Letters: A-level coursework

A-level coursework enabled my son to get a wider education

Sir: There seems to be near universal condemnation of coursework (Letters, 11 August), so can I raise a lone voice in favour of it, particularly for history?

The positive side can be illustrated by my son, who, like so many other of the history A-level students waiting for their results, studied Hitler for GCSE and the 20th century yet again for A-level. Much as he loves history, he was desperate to work outside this narrow range. He was lucky enough to be at a school where he could go off and study whatever he wanted for his coursework, so had great fun working on the problem of how on earth the Fourth Crusade could set out for Jerusalem and end up sacking Constantinople.

The chance to work on his own, researching something for pleasure as well as for a qualification, confirmed his determination to study history at university, as well as helping develop useful skills. This was the original intention behind the introduction of coursework. The problems lies not with coursework itself, but with the adults who have perverted its original purpose.

JULIA CRESSWELL

OXFORD

Sir: So, Dr Ken Boston, the chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, has decided that schools are spending too much time "drilling" for exams and not giving enough individual attention to each pupil (11 August). Well, now, there's a surprise.

I wonder if Dr Boston has taken much time recently to talk with teachers about this. Any primary school teacher will tell you of the constant pressure to meet exam result targets, which are imposed on schools by such government authorities as the one for which Dr Boston works. Exam results are still being used to grade and categorise schools, regardless of social, environmental or demographic factors. We live in fear of falling below these targets, lest that provoke the dreaded "two days' notice" for an Ofsted inspection.

We would all love to scrap national tests at age 11. Maybe this would allow us to spend more time with our pupils, fostering in them a love of learning for its own sake, not a boredom with (or, much worse, a fear of) tests. The Government has already seen the light and abolished the Key Stage 1 tests. There is an urgent need to do the same at Key Stage 2.

LIZ KOE

DRONFIELD WOODHOUSE DERBYSHIRE (THE WRITER IS A YEAR 6 TEACHER)

Religion is more than an ethical system

Sir: Dominic Lawson (Opinion, 10 August) is right in stating that Richard Dawkins is wrong when it comes to religion, but Lawson bases his argument on the incorrect premise that the Judaeo-Christian idea of religion "devotes itself principally to instructing its adherents in how to behave well in their dealings with others".

The Christian gospel is that Jesus has opened the way to a relationship with God. A gospel that principally promotes particular ethics fails to understand the Bible's teaching that, without Christ's forgiveness, humans are dead in their sins and that everything begins and ends with God. The Bible teaches that behaving well towards others means nothing to God if it is not premised on the forgiveness Jesus offers for the things we have done wrong. Therefore, Christianity devotes itself principally to preaching the gospel of Jesus.

Dawkins is wrong because his arguments are faulty, not because Christianity is removed from reasoned argument because it stands on "factually meaningless" ethics. Christianity stands on the basis that Christ died and was raised from the dead. The apostle Paul wrote that "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith".

I welcome the debate Dawkins has provoked, although I disagree with him, because questioning the existence of God is entirely relevant to Christianity. This is in contrast to Lawson's lazy assumption that Christianity is merely a set of ethical principles. If this was the case, then Christianity would be truly irrelevant, but thankfully it is not.

PETER JOHNSTON

SHEFFIELD

Sir: It is silly, as Dominic Lawson rightly points out, to suggest that belief in God is the cause of all the evil in the world, but it is equally silly to argue that belief in God is the source of all morality and virtue.

After all, the fact that (in Lawson's words) "religion has been forced to become little other than an assembly of ethical opinions" can only mean that, at least since Hume and Kant, ethics can no longer be said to stem from an implausible divine revelation.

Its foundations rest on a social contract that "does not require the approval of religion". If Lawson is right, I cannot see where Richard Dawkins goes wrong in treating the belief in God, with its attendant supernatural hokum, as an irrelevant superstition.

PROF GIOVANNI CARSANIGA

HOVE

Sir: Although Dominic Lawson recognises Richard Dawkins' scientific achievements, he appears to show a less-informed view of Mr Dawkins' work in exposing the flaws in religion.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins covers and demolishes (multiple times) the tedious clichés about religion improving people's behaviour, which Lawson obediently recites. Such simplistic excuses are no longer adequate.

Lawson then covers the Church's recent warming to science, claiming that "religion, at least in its modern manifestations, does not attempt to challenge the scientific method". Even in his narrowly Christian view, he is forced to contradict himself when he admits that elements of Christianity in the US still reject scientifically probable explanations such as the Big Bang and evolution.

Furthermore, generous though it is to limit the rejection of science to the American Bible Belt, Lawson has ignored other equally stubborn Christian regions as well as every other faith and should perhaps consider these and the other barbaric practices that religion, as a whole, promotes. The God Delusion is a wider critique of religion in general.

GREGORY BROWN

WORTHING, WEST SUSSEX

Sir: I think that both Dominic Lawson and Richard Dawkins would agree that Karl Popper's principle of falsifyability, whereby science progresses in an orderly, logical manner as theories are exposed to the possibility of refutation, distinguishes it from religious beliefs, which are set in stone.

JOHN ROMER

LONDON W5

Bikes in Paris can be hired by the hour

Sir: Having just returned from a week in Paris, during which time my wife and I borrowed bikes on two occasions, I'd like to point out that you don't need to pay for a pass for a year ("Parisian-style hire bicycles to beat London traffic jams", 10 August). You can take out a daily or weekly pass that enables you to hire a "Velib bike" simply by using a credit or debit card. You will only get charged for the time you use the bike, at the same rate of €1 (65p) per half hour.

It is a very tourist-friendly scheme, which I recommend as a great way to explore Paris (remember to ride on the right). It is safest and easiest on a Sunday.

