A Study of the School Inquiry Report on Ungraded Classes
The Psychological Clinic Copyright, 1914, by Lightner Witmer, Editor. Vol. VIII, No. 3. May 15, 1914 :Author: Elizabeth E. Farrell, Inspector of Ungraded Classes, New York City, N. Y.
(Continued.) Organization.
The following quotations from the School Inquiry Report relate to the type of organization to be recommended for special classes:
“Separate schools would thus be established for these children. * * * In such schools grading would be possible. The lowest grade cases, for whom little can be done, could be put in one group, and the teacher in charge would only be required to keep them happy, train them in simple habits, and do for them what their condition allows. Those who are a little higher could be put together in another class, which might well be a class of border-line cases. Of these, some might get back into the grades.” (Pages 18, 19.) “Ultimately these schools should develop into home schools, keeping the children as many hours as possible, and many of them even over night. And, finally, they should develop into city institutions for defectives, thus largely solving the problem.” (Page 19.) “By the establishment as fast as possible of special schools to take as many as possible of these ungraded classes out of the regular schools, to the end that the children may be more adequately directed, supervised, graded, and given appropriate manual training and vocational work.” (Page 22.) According to the report the facts upon which the above statements are based are as follows:? “Again teachers and principals feel almost universally that these children, although cared for by the school system, should not be in separate classes in the regular schools; but that centers or schools should be established for these children, so located that they could take all of the children who are now in these ungraded classes, and those that ought to be in them, in a given area; there, brought together in one building, they could be cared for and supervised and directed as necessity required.” (Page 10.)
Discussion. It seems well established here in New York City that we do need a special school center, but of a somewhat different type from that presented in the report. The character of such a special school center can be determined only by a consideration of the purposes and aims of ungraded classes. These are three: (a) normal children should not have their school time wasted and their work interfered with by the presence of children so stupid as to need a large part of the teacher’s time; (6) the stupid children should not be subjected to the process of losing their self-respect because they are unable to do the work required of them; (c) the ungraded class is the means of educating public opinion with regard to a group of persons heretofore but little understood: it seems to be well indicated that the anti-social classes, the ne’er-do-wells, and many of the pauper class are recruited from generation to generation by those of feeble mentality who were, at some time, children in the public schools. If this latter aim is accepted it is only a matter of time when we will provide care instead of allowing the irresponsible to wander at large. The special school center which New York City needs at this time, is a pre-vocational school center. For the high grade type of mental defective there is little hope of securing permanent custodial care. Reasons for this are obvious. To train them to be in some degree efficient and if possible self-supporting, requires years of application in some simple industry. Ungraded classes of prevocational type for the high grade mental defective have been in existence during the past two and a half years. Their activities and usefulness would be greatly augmented were they centered. The present vocational schools are designed for children who make considerable progress in the regular grade work. It is acknowledged that many children who would profit by such training in the vocational schools, are unable to get it because of the poor quality of their minds. A pre-vocational school would provide this opportunity. Children for such a pre-vocational school, as far as they would be recruited from ungraded classes, would in no sense represent what is usually and popularly accepted as the feebleminded type. These children (the feebleminded type) the ungraded class should pass on to state institutions for permanent care. It is desirable that a working co-operation be established in accordance with the recommendation of the City Superintendent of Schools in his Annual Report for 1911. “I suggest, therefore, that your Board, * * *, enter into an arrangement with the Trustees of the Syracuse institution, by which your representatives shall examine all children proposed for commitment from our city, to the ends that no children shall be committed who are not properly institutional cases, and that all pupils who are susceptible only of institutional treatment may be removed from the public schools.”
Information as to the experience of other localities on the question follows: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. February 27, 1913. My dear , Replying for Dr Brumbaugh to your inquiry of the 25th, I would say that our plan of having special classes in regular elementary schools has the advantage of providing accessible accommodation where it is most needed. Very truly yours, (Signed) Oliver P. Cornman Associate Superintendent of Schools. From the New York Tribune, November 12, 1912.
