Chapter III: Pedagogical Examination of Defective School Children (2)

_Ostrow_, twelve and a half years, replies correctly to
questions 1, 2, and 3. At the fourth he hesitates and begins by
multiplying 7 by 89, and obtains as answer 783, which is doubly
inexact, because he ought not to have multiplied, and the
multiplication is incorrect. Then he draws back, and tries a
division of 89 by 7; he obtains an incorrect answer (11), which
does not satisfy him. Finally, he tries a multiplication: says 7
times 10 makes 70. He next adds 7 several times to reach 89, but
he becomes confused, and finishes by finding the number 13,
which is almost correct. This child is therefore at stage 4; he
does not clear it, but he attempts it. Look at the scale. We
give him full points for Problems 1, 2, and 3, plus 2 points for
Problem 4, or a total of 8, which puts him at the level of
children of eight and a half years, which amounts to a
retardation of four years.

=Spelling.=--The test of spelling is a piece of dictation given individually or collectively. The scale contains the first phrases of the dictation. We reproduce them all here, pointing out the grammatical difficulties which they contain, and the scale for marking faults which seemed to us most fair. [We quote the phrases in French, as a translation would not indicate the real difficulties. It will be observed that in many cases correct spelling implies grammatical knowledge.--TR.]

_Phrase 1._--To write phonetically, without liaison, a phrase
dictated in the ordinary vocabulary of the child.

_Example._--Emile est un petit eleve bien sage; il ecoute son
papa et sa maman; il va a l'ecole.

_Phrase 2._--To put the _s's_ of the plural to words chosen from
the vocabulary of the child.

_Example._--J'ai une tete, deux bras, deux jambes, une bouche,
vingt dents, une langue, et dix doigts.

_Phrase 3._--Plural of qualifying adjectives in simple cases;
verbs to the third person plural, present indicative.

_Example._--Le soleil brille deja de ses plus _gais_ rayons. Les
hommes _partent_ en chantant. Les bergers sont _heureux_ de la
belle journee qui se _prepare_: ils suivent au paturage le
_grand_ troupeau des vaches _pesantes_.

_Phrase 4._--Feminine of the qualifying adjectives without
phonetic indication; verbs with the plural endings _ons_, _ont_,
_ez_, _aient_.

_Exercise._--Le garcon de ferme, de son pas lourd, _entrait_
dans la grange encore _obscure_, ou nous _reposions_. Les boeufs
_mugissaient_ tout bas. Dans la cour le coq, les poules, le
chien, _allaient_ et _venaient_.

_Phrases 5, 6, and 7._--Finals of verbs in the singular of the
different tenses of the four conjugations. Past participle with
or without _avoir_. Infinitive in _er_, and past participle in
_e_.

_Example._--Joyeux merle, ne _viens_ pas dans le bocage.
_Prends_ garde a ce mechant qui _veut_ te saisir et
t'_enfermer_. Pendant que je te _parle_, tu _viens picorer_ les
raisins que l'oiseleur a _disposes_ comme un piege. Ils sont
_garnis_ de glu: si tu y _touches_, c'en est fait de ta liberte.

_Method of Marking Mistakes._

One mistake for a letter omitted.
One mistake for a letter too much.
One mistake for a letter substituted for another.

There may therefore be several mistakes in the same word, but
the number of mistakes for any word cannot be greater than the
number of letters in the word. A word omitted counts as many
mistakes as it has letters.

The liaison of two words counts for one mistake. Failure to join
the two parts of a word also counts one mistake.

It is to be noticed that we do not speak of grades of spelling--that is to say, of different phrases which the children of each age should be able to write without mistake. No doubt such could be found. But we have been content to count the mistakes; it is by the number of mistakes that the children of each age are distinguished.

The dictation given in February by M. Vaney in his school and corrected by the teachers there has enabled us to draw up the following table, which shows the number of mistakes committed, counted by the method indicated above:[8]

---------------+------+---------------------+------------------------
| | | Phrases.
| | +----+----+----+----+----
Children. |Class.| Course. |1st |2nd |3rd |4th |5th
---------------+------+---------------------+----+----+----+----+----
6 to 7 years | 1 | Preparatory |13 |22 | -- | -- |--
7 to 8 years | 2 | Elementary (first | 6 |15 | 32 | -- |--
| | year) | | | | |
8 to 9 years | 3 | Elementary (second | 2 |10 | 19 | 20 |--
| | year) | | | | |
9 to 10 years | 4 | Intermediate (first | 0 | 2 |6.6 |6.9 |17
| | year) | | | | |
10 to 11 years | 5 | Intermediate (second| 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |12
| | year) | | | | |
11 to 12 years | 6 | Senior | 0 | 0 |0.6 |0.7 | 5
---------------+------+---------------------+----+----+----+----+----

To show how we classify a child from the point of view of spelling, let us take an example. We shall choose _Ostrow_, the defective whom we have already tested in arithmetic. He writes the first phrase with one mistake, the second with one mistake, the third with eight mistakes; he is at the level of a child of nine to ten (_vide_ Table, p. 54). He has therefore a retardation of three years. He must be reckoned as slightly feeble-minded.[9]

