View report page

78
that there is sure to be left in the school some unprotected. But even in
attempting to exclude children with bad colds the teachers' efforts may fail
—for instance, it is not unknown for the rash of measles to appear without
any previously marked symptoms.
Since the recent prevalence of measles in St. Pancras there has been remarkable
activity in excluding for a varying number of days from Infants' Departments
children under 5 years of age said not to be protected by a previous attack.
This is intended to stop the extension of the disease amongst the children so
excluded, but, as the Education Department has accepted the conclusions of
the Woolwich experiments, they must expect the disease, if thus stopped, to be
simply postponed, and the question for the departments to decide is how long
this palliative measure postpones attack by the disease. If this form of
exclusion postpones attack longer than the condemned form of closure something
will have been gained, but it is not obvious why it should do so.
It was reported from the Stanley School that all the children excluded for
fifteen days as unprotected from the youngest class "took measles, and the
whole class has now had them."
In the School of St. John the Evangelist, Tottenham Court Road, the class
for infants under 5 years had a roll of 51. The head teacher was requested
to exclude all unprotected children for ten days—from Wednesday, 18th May,
to Friday, 27th May, inclusive. On the 20th May there were 37, or 72.5 per
cent., absent, of whom 29 were away on account of measles out of a class of 51.
In spite of the exclusion of unprotected children under 5 years of age from
the youngest class at Holmes Iioad School for a period of six days, the .
following week 40 cases of measles were notified from the school, the next
week 23, and the next week 7 cases, and six weeks after the first six-day
period exclusion another period of 16 days exclusion was ordered.
It seems extraordinary that the youngest infant classes in elementary
schools should be carried on with absenteeism of 46.7, 68.3, 41.0, 45.3, 32.2,
and 35.7 per cent.
If the Woolwich conclusions are carefully read they will be found to
indicate that temporary exclusion, whether total or partial, would fail in
classes of children under 5 years of age, and permanent exclusion under
this age is the only solution of the problem.
Temporary partial exclusion disorganises the school work as much as
temporary total exclusion from a class, as the class marks time until the
return of the excluded ones, and the work that was done during their absence
has to be done over again for the benefit of the returned absentees.
The temporary partial exclusion of children under 5 years is nearly always
too late, and when it is not too late it fails to effect its purpose, as the spreading
of measles is resumed, sooner or later, after the excluded children return to
school. There is no great value in dealing with special instances in individual
schools over a short period to prove or disprove the facts. The supreme test is
the effect of procedure upon the total number of notifications in the whole
locality over a prolonged period.