Classification of Fifty Backward and Feebleminded School Children
L! 8 R A R Y “| JUN. 25. 13i5 The Psychological Clinic Copyright, 1915, by Lightner Witmer, Editor. Vol. IX, No. 4. June 15, 1915 :Author: J. Harold Williams, 1
Research Fellow under the Buckel Foundation, Stanford University, Cal. During the past year, assistance from the Buckel Foundation Laboratory has been asked by superintendents and principals in several cities in California in classifying school pupils, with a view to the establishment of special classes for backward and defective children who seem to profit little from the regular class room instruction. This brief study will include fifty of the children who have been examined for this purpose, and who are taken as representative of the cases concerning which inquiries are made. The cities from which these cases are taken are Fresno, San Jose, Redwood City, and Palo Alto. In the first three cities named there are no special classes, but steps are being taken toward their establishment. In Palo Alto there is a well organized “ungraded room” in which effort is being made to provide proper instruction for subnormal and otherwise exceptional children.
The children selected for examination and classification represent nearly all degrees of variability. The teachers were asked to select those who were backward in their school work, either because of apparent mental incapability or unwillingness to do the work of the regular class. In many cases children of superior ability have been examined, and from these certain interesting and important facts have been obtained. This particular study, however, will deal only with those considered by their teachers backward or subnormal.
The examinations were made by the use of the Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence, by Dr Lewis M. Terman, of Stanford University.* A particular advantage of this revision is the careful standardization of tests extending several years beyond the original 13-year level. This permits of more accurate grading of the older pupils, who often present some of the greatest difficulties to the teacher.
Table I shows the data under consideration. It will be noted that these fifty children range in age from 7 to 16 years, and in school from the receiving class to grade seven.
The distribution of chronological and mental ages is shown in chart I. The median chronological age is 10 years; the median mental age 8 years. At the ages represented, a general retardation of two years, or one-fifth, is serious. The proportion of mentally defective children in such a group will necessarily be large. It is further significant that although the highest age is 16 years, the highest mental age is 13. A proportionate difference is shown at the lower end of the distribution curve.
The intelligence quotients of the group range from .57 to 1.17, giving a maximum range of 60 per cent. The distribution is as follows:
. 50 to .60 2 cases .61 to .70 9 cases .71 to .80 13 cases .81 to .90 13 cases .91 to 1.00 9 cases Above 1.00 4 cases The median intelligence quotient is .81. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Name of pupil William B.. Ivan E Jessie C Henry B…. Guy F Mary K… . Fernando F. Matilda E.. Jennie V…. Elbert W… Ellis G Augusta C. . Daniel F Basil J Conrad C… Samuel F… Amelia L… Grace D. .. . Frank P…. Owen M…. James S Lydia R. .. . Eugene H… Viola T Herman A. . Ernest 0 ? Hugh F Roland S… Amy V May D Ralph N… . Vincent L… Enoch B… . Thomas J… Ruth W Arthur K. .. Eva F Austin K Walter E Julia D Rudolf Z Andrew N. . Homer B Martha R… Robert W… Flora E Herbert S… Harry A…. Charles C… Emily V…. Actual Age Yrs. Mos. 11 14 9 11 9 9 10 10 7 9 12 9 14 7 8 7 9 8 11 7 13 7 10 12 13 8 13 12 9 15 14 15 15 15 14 10 8 9 9 11 10 13 12 0 2 0 1 8 6 0 4 8 0 9 10 4 0 0 0 Mental Yrs. Mos. 11 9 5 9 7 9 7 10 6 7 10 9 13 7 9 7 10 t 6 2 5 11 10 4 1 8 3 7 1 1 10 5 9 1 10 11 1 0 6 6 0 11 5 1 2 6 1 10 4 10 1 4 6 7 7 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 7 7 11 7 12 9 8 9 11 11 11 12 13 11 7 8 7 9 9 10 6 0 0 6 0 4 8 0 0 10 6 2 8 6 2 0 4 6 1 4 8 4 4 0 6 5 7 8 0 2 10 2 2 3 10 6 6 0 2 10 7 7 1 =3 O.S ? ? ?? 2 1.00 .69 .61 .81 .65 1.00 .70 1.00 .87 .77 .79 1.00 .94 1.02 1.17 1.07 .57 .74 .64 .94 .69 .76 .62 .82 .77 .70 .64 .72 .71 .82 .81 .89 .87 .86 .76 .98 .59 .77 .75 .75 .81 .96 1.08 .84 .97 .74 .85 .84 .81 .74 og 5 4 1 4 3 4 3 5 2 1 6 2 6 2 2 Rec 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 6 2 5 4 1 5 4 7 7 7 7 4 2
ScjC Classification Normal Feebleminded Feebleminded Borderline Feebleminded Normal Feebleminded Normal ? Dull Normal Borderline Borderline Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Feebleminded Feebleminded Feebleminded Normal Feebleminded Borderline Feebleminded Dull Normal Borderline Feebleminded Feebleminded Feebleminded Feebleminded Dull Normal Dud Normal Dull Normal Dull Normal Dull Normal Borderline Normal Feebleminded Borderline Borderline Borderline Borderline Normal Normal Dull Normal Normal Feebleminded Dull Normal Dull Normal Dull Normal Feebleminded
In ungraded room.
