THERE are two threads in the current news which puzzle me in that there are obvious reasons for them not to be there.

The first, and more ridiculous, is the space being given to Gordon Brown to offer his “expert” judgment on current world finance. This is the same Gordon Brown whose financial finagling landed us with PFI, which turned out to be only a minor preamble to the major crash driven by the reckless market manipulations to which his “light touch” regulation of the City opened the door.

READ MORE: Gordon Brown fears new financial crisis in ‘leaderless’ world​

Then his refusal to step aside after the 2010 election precluded a Labour-Liberal coalition, his limitless narcissism thereby landing us with Shiny Dave, Brexit and Theresa May: nice judgment, Gordon.

The puzzle here is, why on earth is anyone besides Mad Magazine giving this eminent serial incompetent so much as an inch of print space, when it’s a given that anything he says will be self-serving balderdash?

No-one of any sense at all would take his word on anything, down to and including what day of the week it is. Listening to Brown on fiscal wisdom is like consulting an arsonist on fire prevention.

READ MORE: Ten years on from the crash that broke the banks – could it happen again?​

The second running sore is the dispute over assessments of progress in early-years primary school. Teachers are complaining about the additional burden and parents condemning the adverse effects on their children, while the opposition parties in Holyrood are (of course) seizing on this as another stick with which to beat the government.

Apart from the added workload, teachers are objecting that they already know where their pupils stand: well, yes, up to a point; but they clearly can’t know how their pupils are doing in relation to the broad P1-P2 population, and that can only be ascertained by a universal measurement … and that can only come from the centre, with pre-set, universal materials and evaluations.

However, if anything about these assessments is distressing to pupils, that has to be coming at least mainly from the manner in which the process is being presented to the children.

READ MORE: Swinney stands firm on P1 testing despite criticism from opponents

Any damned fool, and even some who aren’t that dumb, can scare the bejasus out of children of any age up to mid-teens simply by introducing something (the assessment, in this case) as significant, important and definitive: in over 30 years in the classroom, I met numerous children who, on hearing the word “test” or anything similar, would routinely dissolve in hapless, distressed panic.

At the end-of-school national exams, of course there’s a limit to what can be done to downplay the significance of the day – the principal reason I much preferred working in an environment of continuous assessment.

In the early stages, however, it can’t be beyond the wit of the teacher to dissemble, to present this as something new, a game for them to try, rather than a major hurdle that the child must clear to be rated competent.

READ MORE: Letters Special: P1 testing should not be politicised

Every teacher is an actor in the classroom; it’s simply a matter (in this case) of ensuring that one’s words, tone and expressions aren’t going to frighten the audience but reassure them. Not easy – nothing in school is, if it’s being done right – but definitely simple.

And, of course, it’s evident that once the teachers have learned not to wind the children up, the parents’ understandable distress and opposition will be diminished if not entirely removed – and then, in time, some useful and even enlightening information should begin to emerge from the returns.

Colin Stuart
Saline, Fife