A Study of the School Inquiry Report on Ungraded Classes
The Psychological Clinic Copyright, 1914, by Lightner Witmer, Editor. Vol. VIII, No. 2. April 15, 1914 :Author: Elizabeth E. Farrell, Inspector of Ungraded Classes, New York City, N. Y. The Number of Feebleminded Children in New York City Schools.
On June 1, 1911, an inquiry into the condition of the schools of New York City was ordered under the general direction of a committee of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, consisting of Hon. John Purroy Mitchell, President of the Board of Aldermen, Hon. William A. Prendergast, Controller, and Hon. Cyrus C. Miller, President of the Borough of the Bronx, and under the immediate direction of Paul H. Hanus, Professor of Education at Harvard University, who was called upon as an authority of national distinction.
Associated with Professor Hanus as chief investigator were a number of educational experts employed to investigate the aims, methods, and results of the work of the public schools of New York City. As one of these experts Dr Henry H. Goddard, Director of the Department of Psychological Research of the New Jersey Training School for Feebleminded Boys and Girls, was appointed to investigate the ungraded classes. His report has been given to the school authorities of New York City and to the public as the results of a scientific investigation into the number of feebleminded or otherwise exceptional children needing special educational treatment, and on the educational facilities and methods employed by the NW York Schools. The present article is a critical analysis of the scientific procedure and conclusions reached by Dr. Goddard as the special investigator of the ungraded classes and embodied by him in his report to the School Inquiry Committee.
In this analysis of Dr Goddard’s report I shall present for consideration statements made by Dr Goddard in his report as conclusions from facts quoted from the report as the basis of these conclusions; and I shall enter upon a discussion of the scientific accuracy of the facts as such, the validity of the methods employed to obtain facts of scientific value, and the justifiability of the conclusions obtained from the facts in view of the methods and also in view of facts otherwise known but not included within the report. I proceed first to consider the conclusions, facts, and methods, relating to the number of feebleminded children in the New York City schools.
The following quotations from the School Inquiry Report relate to the number of feebleminded children tested, the test applied, and the estimated percentage:? “The most extensive study ever made of an entire public school system of two thousand has shown that 2 per cent of such children are so mentally defective as to preclude any possibility of their ever being made normal and able to take care of themselves as adults. (See Pedagogical Seminary, June, 1911, ‘Two Thousand Children Tested by the Binet Scale’; by Henry H. Goddard.)” (Page 11.) “Since this result was obtained by the use of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence, it stands or falls with the validity of the scale. A word in regard to the accuracy of said scale: the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence is the result of years of study by one of the ablest psychologists of modern times. The scale itself has been tested and retested on groups of children large and small. Practically the only valid criticisms that have ever been made of it have been that it might be improved in some of its details. It has never been rejected by any one as useless. The only seriously adverse criticisms have been made either by persons who have not used the scale on more than a handful of children or who have not used it intelligently. Those persons who have used it on large numbers of children have declared that the more they use it the better satisfied they are with it.” (Pp. 11, 12.)
“While no one claims for it (this system of tests) that the results obtained should take precedence over all other evidence in the case of an individual child, no one has denied that it is able to give us an accurate percentage of the normal, backward, and precocious children in any group. With the record that it has made, any attempt to ignore the results as shown by this method would savor strongly of prejudice.” (Page 12.)
“It is indeed startling to read that 2 per cent of school children are feebleminded. But every new and unexpected discovery is more or less startling. And in this case the findings are not without corroboration from other sources, for those who are willing to fairly face the facts.” (Page 12.) “According to this estimate of 2 per cent there are 15,000 feebleminded children in the public schools of New York. The only escape from this conclusion would be the assumption that in New York City there is a better condition of things than exists in a small city and rural population in southern New Jersey. Certainly one who is familiar with conditions in Greater New York would hardly claim that such was the case.” (Page 12.) The facts upon which the above statements are based are as follows:?
“Three ungraded classes were examined in toto.” (P. 12.) “We tested also eighty-one children in the special or E classes.” (Page 12.) “We examined twenty-two children in the special D classes, * * V (Page 13.)