By way of a factual correction, the bikes are a stylish grey, not white. A positive feature, safetywise, is that they always have their lights on. Furthermore, they seem virtually un-nickable.

NIGEL WOODCOCK

MANCHESTER

Sir: I do wish you would stop referring to urban "grab and go" rental bicycles as "an innovative Parisian project". Such a scheme has been operating successfully in Copenhagen for at least the past 10 years.

ANDREW BRISTOW

CHORLEY, LANCASHIRE

Nuclear power's low carbon generation

Sir: Dr David Lowry (letter, 23 July) highlights the fact that uranium mining and the construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants are processes that entail carbon emissions. In that, he is correct.

What he fails to mention, however, is that this has been taken into account in the calculations that show nuclear to be a low carbon generator. Detailed research carried out by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has shown nuclear to be a low-carbon form of generation on a par with the best of renewables.

Dr Lowry says that a previous article had given the impression that nuclear is a low-carbon form of power generation - this article was right to do so. It is also worth noting that all forms of electricity generation, including wind, have some carbon emissions associated with their use.

The UK must maintain a balanced energy mix that includes nuclear, energy-efficiency, clean coal and renewables. This will allow us to maintain security of supply and make progress in reducing carbon emissions.

TRIS DENTON

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION LONDON SW1

Kratos policy is a danger to innocents

Sir: In his letter concerning the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, Ken Campbell (7 August) highlights the basic flaw in the Kratos policy, which Sir Ian Blair publicly stood by despite it having been so blatantly compromised.

Mr Campbell writes: "[The SO19 officers] closed to a distance at which, had a bomb been detonated, none of them would have survived". Exactly.

Under Kratos, the people most likely to be shot in the head at point blank range are innocent civilians, while terrorists carrying bombs would have a much more heightened sense of awareness and set off those bombs as soon as they saw any unusual activity. In fact, the very knowledge that Kratos exists means that should anyone with a bomb be challenged in future, they are much more likely to set it off, if they think it virtually certain that they will be shot dead. A negotiated surrender becomes much less likely.

Mr Campbell argues that officers acted correctly because Kratos was in operation and that "they had been provided with (incorrect) intelligence, which they were not in a position to second-guess". Surely not. If they are given an order to kill someone, it should be a matter of top priority that they second-guess everything. Does the person who they are about to shoot fit the description that they have been given? What is his manner: alert and agitated or calm and relaxed? Could he have a bomb concealed under bulky clothing (or in a bag), or is the person wearing light clothing and carrying no bag? If and when challenged is the person complying with shouted orders?

JOHN DAKIN

SOUTHEND ON SEA ESSEX

Sir: I fear that David Williams's letter (8th August) might be read as implying that I consider it acceptable that no-one has been held to account for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. I do not believe this; I do believe that it is necessary to recognise the different situations of the SO19 officers - who had seconds to react to being told that there was imminent danger of a bomb being detonated and that nothing short of lethal force could prevent this - and the officers responsible for generating false intelligence and the commander(s) who issued the shoot-to-kill order.

There is no inconsistency between acknowledging that Mr de Menezes died because of faulty intelligence and questionable command decisions (and calling for those responsible to be identified and punished) and recognising that the SO19 officers on the train acted bravely and in the highest tradition of the Metropolitan Police.

KEN CAMPBELL

KETTERING NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Briefly... The last dolphin

Sir: Regarding the extinction of the Yangtze river dolphin (8 August), I quote from a 19th century Cree Indian: "Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realise that we cannot eat money".

SUSAN FOSTER

HESWALL

WIRRAL

School bullying

Sir: If Dr Ian East (letter, 10 August) thinks that his children are going to be bully-free and closely supervised at private schools, then he should take a close look at his chosen school and the reality of its supervision policy before he makes his choice. Money and privilege do not mean the end of bullying, and I am sure that if he investigates further he will find that all schools, private and state, do their utmost to prevent bullying.

JEREMY AXTEN

ADDLESTONE, SURREY

Can I save the planet?

Sir: Doing our bit for the environment seems to be encroaching more and more into our lives, to the point that many of the things that make life enjoyable are a bad idea, such as holidaying abroad or buying new clothes. Just how much effect can UK residents have on global warming when China is in the grip of an economic boom equivalent to the Industrial Revolution and is polluting the atmosphere on a massive scale every minute of every day? Will me not ironing my Primark jeans really help?

CASSANDRA MOON

CHORLEY, LANCASHIRE

A Scout is a friend to all

Sir: I was a Scout in the Forties and Fifties, and remember that one of the laws was: A scout is a friend to all and a brother to every other scout, no matter to what country, class, or creed the other may belong (the class bit is now out of date, it's true). I was also a declared non-religious Cub Scout leader (complete with wood badge) in the Seventies. Although Scouting is nominally religious, it can be remarkably pragmatic.

DAVE HICKMAN

SOUTHAMPTON

Wrong view of chief vet

Sir: It is offensive, wide of the mark and, as he seems to acknowledge himself, chauvinistic for Richard Ingrams (Opinion, 11 August) to suggest that Debby Reynolds has gained her position as chief veterinary officer in part because of some form of politically correct positive discrimination within the Civil Service. The evidence so far seems to suggest that this outbreak of foot-and-mouth has been handled much more effectively than in 2001, when the then-chief veterinary officer was a man. A polished and glossy media persona should not be the measure by which professional government advisors are judged.

BETHAN GRANT

BRISTOL

Another country

Sir: So, Luxembourg is the EU's smallest nation (The Traveller, 11 August). Whatever has become of Malta? I think we should be told.

KEITH J BONUGLI

BASINGSTOKE HAMPSHIRE

Interesting? Click here to explore further