Attack on the professionalism of school support staff is insulting and offensive

It was with dismay that we, as a department, read Hugh Reilly's column on staff who act as readers and scribes for certain pupils in exams (Education & Learning,14 May).

It would seem he requires some learning support to enable him to understand the problems faced by students with dyslexia, language difficulties, social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, sensory difficulties, dyspraxia and physical disabilities as well as students who have English as a second language, all of whom would have been included in the numbers quoted.

He also seems unaware of the Scottish Qualifications Authority's system of additional assessment arrangements (AAA), which exist to allow youngsters to demonstrate their full potential. These require evidence of the need for such arrangements in the first instance.

This system also requires that each candidate be invigilated on an individual basis to ensure there is no "instinctive raising of the eyebrows" or "nod and a wink in the right direction".

To suggest cheating is going on is a slur on the professionalism of learning support staff and is demeaning of the efforts of and qualifications gained by students having any of the difficulties we have listed and who have been in receipt of AAA.

In this school, learning support staff are not having a "cushy number". In fact, throughout the year learning support teachers give up their non-contact time to read/scribe for students as they sit assessments.

We find it offensive that Mr Reilly feels he can dismiss as "musings" the best attempts of children and refer to the efforts of readers and scribes as scribbling.

ELIZABETH HENDRIE and STAFF

Learning support department, Selkirk High School

Hillside Terrace

Selkirk

I was shocked by Hugh Reilly's column. I have worked as an additional needs assistant in a secondary learning support department for 12 years and consider myself experienced in reading and scribing for exams. Never in all that time have I, or any of my colleagues, been accused of "producing a quality of answer ... totally out of kilter with the candidate's previous scores". Mr Reilly says: "I am not saying that scribes cheat." Really? It certainly reads that way to me.

In my experience, readers and scribes act in a completely professional manner, reading text accurately and committing to exam booklet every word uttered by the candidate. I admit it can be very frustrating when answers given are incorrect and fanciful. However, as there is always an invigilator in the room for SQA exams, it would be very difficult to falsify these answers, even if we wished to do so.

Regarding his comments on the "cushy number of jotting down the answers", he obviously has no experience of scribing for a two-and-a-half hour Higher exam, filling an entire exam booklet plus extra paper, concentrating fully to ensure that no word is missed and trying not to interrupt the flow of thought from the student. Believe me, when the cramp sets into your writing hand, "cushy" is not the word which comes to mind.

It's a shame that Mr Reilly has to cope with a class on his own – whatever was he trained for? Still, at least it shows he appreciates the presence of learning support staff in his class and how valued we should be. Perhaps, then, he should treat us with more respect and not accuse us of being dishonest and unprofessional.

(MRS) C MITCHELL

Leaderdale Crescent

Earlston, Berwickshire