Schools and Classes for Exceptional Children.
REVIEWS AND CRITICISM. :Author: David Mitchell. Cleveland: Survey Committee of the Cleveland Foundation, 1916. Pp. 122. (The Educational Survey, Leonard P. Ayres, Director.)
This is one of the twenty-five sections of the report of the Educational Survey of Cleveland, conducted in 1915. Twenty-three of these sections are to be published as separate monographs; in addition there will be a larger volume giving a summary of the findings and recommendations relating to the regular work of the public-schools, and a second volume on industrial education. In the present monograph Dr Mitchell divides his discussion under seven heads,? I. Provision for exceptional children in Cleveland,” II. Why we have special classes; III. The socially competent; IV. The socially incompetent; V. The selection of feebleminded children; VI. What should be done for the feebleminded; VII. Summary and conclusions. “Cleveland,” observes Dr Mitchell, “has been a pioneer in providing advantages for children who did not fit into the regular grades. In more than one instance this city had the first class of a type in the country. That other cities have been given the credit for the first organization is probably due to the fact that in Cleveland successive reorganizations have tended to disrupt the continuity of the work.”
Dr Mitchell found that “In Cleveland 22,275 children have been in the schools at least one year longer than should have been necessary for them to reach the grades in which we find them. Of these children, 6731 have repeated two years of their school life. Some are behind as many as four, five, or six years.” He would divide the exceptional children into two groups by the criterion of social fitness,?”Can a child be educated for self-support and an independent existence in the community? If so, he is socially competent. If not, he is socially incompetent.” He recommends, “The socially competent should be placed in special classes in the regular schools, to be trained for association with normal people. The socially incompetent should be sent to special schools to be trained for permanent segregation.”
Taking up first the various groups of the socially competent, Dr Mitchell says, “The ‘Cleveland plan’ for the instruction of the blind is highly desirable and should be continued. A division for the instruction of the blind and semiblind, under the direction of a supervisor, should be created. Many more children should be included in these classes. … In dealing with the deaf child Cleveland should follow the same progressive plan which is followed in the treatment of the blind… . The organization of special classes in regular schools should be fundamental to further plans for the crippled… . By providing open air rooms in the regular schools Cleveland has adopted the wise method of educating together those who must live and work together. The success of the children is sufficient to warrant the extension of the opportunity to all who might profit by it.”
In 1901 the first “steamer” class was organized in Cleveland. The purpose of the “steamer” class Dr Mitchell explains to be “the rapid acquirement of the English language. The progress of the children amply justifies the expense of all advantages given to them. The advantages should be given to every child who does not speak English. .. The work of the classes should not be handicapped by the presence of feebleminded children.”
“No provision has yet been made for the children with defective speech. Probably more than 1000 Cleveland children require special speech training. Speech classes should be organized in many schools. The teacher should be a qualified articulation teacher, with special training in pedagogy and psychology. ? ? . No feebleminded children should be admitted to these classes.” ‘’Restoration classes,” Dr Mitchell recommends, “should provide opportunity for the retarded to advance, and for the doubtful ones to prove their ability. The teachers of these classes must be among the very best in the school system and because of this should receive extra compensation.” With regard to incorrigibles he says, “The present school is doing excellent work, but the treatment of these children requires a more social point of view. Special classes where the children would not be altogether separated from other types of children should be tried. A diagnosis of mental status should precede transfer to a class for incorrigibles.”
“The socially incompetent are the insane, the epileptic, and the feebleminded. Socially the epileptic do not differ from the feebleminded. Lack of ability for self-maintenance distinguishes the feebleminded from the normal. It is high time to discover the reasons for the excessive retardation of 2000 Cleveland school children… . For socially incompetent children Cleveland has organized different types of classes. … It is probable that a considerable number of feebleminded are still in the regular grades… . For many of the children the expenditure is out of all proportion to the results obtained.” In Chapter V Dr Mitchell discusses the selection of the feebleminded as conducted at present by the Division of Medical Inspection. He explains why the Binet tests as used in Cleveland are inadequate, and mentions some of the many other tests which might give further information essential to a sound diagnosis of mental status. “The person who conducts the mental tests,” he believes, “should be thoroughly competent in that work… . Competency m this field involves ability to use a wide range of psychological tests and measures and a grounding in the theory and practice of applied psychology so thorough as to equip the psychologist to keep fully abreast of the important developments rapidly taking place in this branch of science. At the present time no one possessing these qualifications is in the employ of the Cleveland Board of Education… . The only difference between the normal and the feebleminded is that in the case of the latter the limitations are an insuperable barrier to the maintenance of an independent existence. With the acceptance of this notion there is eliminated any serious contention that the medical practitioner is the only qualified diagnostician of mental status… . The physician who has not had a training supplementary to the standard course in the medical school is in the same relation to the problem of feeblemindedness that the student with the regular arts course in the college is to the problems of the medical sciences. Diagnosis of mental status should be made by a clinical psychologist.” Dr Mitchell recommends the organization of a Division of Examinations, with a clinical psychologist as head, who will take all responsibility for the activities which lead to the segregation of a child. The department should cooperate with the present Division of Medical Inspection, which would continue to make the physical examinations. Trained social workers would be needed to investigate the home environment, and a recorder to keep the permanent records.
“The feebleminded may be divided,” says Dr Mitchell, “into three main groups. The individuals of each group should be trained in the things for which they have ability… . The abilities of the pupils should determine the type of teachers who would be selected for the different classes.” He discusses the cost of an institution for the feebleminded, comparing data furnished by the training schools at Vineland, N. J., and Waverly, Mass. He concludes, “For the welfare of society all the feebleminded should be permanently segregated when they reach maturity. Cleveland is in a favorable position for the beginning of an institution… . Many parents would be glad to be relieved of responsibility for the care of these unfortunates.”
All the recommendations are once more summarized in the final chapter, in a way which makes the findings of the report available for quick reference. A. T.
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.