View report page

76
"15. In view of the above conclusions, wliich have for the most part
been arrived at independently by other observers, it is desirable
that the medical officers and authorities of schools should revise
tlieir regulations as to measles, with a view to avoiding unnecessary
interference with education."
In conjunction with the experience of the age distribution of measles,
these general conclusions, in condemning the temporary closure of
schools, departments, or classes, add support to the permanent exclusion
from school of children under five years of age. If paragraph 3 of the
general conclusions is intended to infer that it is desirable to allow
children under 5 years of age to attend school in order that they may
acquire the disease under that age, and so prolect the boys' and girls' departments,
then, with the knowledge which we now possess—that measles is most
fatal at the younger ages—allowing the younger children to attend school
means adopting a policy of sacrificing the health and lives of a certain number
of the younger children in order that as older children the survivors may put
in a better school attendance. One of the writers of the last paper quoted
evidently seeks to get at the root of the question, as in the Annual Report of
Dr. Sydney Davies on the Borough of Woolwich for the year 1906 is found
yet a further conclusion:—
"Conclusion.—As the great majority of children excluded are under six
years, the interference with school attendance has not been of a
serious nature. It would probably diminish the mortality from
measles, without prejudicing education, if children were not allowed
to attend school at all until they were at least five years of age.
There is no doubt that in a large proportion of cases the infection of
measles is contracted at school and brought by children attending
school to the younger members of the family not attending, among
whom measles is so fatal. Now, obviously, if the age of school
attendance were raised by one or two years, the number of families of
young children, none of whom attended school, would be increased
in proportion, and a large number of young children who are now
exposed to the risk of infection would be comparatively safe. But
it is clear that until some measures such as arc suggested above be
taken very little result can be hoped from early school closure alter
measles has appeared in diminishing the spread of measles and the
mortality of the disease."
At the same Congress Dr. Cuntz, of Wiesbaden, said:—"May I express,
from a German point of view, our great and sad surprise that you in England
have to deal with this question to such an extent. In Germany it is strictly
forbidden by law to admit children under six years of age to public schools,
and even up to six and a half years the child will be rejected for another
year if its condition of health be not fully satisfactory. In Germany the
poor widows and mothers of large families are so widely supported by public
authorities that they do not need to do outdoor work ; they are thus enabled
to devote their time to taking care of their children. I should hope that all
nations may follow our principles:—"Keep the child in Us home and family an
long as possible." In fact, in most civilised countries the age of compulsory
school attendance is higher than in England.