“The work of the Detroit special rooms might be said to be three-fold; it acts as a clearing house to eliminate low grade children from the schools. It provides a place where middle grade, feebleminded children may be given the advantage of some slight educational training. It provides a place where children who are merely backward for various reasons may be placed for a length of time varying from one year to two in order that special assistance may be given them to make up their grade work. * * * The present method, however, has its advantages in that there is less opposition to the segregation of feebleminded children where all are classed as backward than there would be if these unfortunate children were placed in a room known to be maintained for the express purpose of caring for mentally defective children. For the same reason special rooms in Detroit have not been centralized, but one room is set aside in each of nine different buildings. These children, therefore, come into contact with normal children on their way to and from school and at recess time, which is no doubt of much benefit to them, and at the same time it makes the special rooms of much easier access to the children who are enrolled there.”
“Mr. George Shann, M.A., F.R.S., City Councilman and Member of the School Committee, Birmingham, England, who visited ungraded classes in this city within the last few months, stated that in his city they were changing their organization of special work from the special school to the special class. He added, ‘As a member of the School Committee a great deal of my time is taken seeing parents whose children have been ordered to attend the special school center. I try to convince them that the children will really have a better chance there. The result is, however, that we get in the special center only those who are obviously defective, those about whom there is no question of a doubt, those who are in fact institutional cases. The high grade defective boy or girl, the border line case, who must live in the community and whose education would be more profitable if it were of a special character, does not get it because we realize that on the whole the chances are better if the pupil does not begin his industrial career from a special school center in which are low grade institutional cases.’ “
60 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. The matter of the development of city institutions for defectives under the Board of Education involves questions of law and precedent. The city already maintains an institution for dependent defectives on Randall’s Island. The State of New York has already acknowledged its duty to the defective. It stands willing to discharge it if public opinion is strong enough to warrant the obligations, financial and other, involved in any adequate scheme for the care of the feebleminded. To help to form this public opinion, while it provides for the needs of the children, is a legitimate function of the ungraded class. The question of the type of organization was discussed in the report of the City Superintendent of Schools for 1912. This discussion is attached as Appendix A. Child Labor. With regard to child labor the School Inquiry Report makes the following recommendation:
“The child labor law should be so modified as not to apply in its present form to children who have been declared mentally defective. These children should be allowed to go to work as soon as those in charge of the schools or classes conclude that it is more profitable for these children to be under the direction of their parents or in regular work than in the schools. However, this should apply to such cases only as cannot be placed in an institution or colony.” (Page 23.) Discussion.
The attitude of the National Child Labor Committee toward the above recommendation has been put into words by the Secretary, Mr. Owen R. Lovejoy, as follows: “The National Child Labor Committee believes that it would be a serious blunder to adopt the Tenth Recommendation in Dr. Goddard’s Report, and that this recommendation is out of harmony with the report itself. He urges here that the Child Labor Law in its present form should not be made to apply to mentally defective children, but that such children ‘should be allowed to go to work as soon as those in charge of the schools or classes conclude that it is more profitable for these children to be under the direction of their parents or in regular work than in the schools.’
“He has elsewhere urged the more complete equipment of the schools for training or caring for defectives, the better training of teachers for special classes, and makes an emphatic point of the fact that from 65 per cent to 90 per cent of our feebleminded chilA STUDY OF UNGRADED CLASSES. 61 dren are due to ‘morbid heredity.’ He also states in his report that the great menace of this problem of feeblemindedness is in having these children left unprotected in their unfavorable environment. “Yet here he turns upon himself and urges that the only bar which at present even feebly protects the subnormal child shall be let down and he be exposed to the care of his feebleminded parents or employed ‘in regular work.’
“If it is proposed that the public, through the school system, shall take upon itself the problem of caring for these unfortunate ones, we see no objection to the development of such methods as will train them to self-supporting, or partially self-supporting, handwork. But to amend the child labor law so as to have them the prey of private enterprise, to expose them to the rigors of our present industrial competition, where even now the efficient workman suffers in the labor market from the pressure of the ignorant, the inefficient, and the child laborer, would be a serious economic blunder.