Perhaps a clearer way of indicating the great variability among these children is by grouping them, although somewhat arbitrarily, into the four groups which are commonly used in designating the grade of intelligence. In table I each child is classified according to this method. The percentages of the groups are as follows: Feebleminded 32 per cent Borderline 20 per cent Dull normal 22 per cent Normal or superior 26 per cent These terms are in no way intended to describe “types” of children, as is too often done by teachers and even psychologists. As has already been stated, these divisions are arbitrary, and the grouping is made only for the sake of convenience in discussion. Some children might be as correctly placed in one group as in another. The important fact is the child’s level of intelligence, or his variability from normal. The feebleminded group here includes those whose present levels of intelligence indicate that in all probability they will never possess a mentality beyond that of the average child of twelve years. In all cases those so classified have intelligence quotients below .75; that is, the mental age is less than three-fourths that of the actual age. Sixteen children are included in this group, indicating that about one-third of those selected by their teachers as “backward” are actually feebleminded. The following are examples: Ivan E.?(Not foreign.) Age 14. Mentality about 9?. Has reached grade 4 after six years in school. Is practically unable, his teacher says, to go farther. Seems stupid and inattentive. Cannot name the months, make change for simple amounts, or repeat six digits?all of these being tests in the ten-year group. Interpretation of the fable of the Fox and the Crow: “The fox wanted the meat and the crow didn’t know how to sing.” Responses to other tests indicate equally well that his stupidity is not due to his unwillingness to learn, but to mental incapability.
Jessie C.?Age 9. Mentality about 5?. Is in grade 1, and has never been promoted. Is of foreign parentage, but speaks English well. Can barely copy the square, and cannot copy the diamond at all. Does not know morning from afternoon, or the value of any of the coins, except the penny. Is clearly an institutional case, and should be removed from the regular class, where she has been kept in the same grade for three years.
Amelia L.?Age almost 10. Mentality slightly above 6. Has been promoted this year to grade 2, although barely able to do the work of the previous grade. Is one of the lowest grade Gases in the school. Is very unlikely ever to possess the mentality of the ordinary child of ten years, Should by all means be placed in a special class, if institutional care is not possible. Eugene II.?Age 13. Mentality about 8?. Is in the lower section of grade 3. Has been shifted around from one grade to another, and because of his normal appearance and physical development has been hold unduly responsible for his inability to get along in school work. Has caused considerable annoyance and inconvenience among the teachers. Shows indications of a very unstable and low mentality, and neurasthenia. Is recommended for further psychological observation, and for immediate removal to a special room where he can receive individual attention. Is fond of manual work, and in this direction may lie the solution of some of the difficulty.
Eva F.?Age 151 years. Mentality slightly above 9. Grade 5. Cannot make a sentence from three words, make rhymes, arrange the weights, or comprehend any of the absurdities. Has been in this grade for some time, and seems wholly incapable of much advancement. Has already been allowed to advance in school beyond the limits indicated by her present level of intelligence. This is probably due to her earnest, plodding nature. Presents no difficulty in discipline, and in this respect is one of the best pupils in the room. In an institution of the right sort Eva could doubtless be trained in many useful things which are denied her in the public school. It seems but little short of cruelty to permit her to memorize her lessons every day, only to forget them before the next. With this procedure, however, she is apparently contented.
Einily V.?Age 12. Mentality about 9. Is in the ungraded room, which she says she likes much better than the other rooms where it is so hard for her to learn. Is a large strong girl, and in good health. Her low grade of intelligence is indicated, among many other things, in her interpretation of fables. Some of her responses are as follows:?Hercules and the Wagoner: “Teaches you not to do it again.” The Fox and the Crow: “Teaches you not to have meat in your mouth.” The Farmer and the Stork: “Better look out where you’re going.” Emily is now learning basket making and plain sewing, and other work of a similar kind. Efforts to teach her arithmetic and reading beyond a small amount have hopelessly failed. The ungraded room has unquestionably saved her from complete discouragement, which in a child of her intelligence might have led to undesirable results.