We now understand the manner of judging the capacity of a child in arithmetic, reading, and spelling. Which of all these tests is of the greatest value? We shall reply to this question by giving a summary in a few words of the tests we applied to twenty children in a special class. The amount of retardation varied considerably from one child to another, and for the same child from one test to another. On the average, the amount of retardation was 3.3 years for spelling, 4 years for reading, and 4.5 years for arithmetic. These children did not do so badly in spelling; there was even one who was at the normal level. It was especially in the problems that their deficiency was noticeable, because the problem requires not only memory, but some understanding. They have great difficulty in defining what is the proper arithmetical operation. When addition is necessary they have a tendency to subtract, and if they ought to divide they will more readily multiply. These mistakes lead to absurd results, which usually do not put them about, unless their attention is drawn to the absurdity. A defective will admit quite readily that if I have 604 apples, and sell 58, I shall have 662 left. These results show that in the ordinary school they do, we will not say too much spelling, but too little arithmetic in comparison to the amount of spelling. Finally, we again insist upon the evidential value of methodical tests. We demand that the elementary school inspector should have these tests carried out without assistance to the pupils, without intervention to indicate the solution or the step to take. He must neither assist nor do the lesson, but simply note the result achieved. He must therefore reduce himself to the easy role of a benevolent spectator.

=Retardation and Knowledge Percentage.=--We said above, in estimating retardation, account should be taken of the course to which the pupil belongs--that is to say, the grade of instruction to which he has already attained. A child of nine years of age who has a retardation of three years has learned absolutely nothing; on the other hand, a child of twelve years who has a retardation of three years has learned something, since he has reached the intermediate course, first year. The difference between the two pupils is apparent; probably it will increase still more as years go on. To understand the matter clearly, it is necessary to compare the amount of retardation with the period of school attendance. The latter may be represented by the figure 100. Thus, our child of nine, who has learned nothing, has a retardation of three years in three years at school--that is to say, a percentage of 0; our child of twelve, who is in the "intermediate course, first year," has made in six years half the normal progress; he has therefore a "knowledge percentage" of 50. Such figures have evidently a quite different significance from those of the amount of retardation. Our opinion is that it suffices to make use of the simple calculation of retardation in selecting the defectives, for it is an easy and useful method; but when one is in the presence of a child, and desires to estimate his knowledge, not only for the actual moment, but with reference to his future and his capacity for learning, it is necessary to note also, and more especially, his "knowledge percentage."

We suggest the following schedule to be filled up after the examination of the child:

=Examination of Instruction of a Child proposed for Special Class.=

Date of examination:
Place of examination:
Full name of pupil:
Date of birth of pupil:
This child has attended .......... school, ...... class.
Attendance regular or irregular?
Has he been able to follow his class?
What is the amount of his retardation?
_Reading._
(Syllabic, hesitating, fluent, expressive, intermediate--_e.g._,
fluent-expressive.)
Observations on reading:
_Arithmetic._
The pupil can do the problems noted without mistake:
(Refer to scale.)
Observations on arithmetic:
_Spelling._
Phrase dictated:
Number of mistakes:
_Conclusion._
Retardation in reading (taking account of school attendance):
Retardation in arithmetic (_ibid._):
Retardation in spelling (_ibid._):
Knowledge percentage:
Name and position of examiner:

In spite of the lengthy details into which we enter, it is evident that all this work of examination can be done pretty rapidly. The arithmetic alone is a little long, because it is necessary to allow time to put the child at his ease. We may put the total examination at fifteen minutes. Often it will be possible to abridge the time. The inspector is now in a position to estimate the retardation of the pupil and his knowledge percentage. He has several means at his disposal--the evidence of the teachers, the notes concerning the pupil, the examination of his copybook, observation of the attitude of the child, his physiognomy, etc., and, above all, the exact and personal test which he has made.

Is this enough? When the inspector has established the retardation and determined its causes, may he, should he, give his opinion immediately? In most cases, without doubt, a further inquiry is not necessary. But in other cases the need of further inquiry is felt. Instruction is not everything, and there are some children who have difficulty in assimilating school knowledge owing to want of aptitude, to inattention, to laziness, who are yet quite intelligent. It is the intelligence of these children that one would like to determine, and for this it is necessary to make use of some tests of intelligence. We propose, therefore, for the inspectors a last examination, a psychological one. Let no one accuse us of complicating the examinations. We do not impose them, we do not even advise them in all cases. But these tests are none the less very valuable tools to which one is very happy to have recourse when one feels embarrassed.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION.

This consists in putting the following questions,[10] which have been grouped in such a manner that the four first can be answered by normal children at seven years of age, the five following by normal children at nine years of age, and the four last by normal children at eleven years of age.

Tests of Intelligence.