“Who is to decide when the child is better off ‘in regular work’ than in school? The teacher who is already sorely vexed by the presence of the backward child? Suppose only the lowest cases, the most defective, were first weeded out of the schools. Who shall guard the border-line if this safeguard is removed? With the ignorant parent clamoring for the child’s wages and the thrifty employer glad to ‘give him work’ for a pittance and the teacher glad to rid her class of him?it requires no great wisdom to foresee the sequel of such a suggestion.
“The principles of modern social welfare require protection for the helpless. It is not well to abandon the principle in case of the most helpless.
“A hundred years ago the churches in England piously sold their pauper children to the factories for money. Let us not today propose to sell our mental paupers to the factories for convenience.” Teachers of Ungraded Classes.
From the School Inquiry Report are taken the following extracts relating to the quality of teaching, selection of teachers, salary of teachers, and training of teachers.
” * * * the work is seldom satisfactory. * * * the teachers are inadequately trained. * * * have little understanding of manual work.” (Page 7.)
“A few teachers are utterly incompetent, and some of these are substitutes.” (Page 8.) “The grade teachers of three years’ experience are encouraged to take the special examination for teachers of these ungraded classes. * * * The difficulty here is the difficulty that we always meet when we encounter anything like a civil service examination or a fixed examination of people for these positions. No one has yet discovered any sure way of selecting the right person by means of a fixed examination. The result is that we have found certified teachers in these classes who are in no way fitted for the work. On the other hand, we have found people who are teaching as substitutes, having failed in their examination, who are nevertheless doing excellent work.” (Page 8.) ” * * * many principals say that they could select teachers from their schools that could pass the examinations and would make ideal teachers for these classes; but that the teachers are unwilling to undertake the work, feeling that it is difficult and arduous, and has many drawbacks and that there is not sufficient compensation to induce them to make the change.” (Page 11.) “These teachers could also be paid an ample salary, enough at the start to induce them to take up this work, with an ample increase to those who prove effective, who show by their zeal, enthusiasm, and willingness to study the problem, that they are of the right kind.” (Page 19.)
“The teacher of the ungraded class, who comes properly qualified, to receive a bonus of $100 the first year, $200 the second, $300 the third, and so on, until it becomes $500?this in addition to the regular salary of the grade teacher.” (Page 19.)
“Suitable steps should be taken as rapidly as possible to provide training classes for teachers of defectives. In addition to the class work and theoretical instruction, teachers in training should have access to model schools. These could perhaps be secured at Letchworth Village, or other institutions for the feebleminded. It is important that such model schools for the teachers in training should be institutional schools. Only in such schools do the teachers see that the children are distinctly feebleminded. If they see only the children in the ungraded class or special schools, they tend more or less to retain the impression that the children are really normal, or will yet prove normal; and this impression (or conviction) is a serious handicap to their work.” (Page 22.) As stated in the report the facts upon which the above statements are based are as follows:? “One hundred and twenty-five classes were visited.” (Page 3.)
“At least two states (New Jersey and Michigan) are proposing a scale such as the following: The teacher of the ungraded class, who comes properly qualified, to receive a bonus of $100 the first year, $200 the second, $300 the third, and so on, until it becomes $500?this in addition to the regular salary of the grade teacher. To those unfamiliar with this work this may seem like a large bonus. Few people realize the special ability, skill, and training required. These teachers have to be specialists, and, therefore, experts. Again, few realize the nerve-racking work, the discouragements, difficulties, and even dangers these teachers have to face. An adequate salary is the least we can do for them.” (Page 19.)
