Barbara Ellen says: “It shames us that schools are now a social safety net.” (Comment.) Fifty years ago, when I started teaching in Birmingham, we were doing exactly the same. We had a box of clothing and footwear donated by teachers (I once had an 11-year-old boy sent to school in his mother’s skirt and shoes as he had outgrown his clothes and we were able to kit him out); we used to heat up the children’s milk and add cocoa in the wintertime and teachers regularly kept biscuits in their classrooms for those children who had not eaten much since their school dinner the previous day. We knew that hunger and social embarrassment would prevent children from concentrating on their lessons.
The difference is that in those days we were applauded for providing this safety net. Teachers today feel that they may be criticised for wasting teaching time and resources, although they know they are doing the right thing by the children in their care.
Sandra Fisher
Wolverhampton
Your article reports that seven in 10 schools provide support to the one in 10 pupils who suffer mental health difficulties. Schools commonly use scarce funding to provide a home-school liaison worker and a school counsellor. What schools actually need is timely access to a child and adolescent mental health service which is properly funded to provide effective treatment to children, and proper and effective engagement with their families.
Support in school should be a beneficial addition to proper treatment. It is a national scandal that the widely reported crisis in CAMH services in the NHS is not immediately being attended to with proper funding. The quality of life for children and young people with mental health difficulties and their families is being severely affected. CAMH’s resourcing should be increased. It is a matter of urgency.
Liv Darling
London N2
I disdain these Danish dames
It was depressing to read how retired Danish women are turning their backs on the rich philosophical legacy of their country’s 19th-century philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard (“Three keys to happiness are being over 65, a woman… and Danish”, In Focus).
All these air destroying round-the world-trips and “It’s like one really fun holiday!” talk would not have impressed him for a moment. No wonder the study has detected a slight decline in the happiness of Danish women after the age of 74.
As Søren put it: “Do you not know that there comes a midnight hour when everyone has to throw off his mask?” One hour a week with the collected works of Kierkegaard would do the Saga Surfers of Denmark no harm at all.
Ivor Morgan
Lincoln
Pay more and produce more
If the reasons for low productivity, as your Business leader suggests, are puzzling, ranging from “lack of investment, poor education”, and failure to “buy in new technologies and equipment”, perhaps more joined-up thinking is required (“Ignore the politicians and look at the figures: this economic recovery is veering off course”).
Even full-time workers are often receiving such little remuneration for their efforts, they have to rely on housing benefit. Is there any wonder that productivity is “lamentable”? Is it not likely that productivity would rise if workers were not only receiving decent pay, but sharing more in the profits their efforts bring to the firm? It is not too late to learn lessons from Germany where co-determination prevented pay gaps developing!
Bernie Evans
Liverpool
Justice and Lord Janner
Michael Catty is perfectly entitled to believe that Lord Janner should not stand trial. However, his description of “the desire of alleged victims for revenge” is harsh (Letters). They are seeking justice and have been denied it because of Lord Janner’s claimed dementia. Many, including me, are sceptical about his condition in light of the fact that he apparently signed a letter on 19 April in which he said he wished to extend his leave of absence and not retire from the Lords. If he is well enough to consider returning to the House, he is well enough to stand trial
John Gaskin
Driffield
Yorkshire
Beware the spying by spies
John Naughton (“The FBI wants us to have computer security so strong that only they can break in…”, New Review) is absolutely right in saying: “An encryption system that has a deliberate vulnerability built in (because that’s what a back door is) is not going to provide strong encryption.” Not only would the back doors demanded by law-enforcement and intelligence agencies allow them to access supposedly secure communications, they would also represent a target for hackers.
Rather than the use of back doors, law-enforcement and intelligence agencies should be required to justify entry through the front door based on targeted surveillance that is subject to open and transparent judicial oversight.
Neil Macehiter
Cambridge