_Seven Years._

1. If you were late for school, what would you do?

2. If you lost a train, what would you do?

3. If one is lazy and does not want to work, what happens?

4. If you were tired and had not enough money to take an
omnibus, what would you do?

_Nine Years._

5. If one needed sixpence, how could one get it?

6. Why should we not spend all our money, but put a little past?

7. If you break an object that does not belong to you, what
should you do?

8. If a companion should strike you without meaning it, what
should you do?

9. If you require some good advice, what should you do?

_Eleven Years._

10. Before taking part in anything important, what should you
do?

11. Why do we forgive a bad deed done in anger more readily than
a bad deed done without anger?

12. If anyone asks your opinion about a person whom you know
very little, what would you do?

13. Why should one judge a person by his acts rather than by his
words?

These questions present various difficulties, both in thought and in vocabulary. We have tried them upon a great number of school children, and they correspond pretty exactly to the level of children at the ages indicated.

The answers of the children may be good, passable, mediocre, or negative (the child makes no reply), or even absurd or unintelligible. In marking the replies one does not take account of a wrong word or an awkward phrase, but considers the meaning and whether the child has really understood. It may seem that marking these replies would be rather delicate and arbitrary, but in practice the difficulty is not great. Here are some examples:

(10) The reply, "Ask some capable person, a master, a parent," is a good reply. "Ask it," "Listen for it," are passable replies.

(7) The reply, "Pay and apologize," is good. "Pay for it," is passable.

(8) The reply, "Forgive him," is better than the reply, "Don't tell tales."

(1) The reply, "Hurry up," is better than, "Ring the bell," "Hurry to-morrow," "One is kept in."

(3) The reply, "One remains ignorant," is better than, "One is punished."

(4) The reply, "Take a rest, then walk," is better, being more explicit, than simply, "Walk."

We mark the good replies 3, the passable 2, the mediocre 1, the absurd and silence 0. Silence sometimes makes one hesitate. It may result from timidity, or even from prolonged reflection. It is necessary, without changing the form of the question, to encourage the child and to press him to reply. With a little practice one can easily see who is trying to find an answer and who does not understand.

We have stated that normal children of eleven years of age replied to the questions 10 to 13. It must be understood that by this we mean that the majority replied. There are no tests which can characterise all the subjects without exception of a given group. There are always failures. By way of example, we shall quote the observations we made in an elementary school with our questions 10 to 13, which we put to all the children of eleven, who were distributed, according to their ability, in the different classes. There were thirty-six of these pupils. The maximum of marks obtainable was 12, since there were four questions, and a good reply was worth 3. We then obtained the following averages:

Tests of Intelligence put to Normal Children of Eleven Years of Age.

Average Marks.
Senior, first year 11
Intermediate, second year 6
Intermediate, first year 4.7

In the "intermediate course, second year," there were two children who obtained 0 and 1. In the "intermediate course, first year," there were four who got 0, and one who got only 1. What were these pupils, who had certainly not reached the average intellectual level of eleven years? Two are said to be defectives by the head-master. Let us subtract them, and there remain five; and these work sufficiently well to remain in their class and to follow the lessons. Their success is a very important fact. A child may not have very much intelligence, but if he has a good memory, application, and will, he is regular in his studies, and this compensates for the mental feebleness. We have often noticed this. If a child is regular in his school work, the question whether he is a defective does not present itself. It only presents itself if the case is reversed. Supposing he is very clearly backward, by two years, by three years, with a sufficient school attendance. If, in spite of this retardation, the psychological examination shows that he is all the same quite intelligent, this is a favourable circumstance of which he should have the advantage. In other terms, the psychological examination is capable of showing that he is normal, even when he is behindhand in his studies. This examination cannot, in any case, serve to make him be regarded as defective if he is regular in his studies. This is why we place this examination last.

Here are some very good replies from normal children:

_G. R----_:

10. It would be necessary to consider where the affair would
lead us.

11. Because when a bad action is done without anger one knows
what one is doing, while when one is angry one does not know
what one is doing.

12. One should say nothing. If one does not know the person one
cannot tell what he is.

13. By his words he may deceive us. By his acts we can tell what
he is.

_G----_:

10. It is necessary to think what one is going to do.

11. Because when one acts without anger one has thought
beforehand, and is more to blame; while, on the other hand, it
is an act of passion, and afterwards one regrets what one has
done.

12. I would say that it would be necessary to know him first and
then afterwards to judge him, not to say anything bad or good
about him without knowing him.