Discussion (Quality of Teaching). It is a matter of sincere regret that this report does not set up standards by which ungraded class teaching is to be measured. We A STUDY OF UNGRADED CLASSES. 63 do not know whether the work was judged from the point of view of technique, of psychological or of logical sequence. Was the teaching judged by the content and purpose of the subject matter of instruction, or from its value in disciplinary training? Without such known standards the discussion must deal with what is only one individual’s opinion of the quality of teaching in ungraded classes. It is permissible, therefore, to reproduce here the official record made by elementary school principals and district superintendents with regard to the quality of teaching in ungraded classes during the year of the School Inquiry. Twenty-six teachers had a rating of A - A from both the principal and the district superintendent; fourteen had A - A from the principal and B plus - B plus from the district superintendent; thirteen had B plus - B plus from both the principal and the district superintendent; thirty-two others received at least one A; twenty-eight others had some combination of B plus and B, while only one teacher was rated C -? C by both the principal and the district superintendent. The question here is the value of the judgment of men and women whose business is the supervision and rating of teachers, as compared with the opinion of a research student in psychology.1 Discussion (Selection of Teachers).
The selection of teachers by means of examination is a fruitful topic for discussion. Except in those parts of an examination which deal entirely with matters of fact, much is left to the judgment of the examiner. In examining candidates for license to teach in ungraded classes, the method of the examination requires that, in addition to being able to express in writing what one knows about backward children and the means of training them, the candidate shall demonstrate her ability to teach bench work, to tell a story, to give corrective gymnastics, and to give training for the simpler speech defects. All of this last stated work is given to children in the presence of the examiner.
The by-laws of the Board of Education permit a teacher holding License No. 1, who has three years’ experience in teaching, to take up ungraded class work. No examination is required. This reassignment is made by the Board of Superintendents. In order that teachers so reassigned may be able to help the children, it has been expected that candidates shall have made, and be willing to continue, their study of ungraded class teaching. As a foundation 1 Teachers are rated as meritorious and non-meritorious. Meritorious teachers are graded according to excellence as A, B plus, B.
for this graduate work there were in the teaching corps during the period of the School Inquiry, seven college graduates; one hundred and four normal college, normal school, or training school graduates; while ten had no professional training. Upon this as a foundation the following record of graduate study pursued by these same teachers was available at the time under discussion:
4 University of Pennsylvania 2 Harvard University 63 New York University 36 Yineland Training School 26 Adelphi College 51 College of the City of New York 42 Brooklyn Teachers Association Total 224 records of advanced work by 114 teachers While it is true that every teacher should embrace every opportunity to promote her professional knowledge and technical skill, it is a matter of congratulation that out of a present staff of one hundred and thirty one, one hundred and fourteen could make the above showing. In this connection it may be in place to say that all but three of the institutions named above gave the work indicated under the personal direction of the School Inquiry Investigator of Ungraded Classes.
Discussion (Salary of Teachers). There can be no question about the need for recognition of good ungraded class teaching. Like any other group of professional people, the ungraded class teachers want professional recognition quite as much as increased salary. A method combining these two points of view would be ideal. Exemption from examination for certain of the higher licenses, when satisfactory experience in ungraded class work with its consequent graduate study in such subjects as English phonetics and speech, corrective gymnastics, psychology, and mental tests, are offered as a basis of such exemption, would result in a source of supply of ungraded class teachers. Such an arrangement would offer to ambitious teachers an opening for future promotion. Since ungraded class work is admittedly more difficult, the advisability of recognizing a year’s service as equivalent to two years in the regular grade, is worthy of consideration. Then too, making ungraded class teachers eligible for the higher grades in the elementary school would be the means of having them placed in the B II salary schedule, while at the same time it would afford professional recognition.
Discussion (Training).
In 1906 when the Department of Ungraded Classes was organized the need for special training of teachers of defective children was recognized. An effort was made to have certain of the best institutions for the feebleminded devise means of training teachers for service in the public schools. This was unavailing. In 1910, and again in 1911, the City Superintendent of Schools recommended in his annual report that a department for the training of teachers of mentally defective children be established in the Brooklyn Training School for Teachers. At the time of the School Inquiry the proposed course of study for such a department was under consideration by the Committee on Studies of the Board of Education. This course of study provides training in the theory and practice of teaching mental defectives. The institutions are used as laboratories. The problem presented by children who live twenty-four hours a day under control is quite different from that presented by public school children. On the whole it seems better to put before these teachers in training, conditions similar to those under which they must work.
