A Study of 1000 Cases of Children who do not Conform to School Routine
- Author:
Selinda McCaulley, v’
Department of Special Education, Public Schools, Philadelphia, Pa. In the public schools today in many of the classrooms sit a number of children who are never able to take part in regular classroom work. Some of them are content to just sit, disturbing no one, and disturbed by none; others, attempt to take part in their lessons, enthusiastically waving their hands in the desire to answer a question, but if called upon, either answer “I forget”, or give a wrong answer nine times out of ten; while still others, utterly beyond their depth, as far as ability to do the work is concerned, sit and contrive ways to make life interesting for the teacher and their classmates. In recent years children of this type have been referred to the Department of Special Education in order that some suitable adjustment in their school life can be made.
In studying their cases, an attempt has been made to discover where differences exist between them and the normal group, and what is the nature of the differences. Teachers are often perplexed about these children, and are loath to send them to special classes. They often say “He’s a nice child?he’s fairly intelligent. He can run errands nicely, but he just can’t seem to get along?and he tries so hard! What is the reason?” With the increased demand for the right of every child to an education, what the reason is for their ability to progress in the regular classroom and what is to be done about it, are becoming problems of more and more importance. If the child can not succeed in taking in the kind of education which is offered at the present, what kind of education is suitable for him? In trying to solve this problem it is necessary, not only to study the differences which exist between the normal and retarded groups, but also to determine what is the relation of these differences to the child’s success in physical training and manual training activities. It is popularly supposed that many children of low intellectual attainments possess an unusual ability to use their hands. Therefore many educators advocate motor education for backward children. Such an idea is contained in the popular slogan of one of our great institutions for the feeble-minded?”Heart, head, and hand.” The method of teaching in many of our special classes presupposes that retarded children always possess good manual ability. Since this is so, it is important to discover the validity of this supposition.
In many special classes, an attempt to develop the mind through the training of the hands is the fundamental basis of all the work. For instance, the child is given material which is easily handled, and requires little fine muscular coordination. Probably the most widely used material is raffia. The child is trained to take strands of raffia and wrap them around cardboard frames. In some of the better regulated classes, these frames vary in size and shape, and require a gradually increased skill to be covered correctly. Instead of just plain wrapping, the child is also taught to use a buttonhole stitch, and then a Solomon’s knot stitch in covering them. This wrapping is then carried over to the field of sewed Indian baskets, and baskets of different sizes and shapes, requiring more and more skill. Reed basketry, simple wood construction work, hammock making, chair caning, brush making, sewing and rag rug weaving are taught also. Theoretically, as the child advances step by step in manual ability, so does he progress in mental ability.
In actual practice, however, it does not work out this way. Some children, it is true, respond well to this method of teaching, but others never respond. Their hand work is mediocre, or worse, at the beginning, and it remains mediocre, or worse, at the end. The question then arises, is mental development obtained through manual training of any more value than that obtained by other sorts of training? This is a vital question for many reasons. In the first place, manual training material is very expensive, and this expense ought to be justified. In the next place, there are very few skilled manual training teachers. In the hands of untrained teachers, manual training becomes a farce. Instead of the teacher selecting the work and presenting it in a graded series of difficulties, the child is often allowed to choose what he wants to do, and “go to it”, in his own manner and after his own taste. Some children specialize in baskets, others in raffia picture frames, and others in hammocks. Their main idea seems to be production?not quality but quantity. I recall very clearly a visit to a certain classroom, which is typical of many others. One boy was on his fifth hammock. It was full of slip knots and mistakes, but he went merrily on. Another was just completing a huge reed basket. There were not enough spokes in the basket to keep it firm, the basket was beautifully lop-sided, and the border was a wretched failure. The reed had been used before it was soaked, and in consequence, had broken in many places. The child, however, who was really capable of much better work, was delighted with his accomplishment, and the teacher seemed not unsatisfied. If she had had any skill or training in this line, the result might have been different, but since she had not, could she not have obtained better results by teaching actual school subjects in which she had been trained?
Miss Grey, Director of Special Education in New York State, in her address during Schoolmen’s Week, told of the experience of a trained supervisor of Special Education in one of the middle western cities, who enthusiastically decided that all classes under her supervision, should be given no other instruction than manual training. As time went on, the results were so negative, and the morale of the children so lowered, that in a revulsion of feeling, she excluded all manual training and substituted instruction in regular school subjects, modified to suit the needs of the pupils. She is firmly convinced that the mental development obtained by the latter method is far superior to that obtained by the former method.
In an attempt to answer unbiasedly the question?are retarded children better able to work with their hands than normal children, or is this ability exaggerated merely because the results of the concrete work done by this type child stand out in glowing contrast to the results of his work in abstract subjects??three performances test? the Witmer Form Board, the Witmer Cylinder, and the Healy Construction Test A, were given to a group of retarded children. The children selected were referred by the principals of the public schools, because, for the most part, they were unable to succeed in regular school work. A few of the cases were also disciplinary. Only a small percentage of the the cases are feebleminded in the social sense. The majority of them are normal, dull children, who possess enough competency to be able to earn a living after leaving school. A few of them are of average intelligence, but utterly uninterested in the present school curriculum. These are the behavior problems. The results of the tests were compared with those of an unselected group of children. This comparison of the Table of Times for the different performance tests bring forth clearly some very interesting points. Although qualitatively the performances of many of these children compare favorably with those in the unselected group, quantitatively, their performances are very inferior.