13. Because there are people who say words and often do not do
them.

Here are some replies which are mediocre or absurd:

12. You should try to ask the particulars of the person you do
not know. (Mediocre.)

13. Because his acts are more terrible while his words are less
threatening. (Mediocre.)

11. Because the action which has been done in anger is not so
violent. (Mediocre.)

13. Because you must not speak after the person who speaks.
(Absurd.)

In a class of defectives of eleven years of age we obtained from seven children an average of replies equal to 1.3. This figure, therefore, is considerably less than that of the normal children regular in their studies, and even than that of the normal with a retardation of two years. Let us note in passing a very curious fact. We had had to examine these defectives before their admission into the special class. Now, the teachers sent us as defective two children who were clearly intelligent, for one of them obtained five marks and the other eight. Let us give the replies of the latter, whose name was Cler, age eleven years:

10. You would have to think. (Good.)

11. Because anger is less serious. (Absurd.)

12. Say nothing bad about him, because I do not know him well.
(Good.)

13. Because words are not correct. It is not certain that he
will do it. (Passable.)

These replies are evidently not very brilliant, but they are so superior to the level of a defective that we have sent this child back to the ordinary school. We have since learned a fact which was not originally communicated to us. This child came from the country, and he did not begin to go to school until the age of ten.

To sum up, we offer the psychological examination as a means of rehabilitating a child who has a marked degree of retardation. That is its sole utility. Never, in any case, must this examination be used to label as defective a child who keeps up with his lessons.

* * * * *

A last word regarding the necessity of these examinations.

We know that, after having read the preceding pages, more than one inspector, more than one teacher, will exclaim, "What is the use of all this? I am quite accustomed to questioning children, and I don't require such precautions in order to distinguish between those who are intelligent and those who are not. By two or three questions which are quite familiar to me I can judge the state of instruction."

We have paid homage to the ability of the teachers and inspectors sufficiently often to be permitted to maintain here against those who would contradict us the necessity of our methods or of others of a similar kind. In order to determine the degree of intelligence or the state of instruction of a child one would require to have in mind the normal levels. Now, frankly, who knows what these are? Let any inspector, any teacher, glance over our test questions. He will be very much at a difficulty to say whether it is at nine years or at seven years that a child ought to be able to reply suitably to a particular question. We will go even farther. Let an inspector look at our scale, and say at what age reading is "fluent," at what age a child should write the third phrase with less than ten mistakes. Just let him try, and he will find the result. Let us add that people who are neither inspectors nor teachers will be still more embarrassed. We recollect that at the recent opening of a special class some eminent people appeared much astonished at the intelligence of the pupils. They were surprised at children of twelve years who made replies of which in reality normal children of eight should have been capable. It is impossible to form a correct judgment about matters so delicate unless one makes use of exact tests. We insist upon this because we foresee that all who visit the class for defectives will be subject to this illusion. All the more will they have an optimistic tendency to overestimate the intelligence and instruction of the children since they know in advance that they are going to see defectives, and consequently have a preconceived expectation of seeing degraded imbeciles with low foreheads and dirty habits. They will be quite surprised to find that the great majority of defectives do not answer to this description, and seeing that they have fallen into an error, they will correct themselves as usual by falling into the opposite mistake.

=Estimation of Want of Balance.=--If it is easy to determine backwardness by a direct examination of a child's state of instruction, the difficulty of establishing a lack of mental balance is, on the other hand, very great. Such want of balance is indicated by breaches of discipline, inattention, naughtiness, lying, violence, brutality, etc. But it would be a very unruly child who would not behave quietly when taken apart by the inspector. Isolated in the examination room, surrounded by strange, grave people, the child shrinks into himself. He has little occasion or desire for a display of rebellion or naughtiness when his comrades are not there to admire him. Possibly an exact estimation of his reactions, of his motor ability, of his power of attention, would indicate the presence of some anomalies; but this is not certain, and is not to be relied upon. There may be some hope in that direction for the pedagogy of the future, but scientific investigations cannot help us to-day. In short, mental want of balance cannot, in the majority of cases, be the object of direct examination.

How, then, can it be estimated? Indirectly, by the evidence of others.

The inspector, then, must be content to accept the facts which are given to him by the teacher, but he must not accept them altogether on trust. Are these facts correct? Are they probable? Is any evidence of them to be found? Have they been altered in the telling? Such will be the first queries to awaken the critical spirit of the inspector. Then it must not be forgotten that he can question the parents, and hear their replies before letting them know the opinion of the teacher, and that everything they say will help him to judge not only the child, but the family circumstances in which he lives. The ill-balanced are often spoiled, or only children, or children not looked after, or children whose father has disappeared. The sons of widows form a considerable contingent. Now, the inspector will gain a good deal of information from the school history of the child. The ill-balanced is a nomad. He has attended several schools. It is important to find out what impression he has left behind him. The proof of want of balance is not to be taken from a single teacher. If three teachers, at least, whose pedagogic reputation is good, agree about a child, the chances are that their estimate is correct. The inspector will resort to such controls, and if he is not satisfied, and if the alleged facts are not very serious, he will remove the child to another class or another school rather than send him to a class for defectives.