Although many of the sixteen cases of which the foregoing are representative are in reality fit subjects for commitment to institutions, it is improbable that with the present inadequacy of provision in California this will be accomplished. At the very best the school will only be able to keep them in attendance until adolescence, when most of them will go out in the world to take part in the perpetuation of degenerate stock. Some will be laborers and ordinary working people, doing fairly well under close supervision, but subject to the many influences which prey upon weak mentality to produce delinquency and criminality. Proper institutional care or segregation for these few cases alone might be a direct saving to the state of several thousands of dollars.
The borderline group includes those whose mentality may reach a slightly higher limit of development than those who may be considered definitely feebleminded. While for many of this group institutional care would also be advisable, on the whole a level of intelligence is represented through which persons may be held more independently responsible than the former group. The borderline cases are a frequent source of annoyance and special difficulty because of their intermediate position between normality and feeblemindedness. A recent study of delinquents by the writer found about 25 per cent of 150 delinquent boys to belong to this grade of intelligence.
Elbert W.?Age 9. Mentality about 7. In grade 1, where he has been for three years. A quick, active little colored boy, whose antics and playfulness have given to many the erroneous impression of superior intelligence. May prove to be not greatly inferior among his own people, but it is absurd to expect of him the same mental development of which the normal children in his class are capable. Those with whom Elbert started to school are now two years beyond him, and it may be a positive detriment to him to continue his repetition of first grade work.
Herman A.?Age 8. Mentality about 6|. In grade 2. Is of foreign parentage, but speaks English well. No language difficulty which would interfere greatly with the determination of his intelligence-level. Slightly above the feebleminded group, but can be taught only with great difficulty. Cannot do the work of his grade. Should be in a special class.
Ruth W.?Age 12. Mentality about 9. In grade 4. Seems to have almost reached her limit in school subjects. Is willing and steady, and would probably learn many things of value to her if placed in a special class before her deficiency becomes relatively too great.
Rudolph Z.?Age 15?. Mentality about 12-?. Has been automatically promoted to grade 7, with the hope that he would “learn better among the children of his own age.” Is stupid, blunt, and shows even less willingness than capability to learn. Has been guilty of several acts of a delinquent nature. Is addicted to cigarettes and liquor, and has been drunk several times. In all probability will some day be sent to an institution for delinquents, which will be of more practical value to him than the public schools have been. The ordinary public school is almost powerless in such a case, and the bad influence which Rudolph has had upon the other boys in the school is sufficient moral reason for putting him in the care of the state.
The dull normal group includes those who are mentally backward, or merely “dull.” Although there is much more which can legitimately be expected in the mental development of these cases than in those to which reference has already been made, there is reason to believe that much time has been wasted in the hope that many of such children could be made absolutely normal, or equal in intelligence to average children of their respective chronological ages. Children who exhibit the characteristics of this group will probably reach low adult intelligence, and for them industrial training and vocational guidance are of far greater importance than progress in the common school subjects. It is perhaps unnecessary to point out here the futility of continual punishment and “nagging” as a means of developing the intelligence of the children of this group, or of stimulating them much beyond their capability. If it is necessary, as is often the case, for such children to remain in the regular classes, only by individual attention and patient treatment can the teacher be of much assistance in their competition with the normal and superior children with whom they will be associated.
Jennie V.?Age 7?. Mentality about 6|. Is in grade 2. While she presents no particular retardation from the standpoint of age-grade distribution, yet the tests clearly indicate that she is not mentally equal to the children of her age. Probably she should not have been started in school at such an early age, although normal children would have no great difficulty under the same conditions. The fact that her parents can barely speak English is perhaps sufficient reason why she should be in the public school, but she is in need of the individual attention which can only be obtained in the special class.
Ralph N.?Age 8 years 9 months. Mentality about 1. In grade 2. Another case where the special class could be of great assistance until the difficulties of language have been overcome. Likes manual work, and should be given an opportunity in this line. Will probably reach low adult intelligence. Enoch B.?Age almost 9. Mentality about 7?. In grade 2. Should probably make better progress in the regular class than could be expected of most of those of this group. Is physically delicate, and is subject to several continuous ailments. Would pass for normal, by mere observation, among any group of school children, except for his disinclination to play with the others. Special attention would doubtless furnish him with much encouragement.
Thomas J.?(Colored). Age 14. Mentality about 12|. Has just been promoted to grade 6, as previous to this examination his intelligence has been greatly underestimated by his teachers. His mother is a capable and energetic woman, with relatively high social standing. Thomas, however, shows the racial characteristic of inattentiveness and lack of ambition. With his ambition aroused by the presentation of something of interest to him, which the principal of his school is attempting to bring about, we should expec t him to become a useful citizen, and one of not greatly inferior intelligence.