The following table (see Table I) taken from Sylvester’s results from his study of the performance on the Form Board of 1537 normal children, shows that the average time of the five-year-old, 37.6 seconds, is not equalled by the average time of the eleven-year-old in the selected group, while the average time of the six-year-old, 26.5 seconds, is not equalled by the sixteen-year-old in this group. The zone limits of the five-year-old group are from 22 to 75 seconds. There is no zone limit past 75 seconds in any group. All of the zone limits in this group run over 100 seconds.
A comparison of Paschal’s Table, taken from the results of his study of the performance level of 1000 cases, with the Witmer Cylinders, with the table of this retarded group, emphasize the same thing. Although qualitatively many performances could be compared favorably, quantitatively, they are very inferior. The mean for the normal six-year-old is 82.4 seconds. This is not equalled by any of the children under thirteen years old. The mean for the normal seven-year-old, 73.9 seconds, is practically paralleled by the sixteenyear-old. The zone limits are also very much higher among the retarded children.
So, likewise, with the Healy A; from the tables given in Pitner and Patterson, the median for the normal seven-year-old is 131 seconds. This is not equalled by any median below the age of thirteen years in the retarded group.
It seems, therefore, that the group retarded in school work is much slower, also, in reaction time. Just as this group succeeds in doing two or three problems in arithmetic while the rest of the class do ten, so do they succeed in their performance tests. To this group belong the children who receive failing marks because they are unable to show, in a limited time, how much they actually know. Many of this group were rated a failure in performance tests because they did not finish in a given length of time. Many more would have been rated a failure had the time limits not been very liberal. A study of their memory spans is also significant. Out of 1000 cases, 406 had an auditory memory span of 4 digits or less. Only 57 had an auditory memory span of over 6 digits. The result of this is seen in their school work. Their mental processes are much less complex. They learn more slowly than the average child. New work must be presented to them in its simplest form, and in smaller quantities. For this reason, the Department of Special Education is recommending more and more that these children be placed in special classes, where they may receive more individual attention; where the course of study may be modified to suit their need; where it will be possible for them to be allowed enough time to finish their work. Here they can learn slowly what their more favored fellows grasp quickly. With such a provision made for them, they are not neglected, and on the other hand, they do not retard the progress of the regular classroom.
In the field of physical education, a comparison of their achievements with that of an unselected group shows their inferiority. Mr. Judelsohn, Supervisor of Physical Training, found the following results:*
*”A Study of Normal, Backward and Disciplinary Boys in Regard to Height, Weight and Jumping Ability.”
Observations. Height. In every age group but the eleven-year-old, the normal child is the taller. The difference between the normal and the next group varies from an average of one inch to 2}/% inches. But altogether there is not such a great difference in height between any two groups. As concerns the backward and disciplinary boys, there is very little difference in height.
Weight.
In regards to weight, the groups vary considerably. But again the normal child is not far above the other two divisions. In the thirteen and fourteen-year groups, the normal child is the heaviest; in the twelve and fifteen-year groups the backward child is the heaviest; and in the eleven-year group the disciplinary child is the heaviest. But it takes only a glance at the charts to see how close the three curves lie to one another, especially so in the thirteen and fourteen-year groups. The fifteen-year chart is very interesting in that there is so little difference in the highest and lowest weight for each division. Just the opposite to this is the eleven-year group, where the difference in extremes is so great. We may summarize by stating that with the single exception of the thirteen-year group, there is little?practically nothing?in favor of the normal child. Standing Broad Jump.
It is in the jumping ability of the three divisions that one sees the great difference, and always in favor of the normal child. In every age chart the normal child’s curve is beyond that of both the backward and the disciplinary child. Especially is this evident in the case of the eleven-year group, where the average jump of the normal child is 14^ inches more than the backward child; and in the fifteen-year group, where the normal average is 15 inches more than that of the backward child, and 13J4 inches more than that of the disciplinary child. In every case the best jump was made by a normal child; and in the eleven, fourteen, and fifteen-year groups the lowest jump of a normal child is better than the lowest jump of a backward or disciplinary child. In the other two age groups the lowest jump of the normal child is the same as that of the disciplinary but higher than that of the backward child. The averages show that the normal child, on the average, jumps from 6^- to 13x/? inches further than the disciplinary child, and from 71/6 to 15 inches further than the backward boy.
Conclusions.
