View report page

80
after hearing the evidence, remarked that it was a proper case
for the Borough Council to bring before the Court, but that
there was a slight doubt as to whether the defendant was aware
that the children wTere suffering from scarlet fever, and giving
her the benefit of the doubt he dismissed the summons.
While investigating the cases referred to one important
point has occurred to me.
The Education Authority do not appear to have adopted
any measures to prevent the introduction of infectious disease
into their schools when the children re-join after holidays or
when admitted as new scholars.
It is customary in almost every other school, public or
private, to require a certificate before the admission of a
child to the school, to the effect that such child has not
suffered from or been in contact with any infectious disease
for a certain number of weeks prior to return or admission
to school. I believe that in many cases, among the people
from whom the London County Council draw their scholars,
such certificate would be of little avail, but I think that if a
statutory obligation were imposed upon parents to make a
declaration in a prescribed form, and a penalty followed a
false declaration or a refusal to make such declaration, it would
be a most valuable safeguard of the health of the school
children.
Bearing in mind the well-known connection between
the spread of infectious disease and school attendance great
benefit would result if absence 011 account of infectious disease,
when certified by the Medical Officer of Health, was not treated
in the ordinary sense of school absence in considering the
allocation of Education Grants.