Want to show devolution is great? Start with early years education

Our own grandchildren live in Singapore, so did not start primary school till their seventh year but have learnt through song and play to speak Chinese as well as English and are happy and confident in themselves and thriving having made the step from kindergarten to primary.

The days of playing outside until it got dark and getting cried in for a jeely piece are long gone, so play in a kindergarten environment takes on greater importance.

Education is a devolved matter, so it is within the Scottish Government's purview to implement such a radical change.

The SNP sets great store by doing things differently from the UK Government. Here is the perfect opportunity to do something which will be for the long and lasting benefit of all Scots and show that devolution is a great idea after all.

Gordon Duncan, Stonehaven.

We must delay formal education

I NOTE with interest Neil Mackay's Big Read.

Around 15 years ago I attended a conference hosted by a reputable provider of training in Physical Intervention techniques. One of the speakers was a senior police officer who had worked in Glasgow’s Violence Reduction Unit. After showing us video footage of Saturday nights in the city centre he said that if we wished to lessen similar incidents involving teenagers we should be starting now with our two- and three-year-olds. He strongly maintained that more resources should be allocated to early years education and that most importantly, and perhaps controversially, should include our most highly skilled teachers. What subject should have a core role in the curriculum? His answer was “attitudes”.

Unfortunately, to describe a pupil as “having attitude” usually implies uncooperative or truculent behaviour but the kind of attitude to which he was referring was the settled way of thinking about someone or something. The way in which someone views someone or something is usually reflected in the way in which they value them and behave towards them and so attitudes really do have a pivotal role in shaping behaviour. It is much easier to form attitudes than it is to change them once they have become ingrained.

This is why I was so delighted to read about the two teachers who are leading the Upstart campaign which proposes an end to formal education until the age of seven. This would give children the opportunity to acquire the emotional and social skills necessary for accepting differences of all kinds at a level at which they could understand. Informal education could give children experiences that put them in situations in which they realise they need a particular skill or piece of knowledge which could possibly be supplied by someone else. Attitudes can be both caught and taught and if staff join in role-play situations they can subtly guide the formation of attitudes towards the valuing or, at the very least, accepting of differences. This needs the time that would be given if formal education were delayed until the age of seven but I consider it would be time well spent and would also benefit health, justice and social services in years to come.

Learning intentions can stifle learning at this stage as children do not know what they want to learn until they need to know whatever it may be. So, this is where “retrospective recording” could tick the required boxes. Pieces of “curriculum content” could be subtly introduced through play-type experiences. Ongoing observation and recording of responses to ensure understanding could then be evaluated on, say a weekly basis, and then any non-understanding, consolidation or connection-making could be addressed at a “catch-up time”.

I wish Sue Palmer and Willie French every success in progressing their initiative.

Gail Keating, Bonnyrigg.

Read more letters

• It's good to see pushback against SQA. Now let's make exams history
• Parents pay for private schools because state schools are failing

The luckiest generation

I'M saddened, but not surprised, by Danny Gravelli's report on snobbery at Edinburgh University (“Edinburgh Uni must tackle snobbery from its Saltburn-esque toff students”, November 17). It wasn't like that when I went in 1973 with a batch of middling Highers and Sixth Year Studies grades from a council house in Linlithgow, one of 18 from my sixth-year class who went to one of only eight Scottish universities. However in writing this letter I realise that only three of us were what you'd describe as "working class", all joiners' sons.

In Freshers Week I met mostly kids from Edinburgh private schools who never seemed to notice the difference and gradually wore away the mild chip on my shoulder. Two are lifelong friends. The lecturers and professors were similarly more concerned about ability and attitude than class.

I think the difference then was kids from state schools were as well-educated as private school kids, so didn't "present" as being people to pick on for our background. There was no "positive discrimination"; we were there on merit, and those who required it got a grant, not a huge debt. These days friends in "the industry" complain that many kids from state schools arrive quite far behind in terms of attitude and level of education and when you factor in the seeming epidemic of mental health issues in students irrespective of class the situation is ripe for immature behaviour on both sides.

I could go on about this but in summary I am one of the luckiest generation in history who had great parents with the best of aspirations for their children, who got our chance and had the tools with which to grab it with both hands.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.

Importance of rehabilitation

KATHLEEN Nutt refers to differing views on the bill to allow automatic early release of short-term prisoners (“‘Extremely concerning’: Scots prisoners posing ‘immediate risk’ may be freed under new scheme”, November 24). One of the parties she mentions is the Prison Governors Association Scotland (PGAS). In its submission to the Scottish Parliament’s Criminal Justice Committee in its consideration of the bill the Association stated: “We need to have a formal debate about the purpose of prison and how best we can use the justice system resources more effectively.” That is surely the wider and more important issue: why do we send people to prison?

The article mentioned concerns of Victim Support Scotland (VSS) that early release will “inevitably result in the creation of more victims”. The article did not specify what VSS wants done to ensure that prisoners do not re-offend once released. The implication seems to be that if prisoners serve their full term of imprisonment there would be fewer crimes committed. We already know though that roughly one in four prisoners re-offend within a year of their release. So keeping prisoners in prison for longer periods at best merely delays when further crimes will be committed.

As part of its submission to the Criminal Justice Committee the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR) noted that “rehabilitation is not only about changes within the individual that help them to desist from offending. It is at least as much to do with (1) basic material needs being met (no-one can be said to be rehabilitated if they lack a basic income and safe accommodation); (2) with the restoration of legal and political status (since this is a precondition of participation in society, particularly in the labour market, but also in civic and political life); (3) with reconciliation with those affected by the person’s offending (if this is possible, perhaps via restorative justice); and with (4) reintegration into a community that provides acceptance and a place of belonging (rather than stigmatisation and exclusion).”

The bill can be amended to take account of VSS’s concerns but that on its own will not stop crimes being committed. Simply imprisoning people for longer periods does not address the problem of re-offending. Imprisonment affects all of us; not only prisoners. That is why the issue raised by PGAS is so important. If we want our prison system to rehabilitate prisoners so that they do not re-offend then we would do well to implement fully the views of SCCJR.

David Logan, Milngavie.

How do we improve prisoner rehabilitation?

WFP 'restore' claim is false

YOU feature an Opinion piece by Lord George Foulkes headed "Scottish Labour’s pledge to restore winter fuel payment could spell new dawn for devolution". The article is certainly worthy of comment.

First, there is no pledge to "restore" the winter fuel payment (WFP). Anas Sarwar has said he will replace the new UK Labour Government means-tested scheme with another, Scottish, means-tested scheme. Unsurprisingly, no details are available.

Lord Foulkes points out that the Northern Irish Government has "found" £17 million to help those who are affected by removal of WFP. This will amount to £100 per affected person. He suggests the Scottish Government could do something similar and says: “Scotland deserves better.” He makes no mention of the Welsh Labour Government, which appears to be taking no action. Presumably, he thinks Wales deserves better. Has he told Sir Keir?

Perhaps the most bizarre passage is where he refers to “relatively little media scrutiny of Scotland’s... government". I’m not certain if Lord Foulkes reads newspapers these days because if he did, he would know that the majority of newspapers sold in Scotland are anti-independence and just love to give the Scottish government a hard time.

Douglas Morton, Lanark.