View report page

75
if the school were closed a second time, or any number of times,
nothing would be gained as long as an infectious child might be in
attendance.
With the exclusion of the primary cause the first outbreak ceased,
and on the recognition of the second it quickly came to an end.
The exclusion of infected children is, for many reasons, a more
sensible proceeding than school closure in the case of most Epidemic
diseases, but it is regrettable that the Central Authority instead of
encouraging a rational procedure, actually penalizes the Local Authority
who adopts it.
Every child excluded as a contact or suspect, lowers the average
possible attendance, and as payment depends on average attendance,
exclusion is a loss of about a shilling per week per head, which in a
district like this means a considerable sum yearly.
When circumstances arise, as at Selwyn Avenue, the action of the
Authority in keeping open the school, on my advice, and to the advantage
of those attending, was actually a monetary loss. This should
not be so.
There can be no doubt that school attendance favours the spread
of infectious diseases, and that it requires a great deal more supervision
to prevent it, but with care it is possible to make the school as
safe as the street, and if an elementary school were to be closed on
every occasion that infectious diseases occurred, half the schools in
this district would be at one time or another closed.
The schools of the district are enumerated on the preceding table,
which shows the number of cases of Scarlet Fever and Diphtheria
occurring in each month in the year at each school:—