“In one case the entire class was examined?at least all that were present that day, it being a holiday for some of the children?and the eleven present were all feebleminded; and the teacher assured us that those who were absent were, in her opinion, much more deficient than any of those present.” (Page 13.) “Besides these groups we have also tested a few children from the regular grades in each of five schools, one of these schools already having an ungraded class. Of one hundred and fifteen children tested in the five schools, thirtythree were distinctly feebleminded, and thirty more were border-line cases. These were, of course, selected cases.” (P. 13.)
“Furthermore, we examined, at the request of the teacher, in one high school, five cases that were selected by her. They all proved to be feebleminded.” (Page 14.)
The test used by School Inquiry Committee in determining the number of feebleminded children in New York City public schools was the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence. The method of testing the children is not discussed in the report. Discussion (Number).
The validity of the statement that 2 per cent of New York City public school children are mentally defective may be established in five ways.
1. A sufficient number of children must have been examined to warrant the conclusion that 2 per cent of New York City public school children are feebleminded. 2. The distribution of children examined throughout the city and within the school grades must have been wide enough to insure fair and adequate “samplings” of the whole school population.
The test used must have general acceptance if the deductions made are to be unquestioned.
4. The method of testing must be such as to discount the chance variation in the reactions of school children. 5. Comparison with similar studies must show that the deductions are probably correct. According to the register there were 22,378 children enrolled June 30, 1912, in E classes. Of these only 81 or of one per cent were examined by the School Inquiry Commission. “Grade E classes are to afford pupils over the normal age in the grades below 7A an opportunity to make special preparation for admission to the 7A Grade, and by so doing to shorten the time necessary to complete the work of the elementary school.”1
Eighty-one special E class children (over-age children who expect to complete the elementary school course) were examined. “Of these, twenty-nine were feebleminded, being from four to eight years behind; fifteen were three years behind; sixteen were two years behind; fourteen were one year backward, and seven were at age” (page 12). In another part of the report the following statement is made: “There is every reason to believe that a goodly proportion (with the possibility that all) of the fourteen who were two and three years backward will prove to be feeble minded; for we have discovered from our study of mental defectives that there is a type of child that slows down until about the age of nine or ten, and then stops; so that many children of eleven and twelve who, by the test, are only two years backward are found to be near their stopping place, and do not develop after that. By the time they are thirteen or fourteen they reveal themselves as distinctly feebleminded” (page 12).
According to this the conclusion must be that of the eightyone special E class children examined, sixty who are, according to the report, two or more years backward are feebleminded. In other words, 75 per cent of all special E class children examined are feebleminded.
In this same discussion, without presenting any facts to substantiate it, the following statement is made,?”It is not probable that any such percentage holds for the total E classes. * * * It would be a very conservative estimate to say that * * * but 10 per cent of these were defective” (page 13). The question comes,?Why 10 per cent? Why not 15 per cent, or 5 per cent, or any other percentage?
There were 2041 children enrolled June 30, 1912, in D classes. Of these only 22, or yfoj- per cent, were examined by the School Inquiry Committee. “Grade D classes are to accommodate pupils who are soon to be fourteen years of age, who desire to obtain employment certificates, and who have no prospect of completing the elementary school course.”2
Twenty-two children, therefore, in the special D classes (overage children soon to be fourteen years of age, who desire to obtain employment certificates) were examined. “Of the twenty-two examined twenty-one were from four to eight years backward, being feebleminded. One was three years backward, possibly not feebleminded” (p. 13). According to the following statement (made on page 12),? “There is every reason to believe that a goodly proportion (with the possibility that all) * * * who were two and three years backward will prove to be feebleminded,” the D class child who is said to be three years backward is feebleminded. Therefore it appears 100 per cent of the D class children examined are said to be feebleminded. Then follows,?”These were in two schools. In one case the entire class was examined?at least all that were present that day, it being a holiday for some of the children?and the eleven present were all feebleminded; and the teacher assured us that those who were absent were, in her opinion, much more deficient than any of those present. Likewise in the second class, where there were twenty-seven enrolled, and eleven were examined, all were from five to eight years back, therefore feebleminded. In this class also the teacher assured us that the worst cases had not been tested?only the doubtful ones. But ignoring that, and taking only the facts, we still have ten out of twenty-six who are feebleminded. That is almost 40 per cent.” It must be remembered that twenty-two children in these D classes in two schools were examined. If the same logical principle held throughout the report, the whole number examined should be said to be feebleminded. Since the children who were absent on the day the test was given were never examined by the investigator, he is not allowed to base any statements upon them in a scientific analysis. In the same way the investigator is not to be permitted to change the percentages he arrived at as the result of examinations and substitute 40 per cent as the number of D class children who are feebleminded.
