The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1922-03-07

the right to conduct classes Tn phy- sical exercise during school hours because such exercise was related to health and not to reading writing and arithmetic.
 In the second place, I do not be- HeVe that the power of the Board or Education to carry on work in den tai hygiene requires specific author ity to be found in any statute. We have a statute which provides for the teaching of the duties of citizenship, anyone would contend that prior to the passage of that statute, Boards of Education would have had no au- thority to make civil government merely because the study of civil government implied an inquiry into the question of the duties of c1t1zen- ship. Likewise, statute was passed in 1902 providing for the teaching Of Hygiene, including the effects Of alcoholic and narcotics on health and character" But l do not think anyone would claim that the study of physiology or chemistry in our public schools must, in the absence of public schools must, in the absence Of such statute, have stopped short or an inquiry into the relation between such subjects and individual health. In other words, these statutes were intended to direct education along certain lines rather than to enlarge the scope of authority already in
 
 Section 81 of the General Statutes provides that there shall be taught in the public schols, reading, spelling writing, English grammar. geogra- history and such other studies, in cluding elem entary science and train ing in manuel arts, as may be pre- scribed by the Board of School Visi- seems to me no one would seriously question that dental hygiene is a subject of study. If the work which the Board of Education conducts were limited exclusively to the phy- sica1 care of the teeth, it might be objected by those who are vigorously logical, that such work did not in- volve any study upon the part of the pupils. But since, as is easily demon stralble, the care of the teeth as a physical act, by or for the pupil him. self, is merely incidental to the gen. eral purpose of teaching, it seems to me matter of congratulation and approval rather than of condemna- tion and opposition, that as incidental to the instruction and the study, there come the benefieent results of actual physical care and protection of the individual student.
 And finally, as it seems to me, we have in the Act of 1919, recognition by the legislature of the necessity that our public school system should include not only dental hygiene as a subject of study. but as a matter of supervision applied to the particular student for his own and his fellows protection. True it is that the statute seems to limit the right of the Board of Education thus to promote the health and welfare of our school children to one dental hygienist in each community. But I cannot be- live that the statute permits of any such narrow construction. The em- ployment of one dental hygienist in with it's 22,0OO children would be at once groteSque and pitt full. If the legislature thought that some rural village might require one dental hygienist to safeguard the health of it's school children, 1t could scarcely be suspected of entertaining the idea that the equal needs Of a many children should be deprived of adequate protection along the same lines by forbidding the cities to em- ploy more than one dental hygienist. l l am confident that the courts would not construe this statute as limiting the Board of Education to the em- | ployment of one dental hygienist for | the entire body of school children in the city of Bridgeport.
 If. then, the study and application of dental hygiene to our public l school children is considered by the | Board of Education a proper matter | of instruction, it certainly is within | the power of the Board of Apportion-
 
 the means whereby such work may be carried out. No other rdepaHment of the city government can interfere with this right 0The statutory pow CTS of the Board of Education and of | the Board of Apportionment cannot be diminished by any action of the | Common Council. Neither has the Board of Health anything to do whatever with this subject. The pro oosa1s for your requisition for dental hygiene relate entirely to the status, discipline and regulation of students n school It is not. concerned with r general conditions of health or the as a whole. Moreover, in my opinion. the Board of Health would not have jurisdiction to enter he public schools with a view to on the work covered by your proposed program Either it must be done by the Board Of Edu- ,ation or it cannot effectively be done Ut all. That the Board of Health has bower to conduct dental clinics for whether school children or lot is quite a different proposition rom their right to make their dental :linic a part of the school curricu- um.
 In my opinion. therefore. the Board of Education is acting within he scope of it's powers in planning ts program of dental hygiene. The 5oard of Apportionment has un- loubted right to appropriate funds which in it's judgment will properly 'e devoted to the execution of the program. In my opinion, any action il to control the power of the Board if Education to carry out its pro- ram or the power of the Board of to appropriate money