MKLniAL INSPECTION OF SCHOOLS. ^^T^ 



Education Committee, has ])nt the case succinctly when lie 

 remarks : 



Statistics of defects in the schnol puinilatiun are not onl}' i)leiuiful, 

 but have de^ne tlieir \vori< in securing powers to take the lirst steps in the 

 direction of liavin.j th.ese defects dealt witli. U was not to enforce the 

 onipilation of national pediatric statistics that educationists have pleaded 

 the cause i>f inspection. It was not to satisfy an appetite for liaures. or 

 to know which country has the liulkiest l)abies. that the lonc;-suffering" 

 ratepayer hailed. v»'ithout ])rotest, the prospect of a further rise in the 

 price of citizensliip. Let us preserve a littin.y pro])ortion between pro- 

 ductixe work by skilled obser\ers and figure compiling by less skilled 

 workers. Let statistics be relegated to their jiroper suljsidiary j^lace in 

 this connectiiiu., and their chief function be to indicate the methods. 

 of inspection whicli are most productive of resulting- remedial action. 

 I'he \ ital need at present is to get to work on the existing mass of 

 disease in the schools, by means of inspection, by enlightening the parn.s. 

 and by enc'iuraging them to act. 



This is the |)ro])er view to take of medictil inspection in a 

 cottntry where statistics of juvenile invalidity are alreadx' avail- 

 able, ijut it must be slightl}- modified in a Province sttch as the 

 Transvaal, where we have no data to pernnt of a reallv scientific 

 comparison beinc( made between the normal child in our schools 

 and the normal child in schools in Rngland. Some of the 

 l)ioneering work that has been done elsewhere must fall to the 

 lot of the school doctor here, in his own interest, because he 

 needs a basis for coin])aris(»n. and in the interests of the children 

 and the community, becattse we are faced with diseases which do 

 not confront th.e edttcatiom'st in lutro])e, with malaria, with l)il- 

 harziosis. and with endemic typhoid fever. But we have this 

 advantage, that we start without the handicap of professional 

 and ])0]iular prejudice. 1 believe I am right when I state that in 

 this Prijvince at least most edttcationists and medical men cor- 

 dially a])itr()ve of the i)rinciple of medical ins])ection of schools,. 

 and that there is ])ractically a unanimous desire to co-o])ei"ate 

 and assist in the working of any scheme that promises to deal 

 with the matter in a practical way. We have, fttrther, the advan- 

 tage that our juvenile popttlation is comparatively small in nttm- 

 bers, that we possess a central authority, and that ottr schools, 

 both primar}- and secondary, are essentially democratic and 

 peopled by children from all grades of society. Against these are 

 the disadvantages that many of ottr schools are in small rtiral 

 areas, difficult of access, with a scattered school population under 

 widely (littering economic conditions ; that we have no proper 

 basis of scientific comparison for our normal children ; and 

 finally, that ottr resources of treatment, in contrast with those 

 existing in England and elsewhere, are limited, ft is fairly 

 obvious that it is in our interest to concentrate upon the practical, 

 and to make the ptirely scientific aspect of school medical inspec- 

 tion a secondar\- consideration. Yet it is desirable that scientific 

 data, for purposes of comparison, should not b? neglected. We 

 need an anthropometric stirvey of our pO])ttlation, and school 

 medical inspection ofifers a means of obtaining a sttrve_\' of the 

 jttvenile section at least. The problems that need investigation 