=Elimination of Hospital or Asylum Cases.=--Only defectives likely to improve are to be admitted to the special schools. That is only common sense. Everyone knows that the epithet "defective" does not belong to a single type. There are various categories which extend between two extremes: the purely _vegetative idiot_ who cannot speak, or walk, or even feed himself; and the slightly _feeble-minded_, who may easily be taken for normal. In spite of all our sympathy for these poor creatures whom Nature has treated so cruelly, we could not think of supplying them without distinction with all the benefits of education. It is certain that the worst affected would not profit much thereby. It is pure folly to devote six or eight years to teaching the letters to a child who will never be able to read, or who, if he should manage to read a little, will not understand what he reads. To such an unfortunate it is quite enough to give lessons in walking, feeding, dressing himself, and in simple occupations, such as dusting or sweeping. Such cases do not require schools so much as places where they can be taken care of. These will cost less to establish, especially in the country. Educational efforts should be concentrated on the defectives who are less profoundly affected. It is they alone whom one should try to instruct. This is the practice which is rightly followed abroad. For administrative purposes the defectives of different grades may be divided into two groups, medical cases and educational cases, or preferably, in order to obviate the use of the equivocal term "medical," we may speak simply of hospice cases and school cases to show the difference in their destination. The exact terms employed matter little so long as we understand what we mean by the words.

We have just pointed out the importance of reserving the schools for defectives for improvable cases. But it is necessary to correct this word "improvable," because all defectives can be improved more or less. Their asserted _arrest_ of development is not complete, and the expression is equivocal. It would be better to replace the word "improvable" by the following more precise phrase: "Capable of being taught to gain, in part, their own living." Which of them are in this position? Unfortunately, we do not know. All such questions should have been solved long ago, since thousands of defectives have passed into the hospices. It would have been enough to have followed them up, to have found out what became of them, and to have drawn conclusions. But this has never been done methodically, and for the present we are reduced to conjecture. The nearest estimate we can form is that the social value of any individual case, not epileptic, is in inverse proportion to the degree of deficiency; the imbecile would seem to be more improvable than the idiot, and the feeble-minded than the imbecile. But this is simply hypothesis, and we accept it quite provisionally, until exact investigations have been made which will permit us to replace conjecture by demonstrated truth. Consequently we shall open wide the doors of the school to the feeble-minded and close them to the idiots, while as to the imbeciles, we shall have to find out whether the proper place for them is the school or the hospice. It will be necessary to find out in what measure, and at the price of what effort, an imbecile can be instructed to the point, say of being able to read. There are two other indications which may help us. Cases of _acquired_ mental deficiency--that is to say, cases who have become defective as the result of something which affected them after birth--are usually less improvable than _congenital_ cases, or cases where the deficiency is due to some cause acting before birth. And, secondly, cases affected by epilepsy, with fits or frequent attacks of vertigo, usually undergo a progressive mental deterioration.

What distinctions can we draw between the different degrees of mental deficiency? Such a question, we think, might be asked with regard to the ill-balanced as well as the defective. With respect to the former, we have no criterion at present to offer. It will be enough to pick out and send to the hospices _the most ill-balanced_, those whose presence among normal children would be a danger owing to the perversion of their instincts or the brutality of their impulses.

With regard to mental deficiency, we think it possible to formulate precise definitions which will enable all competent persons to agree as to the diagnosis of idiocy, imbecility, and feeble-mindedness. We are aware that in making this statement we are running counter to the general practice of medical alienists. When these, in an admission certificate, call a child "idiot," "feeble-minded," or "imbecile," they are rarely in agreement with the confrere who, a few days later, examines the same child, and makes a new diagnosis. We have made a methodical comparison between the admission certificates filled up for the same children with a few days' interval by the doctors of Sainte-Anne, Bicetre, the Salpetriere, and Vaucluse. We have compared several hundreds of these certificates, and we think we may say without exaggeration that they looked as if they had been drawn by chance out of a sack. This is a fact which many alienists have already suspected, and Dr. Blin[11] has expressed himself frankly on the subject.

What is the cause of such contradictions? They result, in great measure from the use of ill-defined terms. To the majority of alienists, the idiot is one who is _profoundly_ affected in his mental faculties, the imbecile is _a little less_, and the feeble-minded _less still_. What mean those words: "profoundly," "a little less," "less still"? No one defines them. They are taken to be indefinable. It is no wonder they are understood so differently. All this trouble would disappear if the following definitions were adopted:

DEFINITION OF AN IDIOT.

_An idiot is any child who never learns to communicate with his kind by speech--that is to say, one who can neither express his thoughts verbally nor understand the verbally expressed thoughts of others, this inability being due solely to defective intelligence, and not to any disturbance of hearing, nor to any affection of the organs of phonation._ Since a normal child of two years of age can understand the speech of others, and can make itself understood by others, so far as its simple wants are concerned, it is evident that the distinction between an idiot and a normal child is easily made.

DEFINITION OF AN IMBECILE.

_An imbecile is any child who fails to learn how to communicate with his kind by means of writing--that is to say, one who can neither express his thoughts in writing, nor read writing or print, or, more correctly, understand what he reads, this failure being due to defective intelligence, and not to any defect of vision or any paralysis of the arm which would explain his inability._ One will not count a child an imbecile until he has had much more than the normal time to learn to read and write. The normal time in schools is six months. A child who does not yet know his letters after being at school for two years is likely to be an imbecile.