June 30, 1912, in the regular grades 578,407 children were enrolled. One hundred and fifteen children or per cent of the total number were examined. Of these the Committee says, “thirty-three were distinctly feebleminded, and thirty more were border-line cases.” No statement as to the number of years backward, such as that given in connection with ungraded class children and special E and special D class children, is made in connection with this group of regular grade children. It is impossible, therefore, to analyze the results given. However, according to the report 30 per cent of the regular grade children examined are feebleminded.
The report adds,?”Also many feebleminded children who are crippled, blind, or deaf, have been shut out of the schools” (pages 14, 15). As a matter of fact no such children were examined by the Committee in New York City. High School Statistics.
Although on June 30,1912, there were 41,934 children enrolled in the high schools, only five high school children had been examined by the School Inquiry Committee during the year 1911-12, all of whom were diagnosed as feebleminded. The City Superintendent therefore directed that the five children considered feebleminded by the Committee be examined by the Board of Education physician. On the day set for this examination it was found that one child was absent because of the illness of her mother; one had been excluded June 30, 1912, under the ruling of the Board of Education as to the attendance of non-resident pupils; two had left to attend a business school; a boy, L E , was examined. His examination was made according to the procedure followed in the examination of all children proposed for an ungraded class. The examination deals with the following facts in the order given; the school history as recorded by the school principal and covering the years beginning with the kindergarten; the medical examination,?mental examination; family history and individual development. A study of this boy’s school history was first undertaken. The elementary school record is given on page 34.
According to the record this boy was kept more than the average time in the 1A and in the 2B grades. With these exceptions his progress through the elementary school has been uniformly one term in each grade. This would seem to be at variance with the implication in the following: “Asked hpw feebleminded children came to be in the high school the reply was, ‘ They are not allowed to stay more than two years in any one grade, and so they are promoted whether they are fit or not, and in that way get into the high school’ ” (page 14). A consideration of L E ‘s high school experience reveals the following:
“L E is a slow pupil, very faithful and industrious, and the progress which he is making is very encouraging. He has been with us two terms and has credit for one term’s work. In biology, both terms, his term mark has been 67. Master E was in the same class in German with W S , whose father has complained of the instruction in German. This class was under a substitute, Miss , the first term and under Mr. the second term. E ‘s mark the first term was 20; the second, 60.” 36 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. SPECIAL MEDICAL EXAMINATION P. S Borough ZIZZZ! n A n> ?= ? 191,} 1. General Condition^ yJL. A. Anatomical ^rz^Cd/S.Ai^.^jtt. ? ? Cranium 1^*Facial Asymmetry?<2LehLS’….j^jb Palate JQl.i3L L Teethe 1 .. <?*r^777T Tongue J^_? 1 Lips -“?* ^ <6r-” Eyes 2- -_^. ? -…-? ?–37 Ra? .^^..V?/l_..i^aZ^7-’ 3 * <AvjLxLlbjkA^ General<”n. y&u&usII’ L B. Physiological y..}tf^..