In the foregoing observations we find that as far as height and weight are concerned, there is little to choose between normal and disciplinary, normal and backward, or backward and disciplinary. Therefore, if these two factors enter into making better jumpers, there should be little difference in the respective jumping ability. But, when we investigate the records made in standing broad jump, we find a great difference between the normal child and the backward or disciplinary. The normal boy outdistances his less fortunate friends in every case, and by a considerable number of inches. Physical conditions underlying the jumping were the same; as far as size and weight were concerned, as mentioned before, there was little, if any, advantage in favor of the normal boy. There is but one factor remaining that could enter, and that is the underlying cause?the mental development. The normal boy has been better endowed; he has a better developed power of coordination; he can put “everything he has” into his jump; and in this respect he stands above the backward child and the disciplinary child. He who is mentally backward will be found, upon investigation, to be physically backward, or retarded, for coordination is the tremendous factor entering into so many of our physical activities.
In every field of accomplishment in which we study these children, we find they are less proficient than the average child. A study of their results in the performance tests show that they are no more gifted in motor ability than they are in intellectual ability. It seems, therefore, that a course of study which gives predominance to motor education does not meet their needs.
Only such arithmetic as the child actually needs should be taught. Roman numbers, the value of francs, pounds, shillings, etc., decimals, as such, are among a few of the things that can easily be dispensed with. Then more time will be left to teach how to figure out a grocery bill, or the amount of money which is due a man who works so many hours, for so much an hour. This actually comes within their experience. If the children can be given newspaper proficiency in reading, this is, also, of value. Current events attract the interest of many. It is really surprising to discover how much some of them really do know. Civics and personal hygiene are, also, important subjects. Manual training, in the sense of pre-vocational training, should play an important part in the curriculum. Finally, by adjusting the work to keep it within the ability of the children, so that they feel that they are now succeeding instead of constantly failing, the children are given a right emotional attitude. There is a great opportunity for character formation, and even if these children are never to be counted among the leaders of the world, they can at least help to form a dependable, self-supporting group of law-abiding plodders, who are, also, necessary to help the world go round.
Table I. Age. Number of Cases. Average Time. Zone Limits. 80 170 173 206 214 221 172 141 80 80 37.6 26.5 23.3 20.5 18.7 16.7 14.9 13.8 12.6 11.6 22-75 18-44 15-38 14-32 13-34 12-27 9-24 10-22 9-17 9-17 Witmer Cylinders. Age. Time, seconds. Total. 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 F Total. 1 13 28 67 43 72 54 66 77 86 77 39 7 630 Age. Number of Cases. Mean.’ Minimum, seconds. Lowest Quintile. Lower Quintile. Median. Upper Quintile. Highest Quintile. Maximum, seconds. 1 13 28 67 43 72 54 66 77 86 77 39 7 228.3 160 123.2 111.9 120.1 103.5 107.1 78.5 76.7 73.2 60 150 86 72 41 40 41 39 38 39 35 29 47 F 125 80 75 75 58 60 49 55 46 F 180 120 100 95 90 90 62 63 65 F 241 130 128 100 100 100 69 72 75 F F 185 155 142 115 115 80 85 95 F F F F 252 170 201 145 117 120 240+11 310+17 321+28 300+12 251+17 358+8 360+7 344+9 315+7 223+6 180+5 245 * Exclusive of failures. 16 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. Auditory Memory Span?Digits. Age. Number of Digits. Number of Cases. 7…. 8…. 9…. 10…. 11…. 12…. 13…. 14…. 15…. 16…. 17…. 2 26 35 124 109 127 112 113 115 101 87 43 Age. Number of Cases. Mean. Minimum. Lowest Quintile. Lower Quintile. Median. Upper Quintile. Highest Quintile. Maximum. 2 26 35 124 109 127 112 113 115 101 87 43 6 3.5 4.1 4.3 4.5 3.7 4.7 5.1 5 5.3 5.5 5.5 Healy A. Age. Time, seconds. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 175 200 250 275 300 F Total. Total. 28 58 124 112 122 102 113 110 102 83 46 1000 Age. Number of Cases. Mean.’ Minimum, seconds. Lowest Quintile Lower Quintile, Median. Upper Quintile. Highest Quintile. Maximum, seconds. 28 58 124 112 122 102 113 110 102 83 46 103 114.6 112.2 99.8 90.8 93.9 74.3 83.5 95.7 100 42 36 18 20 19 17 10 14 14 16 197 122 94 71 47 55 41 38 30 F F 300 152 95 113 67 82 F F F 285 150 176 92 102 143 F F F F 217 F 142 128 190 107+26 255+50 245+96 265+75 300+72 285+52 275+41 287+44 300+34 256+20 201+46 ‘ Exclusive of failures. A STUDY OF 1000 CASES. 17 Form Board. Age. 10…. 11…. 12…. 13…. H…. 15…. 16…. Total Time, scconds. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 F Total. 3 29 61 127 118 125 103 122 119 85 79 29 1000 Age. Number of Cases. Mean.’ Minimum, seconds. Lowest Quintile. Lower Quintile. Median. Upper Quintile. Quintile Maximum, seconds. 3 29 61 127 118 125 103 122 119 85 79 29 78.2 77.3 57.3 50 40 44.6 33.2 32.4 30.4 31.8 34.4 160 152 85 63 55 49 46 45 42 39 43 135+ 240+4 260+5 335+7 252+3 105+4 355+1 160+1 285+1 122+4 188+1 112 * The mean was made, exclusive of failures.
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.