Equipment.
The School Inquiry Report says of the equipment of ungraded classes:
“Some of them, indeed, have not any equipment.” (Page 6.) “Many children are not getting what they might get because of lack of equipment * * * in the classroom.” (Page 23.) As stated in the report these statements are based upon the following facts:
1. Conversation with principals and teachers while visiting one hundred and twenty-five ungraded classes.
2. A letter from an elementary school principal. (Page 7.) “New York, March 20, 1912. “My dear Dr : “In regard to the need of equipment in our ungraded class, about which you asked me, I find that:
“The class was established in November, 1910, and I supposed that the installing of an equipment would be automatic. When it did not come, allowing for the slowness of things in general, I wrote that we needed it, and waited. I wrote also to on Dec. 1, 1911, and to the Board of Super66 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. intendents on Feb. 12, 1912. To none of these letters have I ever received a direct reply, so that officially I do not know that they were ever received. “I have written Miss Farrell at least four times on the matter, and have called her and the District Superintendent on the telephone several times. Last October I called on Miss Farrell at the office and mentioned the subject. Once she called me up and told me she had heard that there were three sets of apparatus on hand and that I had better speak for them. I did so immediately, but have heard nothing as yet concerning it.
“Very truly yours,” Discussion (Equipment). There is no evidence in the report that documentary material, such as the minutes of the Board of Superintendents, or of the Committee on Buildings; communications from the supervisory staff; budget allowance, etc., etc., were consulted. Neither can any requests be found for such information or any indication of a critical study of the method of work, in matters of equipment, pursued by the supervisory staff, the Board of Superintendents, and the Committee on Buildings, etc.
A study of official communications from the elementary school principals to the supervisory staff under date of May 24, 1912, would have revealed the followings: Manhattan. The Bronx. Brooklyn… Queens Richmond. . Total. 63 classrooms 12 ” 46 9 2 132 4 classrooms not equipped 1 classroom ” ” 14 classrooms ” ” 1 classroom ” ” (( (( (( 21 classrooms I Fig. 1.?Shows relative number of ungraded classrooms not equipped May 24, 1912.
A?Manhattan; B?The Bronx; C?Brooklyn; D?Queens; E?Richmond. A STUDY OF UNGRADED CLASSES. 67 If this subject were pursued in the minutes of the Committee on Buildings the following results would have appeared: EQUIPMENT ORDERED FOR UNGRADED CLASSROOMS FEBRUARY 1, 1912, TO MAY 24, 1912. February, 1912 1 classroom March, ” 6 classrooms April, ” 7 May, ” 1 classroom Total 15 classrooms There remained then at the time the Report was made, 2 classrooms in Manhattan and 4 classrooms in Brooklyn for which equipment was not ordered previous to May 24, 1912. Thus it will be seen that on May 24, 1912, there were six out of a total of one hundred and thirty-two classrooms for which equipment had not been ordered. Four and one-half per cent of all ungraded classrooms, (90 children out of 2500) furnish the basis of the investigator’s statement that 11 Many children are not getting what they might get because of lack of equipment * * * in the classroom.” If the subject were pursued still further in order to understand just why a class authorized by the Board of Superintendents in November, 1910, was not yet equipped (April, 1912) with proper furniture, it would have led to a consideration of the budget allowances made by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. Since the recommendation as to equipment of ungraded classrooms appears to have been made on a basis of individual conferences with teachers and elementary school principals, and since the School Inquiry Report gives no evidence of a study of documentary material, method of work, budget allowances, etc., etc., and in view of the evidence here presented, which was in existence when the recommendation under discussion was made, it appears that this section of the School Inquiry Report is not justified by facts.
