Sir, Can I call on Ian Jameson (letter, Oct 8), the retired deputy head, to order detention to the sub-editor who changed “headmaster/mistress” to “teacher” in my letter. A clearly defined disciplinary structure that only ends at the head’s office after repeated warnings is far removed from the interpretation given by this change. In no way do I advocate random violence toward a child by a classroom teacher, such as that described by Bernard Kay (letter, Oct 8).

A further point — the school is in loco parentis and the law currently allows “reasonable chastisement” by parents. Thus, logically, this should be allowed at school under strict supervision for persistent miscreants.

The “cane”, of course, is not a panacea for all educational problems but the evidence indicates that its abolition has probably contributed enormously to classroom woes.

Tony North

Brixham, Devon

Sir, Mr North thinks that caning is the answer for “semi-literate truants” and Mr Jameson states that they “are more likely to be a reflection of poor parenting”.

I am appalled that neither a school governor nor a retired deputy head appear to realise that there are likely to be 20 per cent of children in any classroom with specific learning differences. Their pupils’ parents and grandparents are also likely to have specific learning differences. The Disability Discrimination Act lists dyslexia as well as other specific learning disabilities, so any school not catering for these children may well be in breach of this legislation.

Sue Whiting

Retired special educational needs co-ordinator

Explore Letters

• Feedback