^^a…CJLiJ<r^if…rr.. , Motor Function ? t/? Tics 3 ? , - Tremors… Epilepsy?^to_._^^s<:S^dLfac…^.?Sifc?Ijrystagmas ~ CI.. Promptness ordination-^5^. Prehension “R _..{/?. <3 L??5!a1 Gait ~ Speech ….(Jot^f-’…..tJa. ….C5^&L/s*M^<^Fatigue…-?.?. - ^ ?_ 2. Sensory Function & J Eyes R irL? L ..?…..7. Ears R .<*=. I-L-p: <?._ 3. Condition of Heart-^Si_Pulse C. Psychical Balance Proportion-?^??- Moral Sense Attention?-fr1- Memory ffiCT.. ? Will? ? Peculiaritie D. Development?Att. Diseases^^A^^.)^^^^^^/^*^ ‘.?:…… E. Family History :Births …..v?….^r_ Miscar .r^… .-. Deaths ~ Cause of Diseases F M ^tUc’.. H-riU&LSLs uw?t~JP*4J <Ut. VLc? 6-tuV ^rxuJr7~l^ Examiner. ‘ ecommendation : ?v– PS / ‘ “V > - MlL?tU^-f ,^^^….54h5^?46C?. “Ld/ . CU^pry/t / J * Inspector Ungraded Classes. A STUDY OF UNGRADED CLASSES. 37 YfvuxPtir t-at . /I <TUtwe<^?v( C.? u.jk&4jc^ ~-?Loc. fi^<u-v (04^ ^ “~CaXc/ (jlZZ? - O1^ ^JL&T Qjuu^e) Umm (KlAjl, iSI^jAW /XJi/ZiuA^- 7 ~?!jXJHUjt-a QAlsdhb<J t-6-j^-f <J-*4U^ /utu-Jjzf -&L 5fiW-T ^ (fLtjLoocv (i ?.. “ruCCu^ntJ j3-c*Peu/ijL.(fliuo UxUajuJjH TzlZ^V ? ??^CiiU_^y 1T^ , .-r- . A, eustun fa-^T^ - ‘/^fu^Y^ou} fcy y>~au/tec/ t2Z~v <&v y&siu-^tuLtc “fcuz Q-4-yv “StcutJy ?jls?^~1ZS 5 ” ^3^7? ^ -~<LLu2y A <LLCTtyl?g<-^() Sfuju^u^G^.? u$Gu -~<f ~7KXuoua^r^J &ueM^t-u /? ttt~~ty6-J-6U44.? ch-?cCLc?g__. b(>JuCaL^=? &-Cb-y ^&?a-Z*T ” C?fijL~~Ca-!&? ^-4-LH-t^c. ^iJL-k) . >u r^^ku^(j> <&JLo-(_<j, <jfa-<i’ - Cb<Z^} t/AAj . “Xisuhu/, ^fcrC tx^ o& i^t/rvfc. (uhr~jfui+<sX] 0bt^jL*^Us2^(l^ ~ 0/&~0 ‘’ <?juU?~ ^TJ <^*~7 “~U*< ~~&-ASi~&-ti^Cd (l-h-i **-<<_ *~}yijLjdLcAa-f <z?4f~e^syY ^jxMjtlts item ” f^d-u^<zl/ QWVcJT ~’(XUlA^ ‘’ -. ‘ uKdLf., ^ *4 ~J&)nLAM<04 &J uvfttsAj-iCu/t– ^ ~4&?,U?~~&s &c&?lJt. - O-c^r /jj ‘GjCj “S-n^-cte^ crvmceJ^ fiz^a^c/ ^ *-^v -Vj? t^Zia LO<cjLP <f?G^J^etC??>rzj QtzjbiUf <Jl&ci&4-a (Sfa ci tttci.!^ j 38 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. The medical examination of L E was then made. A copy of this is given on page 36. Under date of June 28, 1913, the High School Principal writes, “At your request I am giving below the record of L E for the three terms that he has been in the High School. 1st term 2d term 3(1 term Jan.-June, 1912 Sept. ‘12-Jan. ‘13 Jan.-June, ‘13 English 1A 61 English IB 56 English IB 60 German 1A 20 German 1A 60 German 52 Math. 1A 37 Math. 1A 51 Math. 1A 75 Biology 1A 67 Biology IB 67 Phys. Geog 83 Drawing 1A. 30 Drawing 1A. 50 Drawing 1A 55 Music 1A 10 Elocution 60 Music 40 Elocution 25 Phys. Tr 60 Phys. Tr 0
He has credit for 37 points and is now in the 2A class.” Relating the items on the medical record as given and those in the letter above, we have an explanation of some of the low marks. Those subjects like elocution, music, and English, involving articulation and speech, are poor because “the boy wears an upper set of false teeth?the plate fitting imperfectly and causing a peculiar indistinctness of speech.” What is the relation between the observations on the medical record,?”One brother in the far west on account of ill health,” “Is introspective and apprehensive about his health”?and the first term’s mark in physical training? At the time of this medical examination by the school authorities the teacher of physical training in the high school was acquainted with the boy’s physical condition and his desire to succeed in athletics as well as the fear and apprehension he felt about his health. The physical training mark for the third term suggests that the teacher was able to accomplish much. It is of interest to know that this boy wants to be a scientific farmer. He is said to have an unusual knowledge of soils on Long Island.