Supplies. In the School Inquiry Report the following statements are made as to the quality, quantity, and distribution of supplies. “It is certainly the duty of the Department of Education to see that the present method of administering supplies is revised, so that the ungraded classes 68 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. shall not be hampered in their work by the difficulty of obtaining the material * * * which they need.” (Page 22.) “In the first place, very few classes have any adequate supply of material to work upon. * * * The classes that have enough wood, raffia, reed, yarn, twine, cloth, thread, needles, etc., to carry on their manual work are very few indeed. * * * In some classes the only lumber they have to work with is pieces of old boxes which the children are able to bring in. In another school remnants have sometimes been begged of John Wanamaker with which they could do some of their needlework. In other schools some of the mats and rugs which they have made were, when made, unraveled and torn to pieces in order that the material could be used again! Much of the material furnished is poor or not adapted to the defective child.” (Page 6.)
“Practically all principals were agreed that some more efficient and available means for giving these teachers the material they require should be provided. Many state that some better method of distributing supplies should be provided for these classes so that they could have the material that they need, of the kind that they need, and when they need it; and not be compelled to spend their own money to get those things that they cannot get along without, and yet which they are not provided with by the authorities.” (Pages 10, 11.) Discussion (Supplies).
Supplies for ungraded classes are secured in the usual way as prescribed by the Department of Supplies. The principal makes requisition for such materials as he deems necessary, this is approved by the District Superintendent, or disapproved as he may see fit. The requisition is then forwarded to the Department of Supplies and the materials furnished more or less promptly. The amount and variety of materials found in several ungraded classes are not uniform. This variation, in all probability, is in direct proportion to the intelligent sympathy of the officials charged with the duty of securing supplies with the problems of the ungraded class. The official records on file in the office of the City Superintendent of Schools, under date of May 24, 1912 (period of the School Inquiry), reveal the following:?
Manhattan. The Bronx. Brooklyn… Queens Richmond.. Total. 63 ungraded classes 12 ” ” 46 ” 9 ” 2 ” ” 132 ” ” 9 classes had trouble ^ (C (( (( 10 ” ” q u a u q (( a a 23 ” ” ” A STUDY OF UNGRADED CLASSES. 69 A recent study of the printed reports of the school departments of institutions for the feebleminded throws some light on the question of the “kind of supplies needed.” The work indicated for New York City schools is done in all ungraded classes where possible and profitable.
New York City Schools. Waverley, Mass.2 Vineland, N. J.3 Brush Making Brush Making Brass Work Chair Caning Cobbling Needlework Clay Modelling Domestic Science Raffia Domestic Science Farm and Garden Work Reed Cooking Printing Weaving Cleaning Needlework Wood Work Laundering Raffia Serving Reed Gardening Weaving Metal Work Wood Work Millinery Needlework Darning Embroidery Garment Making Mending Painting Raffia Reed Rush Bottoming Weaving Willow Basketry Wood Work 2 Massachusetts School for the Feeble minded, Annual Report, 1913, p. 35. 3 Vineland Training School, Annual Report, 1912, page 33. Fig. 2.?Shows relative number of ungraded classes having trouble about supplies, May 24, 1912.