Spontaneous writing or writing from dictation must not be confounded with mere transcription from a copy. The latter is a kind of drawing, and may be acquired by some who are incapable, from defective intelligence, of writing from dictation. Nor must real reading be confused with reading which consists in transforming graphic signs into sounds without meaning to the reader. The distinction can easily be made by giving the child in writing some simple order which he is to carry out, such as "Shut the door," "Knock three times on the table."

DEFINITION OF A FEEBLE-MINDED CHILD.

_A feeble-minded child is one who can communicate with his kind by speech or writing, but who shows a retardation of two or three years (according to the rules already indicated) in his school studies, this retardation not being due to insufficient or irregular attendance._

These distinctions are pedagogical. The inspector will make them easily. If he is ever in doubt, he has a doctor at hand who will advise him.

Obviously the idiot is a case for the asylum or hospice. Obviously also the feeble-minded is a case for the school. There remains the imbecile, about whom we may hesitate. From the moment the imbecile proves himself unable to learn to read or write, his place is in the workshop. We must find out to what extent he can profit by special education.

=True and False Defectives.=--We shall formulate a rule which will surely meet with no objection. It is that _none but defectives should be admitted to schools for defectives_.

The moment we begin to apply this rule in practice, however, we meet with difficulties. There are normal children who are very backward in their studies. They cannot profitably follow the proper class for their age. Such children are numerous, and of great interest socially. As they are really intelligent they can certainly be helped to make up for lost time. Various terms have been applied to them, but it will be simplest to call them "backward" or "ignorant." In Belgium many such "ignorant" children were admitted to the first school for defectives. In fact, they formed the majority, and one can understand how easily the teachers collected them. These are the cases which give such grand results, and are sometimes exhibited as genuine defectives who have been improved by teaching. In France it has been agreed that the ignorant are not to be admitted to the classes for defectives. The principle is sound. But let us not confuse the questions by approaching them both at once. Let us consider the defectives first, the ignorant or backward next. Even when we are agreed as to the principle, we find difficulties in practice. In the first place, there are the doubtful cases, children of whom we cannot say, even after prolonged examination, whether they are defective or backward. Demoor, in the return he published concerning the pupils of the first school for defectives at Brussels, noted a considerable number of these doubtful cases.[12] What should be done with such cases? The best thing to do is to admit them to the classes for defectives, writing on their schedule a large mark of interrogation in order to guard against future deception. Again, it is not always easy to establish irregular or insufficient attendance when this is the cause of the backwardness. The child may have been at several schools, and at some the teaching may have been faulty. There are some schools which practically produce mediocrity. In the next place, it is necessary to discover the causes of defective attendance. Sometimes these causes are completely extrinsic to the nature of the child--frequent removals, constant domestic disturbances, laxity of the parents, an infirm parent to be taken care of, etc. In such cases the interpretation presents no difficulty. But sometimes the case is more embarrassing. It may be a thin child, who has been out of sorts for a long time. Without being, properly speaking, of defective intelligence, he is weakly, anaemic, and consequently incapable of sustained attention. Would it not be advisable to admit such a case, at least as a temporary measure, into the class for defectives, until his system had recovered tone? Should we not also open the door to cases retarded by adenoids? And if we enter upon this work of charity, shall we not also accept some of those physically abnormal children who, affected by Little's disease or Pott's disease, are so little at their ease among their more robust companions? And what, lastly, is to be done with children retarded in their studies by an unrecognised myopia? It is evident that the question ceases to seem simple and easy when regarded closely. We may rigorously exclude from the class of defectives the child who is simply ignorant, but there is a whole series of complex cases intermediate between the ignorant and the defective. The inspector, let us say in anticipation, will consult his colleague the doctor with advantage about all these border-line cases. No breach of principle is involved here. It is necessary to be guided by circumstances. _The essential point is to mark distinctly upon the child's schedule the special reasons for his admission, in order to prevent ultimate deception in the shape of presenting the child as an average defective who has been improved by tuition in the special class._

* * * * *

We now come to the normal, the really normal cases. There can evidently be no doubt as to what is to be done with them. They are provided for. They have only to remain in the ordinary school. We hope they will be kept there. We hope it; we even demand it with all our power. But we are not certain that it will be possible to save them from the special schools. How many vital interests are leagued against the keeping of that rule! And interests, when they are not looked after, are like the millions of ship-worms which slowly and silently corrode the most solid barriers.

In the first place, there is the interest of the parents. When it is a question of secondary education, of rich or middle-class parents, there is nothing to fear. The bourgeois do not love their defectives; they are ashamed of them. They send them to a distance, to some private institution. They never speak of them to anyone; they do not visit them; they abandon them. But the common people have more heart or less prejudice. They will not be afraid of the special school for defectives any more than they are of the hospice. When they have a really defective child in the hospice, they never cease to visit him. We can imagine the results which such a state of mind will bring about. If these fathers and mothers of the working class were to hear of the existence of a boarding-school where children receive board, lodging, and clothing, they would flock to obtain admission even for their normal children, although it were well known that the school admitted only the feeble-minded, defectives, and fools. If necessary, they would get municipal councillors to back up their demands. This abuse was practised recently in the case of a reformatory, which was rapidly filled with ordinary children, whose sole characteristic was this--that their parents had political backing.