Conclusion. The question presented in this section of the report seems to be,?Can we say as the result of the examination of 268 children, 148 of whom were known to be backward, that therefore 15,000 children out of 750,000, or the total school population, are feeble minded? A STUDY OF UNGRADED CLASSES. 39 TABLE I. STATISTICAL SUMMARY. CHILDREN EXAMINED BY THE HANUS SCHOOL INQUIRY COMMISSION. Percentage of Total Register TffV of 1 %… . TtfTf Of 1 % … . TtfTT Of 1 %… . Ttf7% 100% Number 81 115 5 22 2000 School Classification Grade E Regular Grade.. High School Grade D Vineland, N. J.… Found Defective 75% 30% 100% 100% 2% Conclusion as to 750,000 public school children in New York City Therefore 2% are feebleminded. Discussion (Distribution). The validity of the statement that 2 per cent of New York City public school children are feebleminded must be established by showing such a distribution of children examined throughout the city, and within the school grades, as will permit fair and adequate “samplings” of the whole school population. Mention is made in the report of two elementary schools in which D class children were examined and of five elementary schools in which regular grade children were examined. These are the only indications of the number of elementary schools visited for the purpose of testing children. No mention is made as to the boroughs in which these seven schools are located.
Number of Elementary Schools June 30, 1912 Manhattan 160 The Bronx 48 Brooklyn 168 Queens 86 Richmond 34 Total 496 Number of Elementary Schools Visited by School Inquiry Com. Total…. 7
Children from one high school were tested. There were twenty such schools while the School Inquiry was under way, and on June 30, 1912, there were twenty-one, distributed as follows,?Manhattan, 5; the Bronx, 1; Brooklyn, 8; Queens, 6; Richmond, 1. The report continues,?” Moreover, these schools were located in the upper west side, lower east side, Flushing, and Borough of Brooklyn, so that they are fairly representative of the city” (page 13). By “upper west side” does the report mean Washington Heights or that crowded section of colored and white people from Sixtieth to Seventieth Streets? Does the “lower east side” mean the thrifty, energetic German element in the neighborhood of Ninth Street or the more recent arrivals in America in the district south of Grand Street? The Borough of Brooklyn is a large place. Were the children examined from the Heights section, Erie Basin, Ridgewood, Brownsville, Williamsburg, or Park Slope? Similar inquiries could be made about Flushing and other sections of Queens Borough. It will be noticed that no examination was made in the Bronx with its school population of 79,452, or Richmond with its 14,415 of public school children. With these great sections of the school population left out, and with lack of definiteness as to localities which were examined, it is obvious that the distribution of children tested throughout the city was not such as would permit of fair and adequate notions of the whole school population to be obtained. The validity of the statement that 2 per cent of New York City public school children are feebleminded appears not to have been established by a study of the distribution throughout the city. How were the children distributed within the school grades? One hundred and forty-nine children were, from the ungraded classes, the special E classes, and the special D classes, while only one hundred and fifteen were from the regular grades and five from high schools. We do not know the particular grades from which the one hundred and fifteen children were taken. It would throw light on the question to know whether they were little 1A children or big 8B children. From the material in the report, and which is quoted above, it is questionable whether the “samplings” were sufficiently distributed throughout the city and within the grades to permit of a fair and adequate notion of the number of feebleminded in the school population of this city. Discussion (Method). The validity of the statement that 2 per cent of the New York City school population are feebleminded must next be established by showing that the method of giving the test and tabulating results is in accordance with the best scientific practice. Scientific practice demands answers to the following:?How were these tests given? What method of checking up the results was worked out? What information does the report give about the children tested? Were those tested the children of professional people, artisans, skilled laborers, office employes? What nationality were these children? Were they foreign or native born? Is English a foreign language in their homes? How old are they? What school grades are they in? Were the tests given to individuals or to groups? What time was allowed for the testing of each child? There is not a word in the report in answer to these questions. There is not a tabulation of the tests in the whole report. There is no evidence that the checking up of results was in accordance with the practice in scientific work.
