View report page

46
From this it will be seen that No. 3 substance is cheaper
than No. 2 substance, while from the diagrams it will be seen that so
far as the observations go it is also more effective. For the second
year I estimate that the quantities and cost would be reduced, as
shown in the table.
Notwithstanding the manifest advantages possessed by No. 3 as
compared with No. 2 substance, so far as can be judged from the
comparatively limited experience of the tests, I think it would be
well if it is decided to adopt throughout the schools, the method of
floor treatment by dust allaying oils, to continue the use of both
these applications for at least a year.
I suggest that No. 3 sub-stance should be used in, say, two-thirds
of the schools, and No. 2 substance in the remainder.
By this means full advantage is taken of the competitive efforts
of the two firms interested, while an opportunity is afforded them 011
a commercial scale of demonstrating the comparative values of their
respective products.
Objections.
There are two objections to the treatment of floors by dust
allaying substances which so far have become apparent.
The first is that they are alleged to make the floors
slippery. The teachers inform me that on the floors which
have been treated there is an increased liability for the children
to slip. As a matter of fact, the floors are not nearly
so slippery as the stairs and landings, where a slippery
state is much more dangerous, and personally, I do not
attach much importance to this objection. Attempts to slide the
foot over an oiled floor are met with a very marked resistance. The
floors in fact are in no way comparable to polished floors. In any
case the dangers from dusty class rooms, in my opinion, far outweigh
the slightly increased chances of the minor accident of a fall.
The second objection is that the floor is rendered darker as a
result of the application. This applies more in the case of No. 2