The normal and superior group includes more than one-fourth of the children selected by their teachers as “backward.” The fact that children of normal and even of superior intelligence should have been so classified is of great significance. It is not surprising that such children should often present some special difficulty in discipline or instruction; but we wonder if the teacher is not occasionally at fault in considering them “backward”. In some cases there is no apparent retardation. Matilda E., for example, is in grade 5 at ten years of age. The difficulty may easily lie in the possibility that the teacher has failed to take note of the fact that Matilda is the youngest pupil in her room. Furthermore, Matilda is from a foreign home, and her parents do not speak English except when necessary. William B.?Age 11. Grade 5. Is of foreign parentage, but has no difficulty with language. There is no apparent reason why he should be backward, unless most of the children in his room are of superior intelligence. Mary K.?Age 9|. Grade 4. Tests exactly normal. Is somewhat nervous and shy, but should present no special difficulty. Is often ill, and this may account for her slight backwardness in school subjects. Is mentally equal to the average child of her age.
Basil J.?Age 7. Tests slightly above normal. Is “backward” because of mischievousness and incorrigibility. On one occasion the teacher was heard to say that she “would never promote such a hopeless case.” Probably better results could be obtained by temporarily transfering this boy to a special class, where the ironclad promotion system does not prevent the teacher from exercising the patience and kindness which are so necessary in dealing with children of any degree of exceptionality.
Samuel F.?Age 7. Tests 7?. Has been in the receiving class for two years on account of his “inability to learn to read.” There is no apparent reason why this should be in the case, if sufficient attention is actually given him. He has no defects of sight, hearing, or speech, and is said to be capable in every other way. Whatever the difficulty may be, individual teaching is apparently the only solution. It is probable that it may easily be overcome.
Robert W.?Age 9. In the ungraded room. Has been placed here to make up for school retardation due to absence while ill. Has done remarkably well, and will soon be ready for the regular class. Were it not for the ungraded room it is doubtful if this could have been so easily accomplished. The school retardation in the three cities of this study having no special classes is shown in chart II. The dotted line represents the distribution of the grades which we could normally expect the children of the ages given to have reached. The significant facts are that of 15 children who should have gone beyond grade 6, but 7 have succeeded in doing so; and that one-half of these are in or below grade 3, although the median age is 10 years. In all probability the prevalent system of automatic promotion by certain teachers, after the child has spent two or three years in one grade has resulted in many promotions beyond mental capability. If grading were based upon mental ages, the following distribution would result:
In grade 1 23 pupils In grade 2 6 pupils In grade 3 7 pupils In grade 4 4 pupils In grade 5 5 pupils In grade 6 3 pupils In grade 7 1 pupil In grade 8 none Thus, judged from the standpoint of intelligence-levels alone, less than one-half of these children are capable of work beyond grade 2. While there are probably many valid reasons why such a distribution is objectionable, yet the foregoing table is an indication that the present methods of grading and promoting defective and backward children are equally impractical. The ungraded room seems at present to be the best solution of this problem. The following table summarizes the results by cities: City Fresno San Jose.. Redwood. Palo Alto. No. of pupils included 13 21 Median age 10 9 14? lOi Median M. age 9 7 11 9 No. F. M. No. who should be in special class 9 20 6 All are now in special class.
These figures are in no way indicative of the relative amount of feeblemindedness among the school children of these cities, as many more normal, superior, and backward children were examined in each school than have been referred to in this study. There is strong indication, however, that special classes for exceptional children are of urgent need in all of these communities.
Summary and Conclusions.
1. Fifty children in the public schools selected by their teachers because of backwardness were found to range in mentality from middle grade morons to superior normal; 32 per cent may reasonably be classified as feebleminded, 26 per cent as normal or superior, and the remaining number as belonging to the borderline or dull normal grades. The range of intelligence quotients is from .57 to 1.17.
2. Many children classified by their teachers as backward are subjects for institutions for defectives; many others should be in special or ungraded rooms; while still others could undoubtedly make better progress in the regular class if the teacher would but recognize the fact that they are mentally exceptional, and not responble for their inability to act and learn like average children. 3. So many difficulties are presented by the present system of grading and promotion that there is ample justification for the establishment of special classes for each of the following groups: (?) Subnormal children. (?) Incorrigible children. (c) Children of superior intelligence. All of the above forms of special classes have been established in various parts of the United States. While it is not likely that the average school will be able to obtain all three of these immediately, the time will undoubtedly come when these and other forms of special classes will constitute a necessary part of the equipment of every city school.
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.