This fraud--for it is one--will not be perpetrated in the case of the special schools and classes where no greater material advantages are given to the pupils than is the case in the public schools, but it is to be feared that it will recur in the case of special boarding-schools for defectives. Such schools, if they are not carefully looked after, will turn out plenty of normal young people!

And this is not all. It is not only the parents who will try to deceive. Think also of the heads of the schools for defectives. What is their interest? Take note of it, for it is important. One should always try to foresee the results of human frailty. In every new school which is started one should watch that part of the organisation which gives most scope for charlatanism.

The head-masters and the teachers of the defectives will certainly have a tendency to show off before visitors children who have never been mentally defective, or who have been so to a very slight degree. They will take good care to say nothing about the condition of the child on admission. Or, if necessary, they will tell lies--pious lies, told in a good cause, and for the honour of the school! These children will be shown off as advertisements, which will be just as illegitimate as if the schools for deaf-mutes were to present to visitors the semi-deaf-mutes, or the deaf who had formerly been able to hear, and to claim the entire credit for the facility with which these pupils could read the lips or pronounce words.

All such impositions will continue to be practised as long as those who visit such institutions are content to look about and docilely question the children presented to them by the teachers, instead of personally selecting the pupils to interrogate.

There is another reason why the heads of schools for defectives will keep their doors wide open to normal cases. This is, that in some cases a dearth of pupils may arise. A school is opened; it begins its work; the staff signs on. There is not much to do; there is no gossip about the matter; everyone is happy. But the number of admissions slowly decreases. It begins to be feared that the inspector will in his report notice the decrease, and that the school will be closed as of no public utility. Pupils, therefore, must be found, and if they must be found, found they will be. Recollect those evening classes held in the elementary schools, where the teacher, fearing he will have to speak to empty benches, begs the head-master to send him some school children as an audience. Think of those libraries, where the staff, uneasy at the desertion of the public, pays a gratuity to an industrious reader for show!

We strongly insist that the inspectors should be alive to this danger. They will be seated by the side of the manager of the special school. Let them take note that this manager has a direct vital interest to admit normal children. It is upon the inspectors that we rely to see that everything is done honestly and correctly.

=Schedules of Particulars.=--Full and detailed particulars regarding every child admitted to a class for defectives should be furnished by the head-master and teachers of the school from which he came. They will do this easily, for when a child is a little peculiar he attracts attention. Abnormal children never escape unnoticed. It is of the greatest importance that the future teacher of the child in the special class should be correctly informed, and that what has already been observed should not be lost. Let it be remembered that the education of defectives should be individual, _made to measure_, as has been said with picturesque exaggeration. Now, if the child is to be individualised, he must be well known, well studied.

The necessity of some definite method of collecting particulars has been experienced abroad. A scheme of questions has been prepared, to be answered by the teacher who sends the child. The plan is a good one. It avoids the worry of lapses of memory. We suggest the following questionnaire:

PARTICULARS.

SUPPLIED BY THE ORIGINAL SCHOOL.

_Concerning_ .......... _Admitted_ ..........
_to the special class at .......... school._

GENERAL PARTICULARS.

Original school:
Full name of child:
Date of birth:
Standard to which he belongs:
Is the child considered mentally defective?
Is the child considered ill-balanced?

FAMILY HISTORY.

Names of father and mother:
Address of parents:
Occupation of parents:
Particulars of family which it would be useful to know:

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.

How long has the child attended school?

What standards has he passed through, and how long was he in
each?

Regularity of school attendance: How many days was he absent
each year?

What were the most frequent reasons for absence, if any?

What other schools has he attended, and at what periods?

INSTRUCTION.

What amount of intelligence has he (count from 0 to 20)?

What do you know of his memory?

In which subjects does he do least badly?

In which subjects is he weakest?

How many years behindhand do you consider him in school
instruction compared with average children of the same age?

Annex to the present sheet one of his exercise-books and samples
of his drawing and manual work.

CHARACTER AND DISCIPLINE.

Conduct in class. Does the child keep his place? Is he sleepy,
unruly, talkative? Does he laugh without apparent cause? Does he
disturb the class?

Application. Is he attentive in class? Does he do his exercises?
Does he learn his lessons? To what extent does his family assist
him with the school work?

What is his attitude towards the teacher? How does he receive
remarks? Does he pay attention to them? How often? Is he
indifferent? Is he restive?

What are his relations with his companions? Is he kind, docile,
compliant? Does he make himself liked? Is he the object of
marked attention? Or is he indifferent? Does he keep apart from
others? Is he bullying, brutal, irascible, untruthful,
dishonest, wicked? Has he any special vices?

PEDAGOGY.

What moral influences are most successful for guiding him?