However, for the sake of the argument it may be said that it is quite likely that this or any other test given to school children under the conditions named would show a similar result. Because of their immaturity we can never be certain that any test given to children really shows the true condition of those tested. Every parent knows that otherwise well-behaved children often fail to do their best in company. Every teacher will testify that the superintendent never sees the children’s best work. Indeed the investigator himself acknowledges “No one has yet discovered any sure way of selecting the right person by means of a fixed examination” (page 8). In testing children we must discount the new conditions created by the tests; the strange person who is giving the test, the attitude of the children toward being tested, the fact that children are just developing their power of control and direction. A test must be checked up by what is known of the child under other conditions. This is the tendency in school promotion? not what a child does in examinations alone but what he does throughout the term, determines his ability to grasp harder work. It is a fact that more children than adults are killed by accident on the street, notwithstanding the fact that children are more agile in getting around; but adults have better control and do not lose their heads in new and untried situations. There is no evidence that the chance reactions of the children under the artificial conditions of the examination, given by persons unfamiliar with the child, were in any way taken into account.
It is obvious that with no information given as to the type of children tested, their ages and their nationalities, no tabulation as to the time given to each examination, and the method of checking up the results, the statement of the School Inquiry Committee that 2 per cent of New York City public school children are feebleminded has not been proved.
Discussion (Tests). In the next place, the validity of the statement that 2 per cent of the New York City school population is feebleminded must be established by demonstrating the general acceptance by scientific people of the particular test used in determining such percentage. The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence is the test that was used. This test was worked out after experimental work on two hundred school children of Paris, France. The characteristic of the scale is, that it is supposed to indicate certain knowledge which normal children of a given age are said to have and which children younger will not have unless they are precocious. Its most extended use in this country was by the School Inquiry investigator who examined two thousand school children, which is the entire school population of Vineland, New Jersey. The following are the Binet-Simon Tests of Intelligence for the eighth and for the twelfth year:
VIII 1 Compares (Time 20”) Butterfly Wood Paper Fly Glass Cloth 2 Counts backward 20 - 1. (Time 20”) 3 Repeats days. M. T. W. T. F. S. S. (Time 10”). 4 Counts stamps. 111222. (Time 10”). 5 Repeats 4 7 3 9 5. XII 1 Repeats 296437 5. 928516 4. 139584 7. (1 out of 3 correct). 2 Defines Charity Justice Goodness 3 Repeats, “I saw in the street a pretty little dog. He had curly brown hair, short legs and a long tail.” 4 Resists suggestion (Lines). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 5 Problems: (a) Hanging from limb. (b) Neighbor’s visitors. Since the report states that some of the children tested live on the lower east side, it is well to consider the fairness and the reasonableness of the first question in the eight year old test. The following story told by an elementary school teacher will suggest the possibility of a correct answer to this test from these children. The teacher was passing a Grand Street florist’s shop late in the afternoon. Grasses and similar refuse were being swept out when a group of children rushed up and asked to have the sweepings. They took hanclfuls and one said, “We’ll throw it down and walk on it and it will be the country.” Perhaps children, whose conception of the country this represents, would be able to compare a fly and a butterfly! How many adults who after hearing it read once can repeat, “I saw in the street a pretty little dog. He had curly, brown hair, short legs and a long tail,” which is a part of the twelve-year-old test?
