I’ve seen at first hand its thorough ineptitude in planning its future provision for schools. That’s probably the result of a combination of factors, but having the council run by a Lib Dem/Labour/Tory coalition is certainly a recipe for disaster.

The Catholic Church in Scotland has enjoyed a highly privileged position in education for a century. Will the indecision over the future of St Joseph’s galvanise any politician, of any political party, to bite the bullet, and ask: is it right (it’s a moral question, for sure) that this situation should continue? The First Minister is correct in considering the request of the St Joseph’s parents, but I for one will be looking to the First Minister to do what she usually does: take a principled view. She should ask herself: should the Catholic Church continue to enjoy this publicly funded privilege in modern, inclusive Scotland? If the church wants to continue to educate its young in its own way, fine. Just let it pay for it.

Christine Goldie,

3 Canniesburn Road, Bearsden.

YOUR article on the effect of a half century of comprehensive schooling ("Academics say schools system has improved opportunity", The Herald, October 26) must raise questions as to why the world of academe should at this time encourage the notion of a fresh national debate.

We must not lose sight of the fact that while comprehensive education has arguably brought fairer opportunities, equality of esteem for all subjects within the eight school curricular areas embodied in the Curriculum for Excellence remains far from comprehensive.

The reason for this must rest largely in the Scottish obsession with university entrance requirements. Even a brief inspection of any university prospectus reveals they are selective in what subjects they deem academic enough, both generally and for individual faculties. Inevitably this information appears as broad guidance for senior pupils’ study routes at school but in reality it dictates it. As result, other subjects are reduced in relative status.

We also tend to forget that when our secondary schools became comprehensive, many of what had been senior secondaries with high academic provenance found the change a shattering challenge. Many lived in apprehension of developing some of the characteristics of what had been a junior secondary with a rich vocational curriculum and the legacy of such pretentious elitism hung on for many years.

There may indeed be a need to reopen a national debate on what type of school is best for our children but we must first determine if the fulfilment of the advantages and outcomes of comprehensive schooling are being treated as fairly as the opportunities themselves.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.