View report page

293
to special schools or units in ordinary schools for deaf and
partially hearing children. A register is kept in the Department of
all deaf and partially hearing children in Greenwich. This record
is reviewed regularly to confirm that the children's school progress
is satisfactory, that hospital appointments are kept when necessary
and that hearing aids, if prescribed, are worn regularly. If any of
these factors give cause for concern, appropriate action is taken,
often starting with a home visit by a Social Worker, so that the
concern of the Department for the child is explained and parental
co-operation is forthcoming.
The total roll at Beverley School for the Deaf is 30, of whom
six are Greenwich children. Similarly, at the partially hearing unit
of the Meridian School there are 11 Greenwich children out of a
total roll of 25.
THE SCHOOL DENTAL SERVICE
F. Elston, L.D.S., R.C.S. Eng., the Principal School Dental
Officer, reports:—
"Following the changeover resulting from the London Government
Act on 1st April 1965 the School Dental Service formerly
administered by the London County Council became administered
jointly by the Inner London Education Authority and the London
Borough of Greenwich. Owing to the interim period of resettlement
following the changeover, however, the scheme for provision of
school dental care continued to be based on that of the London
County Council for the remainder of the year.
The existing five treatment centres in the Borough were greatly
affected in their continuity by the advent and departure of Dental
Officers. Although one full-time and one part-time Dental Officer
were appointed in 1965, resignation of two lady dental surgeons
for personal reasons caused the temporary closure of the Dental
Clinic at Rusthall Lodge for two months prior to its re-opening on
a reduced part-time basis. Demand for treatment greatly exceeded
the available treatment facilities.
Although it is necessary for every school child to have a dental
inspection at least once a year, staffing difficulties rendered this
impossible. Not only was it impossible to examine the 37,502
schoolchildren of the Borough, but it was decided to reduce the
number of school inspections to a realistic level rather than to cause
congestion of the clinics by creating a demand for treatment exceeding
the possible treatment facilities.
In fact, it is incorrect to say that the original programme for
1965 included inspection of all the schoolchildren if physically
possible. In the latter half of 1965 school inspections were guided
by a newly introduced policy of the Inner London Education