The comments of scientific men show that the test is not unqualifiedly accepted. Since 1908 there has been considerable discussion in scientific journals with regard to the workings of the Binet-Simon Scale. This discussion has centered around the marking scheme, native ability vs. scholastic attainments, lack of consideration of emotion, habit, control, etc. Some of the more important criticisms are as follows: “In well-to-do quarters the children averaged a higher level (at least threequarters, of a year) than those of the poorer infant and primary school. This, shows that one must reckon with variations of intelligence in different social classes.”
M. Decroly, Brussels, Belgium. “The tests are largely those of language efficiency; the ability to repeat words and numbers is given too much importance, native ability is not sufficiently tested but rather scholastic and other attainments.” Leonard P. Ayres, Ph.D., Russell Sage Foundation. “Retardation does not follow a common flat level any more than growth does, a child can be at the mental age of six in one capacity and twelve in another.” C. E. Seashore, Ph.D., University of Iowa.
“I am quite certain that many diagnoses of teachers or nurses based purely upon the Binet tests will be very misleading, often humorously absurd, and at times pernicious. I base this judgment upon extensive use of the tests on various types of children: normal, backward, feebleminded, epileptic, insane, precocious. The diagnoses which I make after an exhaustive study of all the available facts are quite at variance with the Binet rating in a considerable percentage of cases. * * * It should be remembered that mental testing is only one phase of mental diagnosis; the determination of mental status does not automatically include the determination of the causative factors. ‘The function of the BinetSimon, or any other graded scale of intelligence, is to give us a preliminary, and not a final survey or rating of the individual.’ The testing is ‘merely a point of departure for further diagnosis’.”
J. E. Wallace Wallin, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh. “Theoretically the Binet test is of equal value in classifying cases of mental defect, but I have had twenty-five years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental defect, and I have taught and classified thousands of these people, and it is not necessary for me or for my assistants to use a Binet test for classification. Nor do I believe that the Binet test would properly classify pupils for definite instruction or for detailed care. I do not believe that any merely psychological measurements will take the place of practical medical training and experience in the diagnosis and care of the feebleminded.” Walter E. Fernald, M.D.
“I do not consider the Binet tests infallible by any means, in determining the mental grade of a child. * * * In examining the child I take many things into consideration, and am always careful to get the family history and note the stigmata of degeneration.”
Martin W. Barr, M.D. “No Binet-Simon tests, nor any other tests, will inform us as to what children we shall consider feebleminded. We define the feebleminded child as a result of social considerations. He is the child who for his own good and for the good of society should be segregated for life. After we have arrived at the social definition of feeblemindedness, we may employ our tests to inform us as-to the mental status of a suspected case. A casual glance is all that is needed to assure us of the mental and physical status of some feebleminded children. But there will always be large numbers of children in the border zone between the socially normal child and the socially feebleminded child, and with such children the refinement of clinical methods and the application of intensive methods of observation and training will furnish us with psychological data which will enable us to arrive at a secure social classification. A strictly scientific nomenclature will dispense with the term ‘mentally defective,’ as failing to characterize with sufficient definiteness the class of children under consideration. What characterizes ‘mentally defective’ children is not that they are mentally defective, for other children, in fact all children, are mentally defective, but that they are so defective mentally as to be socially unfit. For the term ‘mentally defective,’ I would therefore propose substituting the term ‘socially unfit,’ or ‘socially defective.’” Lightner Witmer, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania. The statement is made that “no one claims for it (Binet test) that the results obtained should take precedence over all other evidence in the case of an individual child” (page 12). There is no evidence in the report that facts (other than those deduced by the use of the Binet tests) were considered when the estimate was made. The validity of the estimate therefore is determined by the general acceptance of the test at this time. It is evident from the quotations that there is a body of earnest students in this country and in Europe who are at work on the subject of mental tests; and that at present there is no universal belief in the Binet tests as the means par excellence of diagnosing deviating or exceptional mentality. In view of this fact the validity of the statement that 2 per cent of the New York City school population is feebleminded has not been established. Discussion (Comparison).
