WHAT good would finding a scapegoat and bringing in fresh leadership do now?

Almost everyone, including the Prime Minister, seems to have overlooked that in reality an algorithm is nothing more than a set of man-made rules to be followed by a computer in its calculations.

It appears that the algorithm used in all four countries in the UK was based on an assumption that teacher’s assessments differed from the moderated historic examination results because teachers had overestimated performance at all levels – with the largest miscalculations on the performance of pupils and schools at the lower levels of achievement, as they all had the same effect, a disproportionate reduction in the levels achieved by schools with the lowest historic pass rates.

Maybe it is time to make a fundamental reassessment of the basis of the moderating algorithm used on examination results annually in the light of the discrepancy between the two.

The initial public reaction was that such a large improvement could not have taken place in a year, which obviously assumed that historic moderated examination results were an accurate assessment.

The initial purpose of the algorithm was to deal with anomalies between examination papers and markers, perhaps over time it has had more and more added to it and now delivers acceptable results rather than fair assessments.

Has the algorithm has drifted over time to produce an outcome that delivers the expected overall gradual improvement, slightly better at the lower end, rather than ensuring a level playing field for everyone sitting the examinations?
John Jamieson
South Queensferry

AN interesting article by Andy Wightman. However I fear it does not show the complete picture in reality.

Perhaps a breakdown on the actual cases would have given a clearer picture.

Many of the evictions cases are against persons who are completely removed from the current emergency. Many long-term claimants of various benefits have unfortunately taken advantage of the legislation to simply stop paying rent, trouser the relevant allowance and force landlords to take action.

If Mr Wightman had checked with, for example, the Universal Credit Agency, their point of view is: if a claimant is entitled to the benefit then they are paid it. It is of no concern to that agency if the claimant actually uses that money to pay the rent. What a crazy attitude!

Yes there will no doubt be genuine cases – and that also needs to be addressed. But a one-size solution is not the answer. Landlords still have meet all the costs and legislation whilst some tenants take complete advantage of a crisis.
Dougie Gray
via email

YOUR article on new blood being sought for the Island of Rum raised a question in my mind that was not addressed in the article (Isle of Rum could be Hebridean jewel for new residents, August 27).

Is Rum a Gaelic speaking island? If not, why not?

Historically, I presume it was for centuries. Yet there is no mention of Gaelic on the island now or plans for it in the future.

In Scotland we have spent millions of pounds on re-introducing beaver, golden and sea eagles and preserving the wildcat. Why are we not subsidising first-time buyers who have Gaelic as their first or second language to move onto islands such as Rum to re-populate lost areas and rejuvenate the language in its historic heartlands?

This would not be some “culture preserved in amber” as Gaelic-medium schooling then produces the next generation of speakers, who will in turn require services in their language.

There may well be a million reasons why this might not be practical but what progress is being made at the moment on keeping Gaelic in communities?

Recent headlines suggest that, whatever it is, it isn’t enough.
Henry Malcolm
Dundee

I HAVE been compensating for the loss of this year’s in-person Edinburgh Book Festival by watching some of the events online. Anne Applebaum, talking about her book, Twilight Of Democracy, in conversation with Allan Little, was excellent. I am sure many National readers would find her personal perspective on the creation of conditions for the victories of Brexit and Trump and the threats to liberal democracy as thoughtful and thought-provoking as I did.

Towards the end of the discussion, in response to a question from Little, Applebaum mentions that, before the 2016 referendum, she spoke to her Brexit-supporting friends, asking them if they were worried about the threat to the Union of a successful vote to leave the EU if Scotland did not vote for it. She tells us that they were dismissive – “we won’t let Scotland have another vote.”

This is not presented as a revelation or scoop. It simply reports the attitude of mind that prevailed then, and, as we now know, still does. Twilight Of Democracy indeed!
Gavin Brown
via email