A?Manhattan; B?The Bronx; C?Brooklyn; D?Queens; E?Richmond. In order that there may be more uniformity in the quantity of material supplied, it is suggested that (a) requisitions for ungraded class supplies be made on a separate blank and independent from any other requisition; (6) supplies so ordered should be delivered for and marked “Ungraded Class Supplies”; (c) an extra appropriation of three dollars per child be set aside for the purchase of supplies listed or unlisted, the same to be purchased through the Bureau of Supplies, at the request of the principal and the Department of Ungraded Classes. The statement that “remnants have sometimes been begged of John Wanamaker” might have been made wide enough to include the fact that numberless ungraded children have asked grocers for soap boxes and egg boxes, and have had such educational treatment while working with them as was not possible in any other way. One has but to be familiar with the educational creed of John Dewey, the McMurrys, and the Herbartian School of teachers in general to appreciate that the best education, if not the only education possible is that which touches the present-day life of the child. To write letters to congressmen asking for seeds, to ask manufacturers all over the country for samples of their products, to ask John Wanamaker, Marshall Field and Company, the Belding Silk Company, the Hecker Flour Company, and dozens of others to give their old samples, or sample books, of cottons, velvets, wallpaper, threads, colors, etc., is to supply motive for English composition, letter writing, spelling, reading, number, sense training, study of textiles, geography, American government,?postal service, agricultural service, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
Dr Arthur Holmes, commenting upon the organization and equipment of the special class conducted at the University of Penn-. sylvania Summer School of 1911, says:4
“Necessary as all these items of equipment are, nevertheless it remains true that the success * * * depended ultimately upon their [the teachers’] fundamental psychological viewpoint. They looked upon their work as a part of a consistent whole; they recognized clearly that to deal intelligently with the children in their hands it was necessary to make a psychological study of each individual child * * *. Their teaching, therefore, was not teaching in the ordinary accepted sense of the term, but it was in reality and 4 The Special Class for Backward Children, An Educational Experiment conducted for the Instruction of Teachers and other students of child welfare by the Psychological Laboratory and Clinic of the University of Pennsylvania. Reported by Lightner Witmer, Ph.D., Phila.: The essentially an individual treatment of a pathological case, and their genius showed itself in their ability to apply psychological principles in the ordinary classroom. * * * Undoubtedly the ideal special class teacher could produce wonderful results with her pupils if given nothing but an empty room, and the mechanical teacher would fail miserably of real results in an ideally equipped room, furnished with all the paraphernalia that mind could conceive or fancy desire. This fact will be noted in studying the methods * * * described further on and illustrated in the photographs of manual work done; for the chief piece of carpentry done by the pupils consisted of building a house out of an ordinary packing soap box.”
APPENDIX A. Ungraded Class vs. Special School Centers. In order to secure the greatest economy of time and of effort, as well as to bring to the children the broadest and most comprehensive opportunity, two types of organization and systematization have developed, where work for mentally defective children has been inaugurated. The first and oldest is the special school, which is found as the “Hilfsschule” and the “auxiliary” school in Germany; the “secondary” school in some Belgian cities and the “special school center” in England. The second type is the special class found chiefly in this country and in Canada and known as “the ungraded class,” “the special class,” or as “classes for special instruction.” The special school idea makes necessary the expenditure of rather large sums of money for the erection and equipment of buildings. To these buildings the children are required to travel. In England the law provides that the transportation of the child and of a guide who is to bring him, must be met by the community. The special school, as its name in this connection indicates, is a school made up entirely of mentally sub-normal children. The number in a school varies from one hundred to four hundred, according to the number of such children found in a given area. The children represent all ages, abilities, abnormalities of physical and mental make-up. The English special school center is typical of the special school idea and for the purpose of presenting this method of organization it will serve as illustration. While considering this it should be borne in mind that the special school tends to and does separate in play as well as in work the abnormally dull child from those not so characterized. This complete segregation in school is brought about by providing a school building to which only dull children are sent. This building, usually two stories high, is built on a remote corner of the playground used by the regular county council school children but separated from it by a high board fence. For this special school building there are separate entrances, separate playgrounds, separate gymnasiums, lavatories, passages and offices. All of this is to prevent the association in school of the mentally defective and the so-called normal child. One has the impression that here is something different and depressing and the question arises what are the advantages afforded by the special school. The great gain from the point of view of the work of the school is found in the possibilities of grading the children on the basis of mental power. This allows the teacher to do class work rather than group and individual teaching. Where class work can be done a few more children can be cared for by each teacher than would be possible otherwise. To get the graded classes within the special school and thereby to care for a few more children per teacher is the great advantage of the special school idea. Other things being equal, this then would commend itself to the school administrator. Before deciding, however, it is one’s duty to inquire whether, other things being equal, there are any disadvantages in the special school idea. If so, what are they?