The last standard which will be applied in order to determine the validity of the estimate of the School Inquiry Committee that 2 per cent of the school population of this city is feebleminded is that of comparison with the results of similar studies made elsewhere. A study of available data shows the following: For Vineland, New Jersey.
“The most extensive study ever made of the children of an entire public school system of two thousand has shown that 2 per cent of such children are so mentally defective as to preclude any possibility of their ever being made normal and able to take care of themselves as adults. (See Pedagogical Seminary for June, 1911. ‘Two Thousand Children Tested by the Binet Scale’; by Henry H. Goddard.)” (Page 11, School Inquiry Report.) For Massachusetts. “The exact number of the feebleminded in the community is not known. There are probably 2 to 1000 of our population, over 7000 in this State alone.”1 For Pennsylvania. “An estimate of the number of feebleminded at large in the community was based upon the proportion of one mental defective to every three hundred and fifty (350) persons, or one in four hundred (400) as a conservative estimate, and one epileptic in two thousand (2000) persons, the report stating that this ‘means more than 18,000 in the State of Pennsylvania’.”2 For Germany.
“An average of of 1 per cent of the population of the city is made up of weakminded children.”3 For England.
“The most comprehensive investigation of the problem, the care and treatment of the feebleminded, was made by the English Royal Commission which was appointed by Parliament in 1904. This Commission during six years studied in many countries the problem here considered. The following table shows the result of their investigation:
1 The Burden of Feeblemindedness, Walter E. Fernald, M.D. 2 Report of the Pennsylvania Commission on Segregation, Care, and Treatment of Feebleminded Persons, 1913. 3 B. Maennel, Rector of Mittelschule in Halle a.d. Saale. Showing the Number of Feebleminded per 1000 Throughout the United Kingdom?English Royal Commission, 1904 Urban. Agricultural. Manchester. Birmingham. Hull Glasgow…. Dublin Belfast Somersetshire.. Wiltshire Lincolnshire Carnarvonshire. Galway 3.74 3.76 1.35 1.68 4.14 2.45 4.54 4.25 4.68 3.96 4.49 Summary Place Vineland, N. J. Massachusetts. Pennsylvania.. Germany England Feebleminded 20 per 1000 2 ” 1000 3-4 ” 1000 5 ” 1000 3-4 ” 1000
Showing the Percentage of Mentally Defective Children to the Public Elementary School Population in Certain Districts Investigated by the Royal Commission of 1904. Urban.
Industrial. Mixed Industrial and Agricultural Agricultural. Manchester. Birmingham. Hull Glasgow Dublin Belfast Stoke-on-Trent. Durham Cork Nottinghamshire. Carmarthenshire. Somersetshire.. Wiltshire Lincolnshire Carnarvonshire. Galway 1.20 1.03 0.30 0.74 1.85 0.50 0.59 0.24 0.35 0.66 0.76 0.61 0.55 0.96 0.47 1.33
“The only escape from this conclusion (2 per cent) would be the assumption that in New York City there is a better condition of things than exists in the small city and rural population in southern New Jersey” (page 12).
The English Royal Commission found that the urban population of six cities gave an average of 2.85 per thousand, while five agricultural districts gave a proportion of 4.38 per thousand of the general population. The Commission on the Care and Treatment of the Feebleminded in Pennsylvania comments on this statement as follows: ” It is possible that an explanation of this sociological phenomenon may be found in the lure of the city, which is felt more by the capable, ambitious, and enterprising than it is by the dull and plodding in rural population. On the other hand, the incompetents also may be driven from the city, where they are in danger of starvation and go to the country, where living is cheaper or charity more open-handed.”
From the foregoing it is evident that the estimate of the School Inquiry Committee that 2 per cent of the New York City school population are feebleminded is not reinforced by the results of the investigations made elsewhere. It is further evident that the English Royal Commission found a greater percentage of feebleminded in rural communities than in urban centers. (To be continued.)
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.