What is the effect of punishment? Of severity?

What is the effect of rewards? Of praise?

Do you require to take any special measures with regard to him
in class or in the playground?

What are the most successful methods for advancing his
instruction?

STATE OF HEALTH.

What do you know of his state of health? Has he incontinence of
urine? Any motor affection? Any defect of speech? Fits? Has he
been examined by a doctor, and do you know the doctor's opinion?
Was any medicine prescribed? What?

_Date_ ........ _Signature_ .................
_Position_ ..................

All the terms of this schedule are readily intelligible to the teachers. They have filled up a hundred samples in a very satisfactory manner, and we thus have in our possession a veritable mine of valuable information. It is to be hoped that the teachers in the special school may enjoy the same advantage. The plan has been found of value in other countries. The bulletins which are used in Rotterdam, for example, scarcely differ from ours except that they are more laconic. We have included in our questionnaire all that is likely to interest not only the inspector, but the doctor and the psychologist.

* * * * *

And now to sum up, here are the steps we advise to be taken in collecting the defectives:

_First._--The inspector has the pupils of each age in the schools arranged according to the "standard" or "course" they are in.

_Second._--By examining the tabulated results, the inspector picks out the backward, and demands particulars regarding the school attendance of those who have a retardation of two years (when they are under nine years of age), and of three years (when they have passed their ninth birthday). In the same circular the inspector asks the teachers to name any of their pupils who appear to be mentally ill-balanced--that is to say, who, according to the testimony of at least two teachers, are rebellious to discipline and an annoyance in the class. The particulars with regard to want of discipline should be stated in each case.

_Third._--After examining the returns relating to school attendance and to the faults alleged against the children supposed to be wanting in balance, the inspector will make his first choice.

_Fourth._--The direct examination of the child bears specially upon his state of instruction and degree of intelligence. The inspector comes to a positive decision with regard to each child, and asks the opinion of the doctor, as well as of the head of the special school, who assists.

_Fifth._--The inspector has a schedule of particulars regarding the children finally accepted for the special school filled up by their teachers in the schools from which they came.

The medical examination will be considered in the next chapter.

Let us add, in conclusion, that all the decisions arrived at are to be regarded as provisional; the children are to be admitted to the class for defectives on trial, to be kept under observation.

FOOTNOTES:

[6] See _Annee Psychologique_, vol. xii., p. 1, and vol. x., p. 116. The method sometimes adopted, for other purposes, of asking the teacher to classify the children according to their intelligence is quite fallacious. Teachers make no allowance for age. Recently an excellent teacher pointed out to us, as the most intelligent in the class, a child who had really, when his age was taken into account, a retardation of two years; but in a class of younger children his age gave him an appearance of mental superiority. [Such facts vitiate much statistical work on the correlation of "brightness" in school-children with other qualities.--TR.]

[7] Teachers have a troublesome habit of saying simply "attendance regular" or "irregular." The inspector should demand an exact return of the absences.

[8] There are two methods of stating the representative value of a group, the _average_ and the _median_. Everyone knows the average. The median is obtained by arranging the values in linear series from the smallest to the greatest and taking the middle one. When should one use the average, and when the median? It is not easy to give a general rule, but in this case of spelling, we have a good example. If we wish to calculate the number of mistakes for each age, to take the average might be a disastrous proceeding. A single child who made a hundred or so mistakes would obviously make the average unfairly high. The median is affected much less by such aberrant cases, and consequently is more suitable for very heterogeneous series, in which the difference between the maximum and the minimum is very great.

[9] By way of comparison, the following dictation was given to ninety-two children in an Edinburgh school. The progressive difficulties depend upon the non-phonetic spelling and the lesser familiarity of words. Most of the children came to school in their sixth year.

1. Tom is a good boy. He has a book and a bat. He can run fast.

2. The dog is bigger than the cat, but he cannot climb so well. He would if he could.

3. The farmer walked through the wood till he came to the field. It was a fine day for sowing the corn. He hoped it would not rain till he had finished his work.

4. The weather was very stormy. The boughs of the trees were blowing to and fro in the wind. Clouds were chasing each other across the sky. The crows were watching the ploughman in the field.

Mistakes were marked according to the directions in the text. Thus "bows" for "boughs" counted three mistakes. The results were as follows:

-----------------+------------------------------------
|Average Mistakes in Test Sentences.
Age of Children.+--------+--------+--------+---------
| 1. | 2. | 3. | 4.
-----------------+--------+--------+--------+---------
6 to 7 years | 0.32 | 2.64 | -- | --
7 " 8 " | 0.22 | 1.77 | 3.45 | 6.18
8 " 9 " | 0.2 | 0.36 | 1.68 | 5.91
-----------------+--------+--------+--------+---------

[10] The complete set of tests as revised in 1911 is given in the Appendix, with notes regarding their subsequent use in Britain and America.

[11] "Les Debilites Mentales," _Rev. de Psychiatrie_, 1902.

[12] _Annee Psychologique_, vol. vii., 1901, p. 296.