View report page

66
It is worth considering, however, which is likely to be
most beneficial to the child and the teacher in the long runA
great many Medical Officers of Health have advocated the
exclusion of children under 5, on the ground of the prevalence
of Measles and Whooping Cough in Infant schools.
But if schools are such propagators of Measles, it means, of
course, that the incidence of Measles will be postponed to a
later age, which will have a more serious effect on the
interruption of school work, as if the same standard is required
the teacher will have less time to instruct the child, and
consequently the interruption will be more serious. With
Whooping Cough the greatest mortality is under 2 years of
age, and consequently its effects are felt before school life
begins. The postponement of the age of Measles attack
would probably have a beneficial effect on the death-rate, but
to what extent it is problematical, as here, too, a large number
of children develope Measles before 3 years of age, and still
more before 4.
There is an idea that children under 5 cannot learn, but
this ie a mistake. With the right sort of instruction a great
deal is learnt, habits of school discipline are formed, and I
have been astonished at the results achieved in some of the
infant schools under an efficient mistress. The effect on the
average child is entirely beneficial so long as the education is
carried out on the right lines and impossibilities are not
attempted.
Moreover, the child developes physically far better if it
is using its brain to a legitimate extent than if it is limited
to the monotony of the back yard or confined premises, day
after day.
It is a difficult matter to prove, but my impression is
that more children shew signs of over-pressure who started