The great disadvantage in the special school idea has to do, not so much with the work of the school, though on this side it is open to criticism, but with the individual child who is sent to the special school. The special school with its ” separateness” emphasized in its construction and in its administration, differentiates, sets aside, classifies, and of necessity, stigmatizes the pupils whom it receives. How could it be otherwise? Mental subnormality is so often associated with lack of beauty, proportion, and grace in the physical body of the child, that we may say mental sub-normality and physical anomalies go hand in hand. Now bring together a rather large group?a hundred such children?and there are assembled countless degrees of awkwardness and of slovenliness; infinite variations in over-development or in arrested development and a dozen other mute witnesses of a mind infantile or warped. It would be next to impossible to save these helpless ones from the jibes of a not too kind world. The school which is to serve best must conserve the moral as well as the mental, the spiritual as well as the physical, nature of the pupil.
The special class rather than the special school seems to meet American conditions best. It is found in the school systems of Springfield, Mass.; Worcester, Mass.; Chicago, 111.; Los Angeles, Cal.; Boston, Mass.; Cleveland, Ohio; and New York City. Some years ago Philadelphia organized a system of special schools, but is now in process of establishing special classes because of the obvious disadvantages, in addition to which the opposition of parents whose children were sent to special schools was an insuperable barrier to the hoped-for success.
The special class?the ungraded class in New York City?occupies a classroom in an ordinary elementary school building. It cares for the mentally sub-normal children in that immediate neighborhood. In such a class there are fifteen or sixteen children. It forms one of forty or fifty classes in the school. The ungraded class child is segregated for the purpose of instruction only. He goes to and from school with the children who live near him; he plays with the children who attend his school, as well as with those in his class; he uses the same stairways, gymnasiums, lavatories, passages and halls. He attends the opening exercises of his school; he associates in school and on the playground with the children whom he meets on the street outside of school hours. In all its work the ungraded class emphasizes, for the purpose of preserving and enhancing his selfrespect and his personal esteem, those things which the mentally sub-normal child has in common with his more fortunate brothers and sisters; it believes his differences are already too apparent; it preaches as well as practices its belief and knowledge that his mental power is the same as theirs, only of less degree. By having one such class in an elementary school it is possible to get the moral support of the whole body of pupils in developing and molding the child who is “different”. May this class not be made an opportunity for the normal child to feel the obligation of the strong to the weak? A school organization such as this is “twice bless’d”. The special, ungraded class offers to the mentally defective child the opportunity for individual instruction while it presents to him, when he is able to grasp it, the chance of doing class work. An illustration will make this plain. A child, hopelessly unable to comprehend even the simplest truths of arithmetic and further handicapped by a speech defect, which prohibited his taking part in a recitation period requiring spoken language, was found to have more than ordinary ability and interest in reading. The ungraded class teacher was able to help him along the line of his interests. When he was able to write his answers he attended a sixth-year class for those studies in which he could excel. His own self-respect and the increased prestige of the ungraded class were the result of his excellent work. In many schools the upper grade children are invited to visit the ungraded classroom to see the manual training exhibit. The children who were in danger of being pseudo-intellectual snobs because of scholastic achievements, realized when viewing the excellence of work identical with their own shopwork exercises, that to each has been given a talent, and that this group of “different” children has contributions to make to the life of the school no less valuable because they are unlike.
The special class idea carries with it the possibilities of grading the children. This is, perhaps, more easily achieved in urban communities. More essential, perhaps, than grading “ungraded” class children on the basis of mental power is the necessity of separating them on the basis of sex. The older boys (from fourteen to sixteen years) should, whenever possible, be put in a class by themselves in a boys’ school. This is a logical separation based on the principle that ungraded children are to be treated as nearly like other children as is desirable for the best good of all. The older girls and younger boys may be left in the same class until another classification can be made when the older girls should be organized as a class in a girls’ school. Until there is closer co-operation between the state institutions for defective children and the public schools, it is desirable, as soon as the teaching supply is adequate, to make a sub-classification on the basis of mental power; i. e. separate the high grade from the low grade. This will give a class for older high grade boys and one for older low grade boys; a class for younger high grade and for younger low grade boys. A similar classification will exist for the girls, thereby bringing the advantages of grading without the dangers and expense of the special school. This plan of organization is being put in operation as rapidly as possible. The most unqualified approval is given to it by the school principals in whose charge the classes for older boys have been placed. (To be concluded.)
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.