Number of Children who have the Following Grades of Reading.Totals.None.Syllabic.Hesitating.Fluent.Expressive.Infant12262——40Elementary (first year)—5324—41Elementary (second year)——2411237Intermediate (first year)——1518841Intermediate (second year)——1019938Intermediate (second year)——8111534Senior———53540Totals1231916869271
We shall now give some hints as to the method of procedure.
Reading is a test which requires only a minute. One chooses a text which the children can understand easily, preferably a lively piece with dialogue, so that one may judge more easily whether the pupil can read with expression. One should avoid prolonging the reading for more than forty-five seconds, for a young child tires quicklyand reads worse at the end of a minute than at the beginning. Instead of contenting oneself with judging that the child reads well or ill, which does not mean very much, it is a great advantage to adopt these five grades of reading, which are easy to distinguish with a little practice, and are less subjective than might be imagined, for two judges generally give the same mark. On referring to the scale, it will be noticed that children quickly pass from syllabic reading to hesitating reading, but the passage from hesitating to fluent reading is slower and more troublesome. One will notice this difficulty in practice.
By way of example let us quote our judgment of the grades of reading in the case of some backward children, and our consequent estimates of the degree of retardation. We draw them from our own observations made in a class for defectives in Paris.
Name.Age.Grade of Reading.Retardation.Coch14 yearsHesitating-fluent6 yearsGrio10½ yearsHesitating-fluent2½ yearsSev13½ yearsHesitating-fluent5 yearsCoff11 yearsSyllabic-hesitating4 yearsRo12 yearsSyllabic-hesitating5 yearsOstro12½ yearsHesitating-fluent4 years
It will be noticed that in spite of their advanced age none of these children have attained the fluent grade of reading.
In marking the reading one is sometimes at a loss owing to the absence on the scale of an exact description. Thus little Coff is judged syllabic-hesitating. The scale does not contain such a combination, which ought to figure between the syllabic reading of the infant class and the hesitating reading of the elementary class, first year. One may calculate the retardation either by admitting the existence of this intermediate term, or by marking Coff'sreading "hesitating." The choice is of little practical importance, since its effect is a variation in the amount of retardation of only six months.
Arithmetic.—Although arithmetical ability depends upon special aptitude, and a child may be quite intelligent though backward in arithmetic, the tests here chosen are so elementary, and the ignorance one tolerates is so great, that failure is of serious significance. We follow here the directions of M. Vaney, who has taken the trouble to simplify them at our request. All the questions in arithmetic ought to be dictated. This may even be done collectively. It is essential not to interpose to ask the child what operation is to be done. Such help would make the work much too easy, and indeed that is the very problem which has to be solved in the very exact and carefully considered form in which it has been stated. It is the problem rather than the operation which requires intelligence. Moreover, it will be noted that the difficulty of our mode of expression is calculated. The wordssubtract,take away,remain, ought not to be replaced by synonyms, and still less should they be explained. Even when, as often happens, the child makes a mistake in the first problem (for example, 19-6 = 12), he must not be allowed to stop there; his mistake might be due to carelessness. One must always try the higher problems until one obtains a clear demonstration that the child is incapable of solving them. M. Vaney has suggested a scale of marking for these sums. It enables one to take into account slight differences by the aid of a system of points. Here it is:
First Sum(1 point).—1 point for correct answer (videp. 54).Second Sum(2 points).—1 point for subtraction; 1 point for correct answer.Third Sum(3 points).—1 point for 604 correctly written; 1 point for subtraction; 1 point for correct answer.Fourth Sum(4 points).—2 points for correct division (1 ifwrong); 2 points for the remainder (1 if obtained by long division).Fifth Sum(5 points).—2 points for the subtraction (1 if answer wrong); 3 points for correct division (2 if it is wrong).Sixth Sum(6 points).—A dressmaker buys 8 yards of velvet at 9s. 6d. a yard and 25 yards of cloth; she pays for the whole £6. Find the price of the cloth per yard. 2 points for the price of the velvet; 2 points for the price of the cloth (1 for subtraction, if answer wrong); 2 points for price of cloth per yard (1 for division if answer wrong).Seventh Sum(7 points).—A merchant mixed 25 pints of wine at 2s. a pint with 60 pints at 2s. 6d. a pint; at how much per pint must he sell the mixture in order to gain 55s.? etc.
First Sum(1 point).—1 point for correct answer (videp. 54).
Second Sum(2 points).—1 point for subtraction; 1 point for correct answer.
Third Sum(3 points).—1 point for 604 correctly written; 1 point for subtraction; 1 point for correct answer.
Fourth Sum(4 points).—2 points for correct division (1 ifwrong); 2 points for the remainder (1 if obtained by long division).
Fifth Sum(5 points).—2 points for the subtraction (1 if answer wrong); 3 points for correct division (2 if it is wrong).
Sixth Sum(6 points).—A dressmaker buys 8 yards of velvet at 9s. 6d. a yard and 25 yards of cloth; she pays for the whole £6. Find the price of the cloth per yard. 2 points for the price of the velvet; 2 points for the price of the cloth (1 for subtraction, if answer wrong); 2 points for price of cloth per yard (1 for division if answer wrong).
Seventh Sum(7 points).—A merchant mixed 25 pints of wine at 2s. a pint with 60 pints at 2s. 6d. a pint; at how much per pint must he sell the mixture in order to gain 55s.? etc.
This scale enables us to determine by the total number of points obtained the level of the child in arithmetic, and at the same time we find out what sums can be done by the pupils of each age. This is shown in the table.
All the Children of—Average Points.Children in Proper Class.Average Points.All Children in Class—Average Points.6 years1.456 years1Infant1.57 years3.937 years6Junior (first year)6.58 years7.008 years7Junior (second year)6.839 years9.659 years14Intermediate (first year)16.0010 years15.4710 years23Intermediate (second year)22.4211 years21.4711 years29Senior28.4512 years22.5013 years24.75
It will be noticed in the table that the averages are a little less when calculated onallthe children. We have indicated this difference already, and have explained the reason for it. We have based our scale upon the marks obtained by all the children.
In practice we consider that M. Vaney's system of points is not indispensable. It is sufficient to find out whether or not the pupil can do the sum set. If he can, he is atthat level; if not, he must be placed in the grade below. Some examples will show how we use these results. We select them from a class of defectives.
Roger B——, age ten and a half years, is asked orally, for he cannot write: "If I had 19 apples and ate 6, how many would be left?" He replies first 9, then 6. One then tries easier sums.Q."I have 4 apples, and eat 1?"R."Three are left."Q."I have 12 apples, and eat 2?"R."There are 9 left."Q."I have 8 apples, and eat 2?"R."There are 7 left." Evidently this child does not clear even the first step. He has therefore four years and a half of retardation.In this connection let us remark that as Roger is a child whose attendance has been regular, it follows that in his four and a half years at school he has scarcely learned more than a normal child learns in two months. We recently met with a similar case at Bicêtre. This was a child of twelve, who had begun to learn his letters at the age of four, and who did not yet know how to spell! In presence of such cases one may well ask whether the teacher who has not managed in four and a half years or in eight years to teach a defective child what a normal child learns in a month has not wasted his own time and that of the defective. At this point let us call attention to a defect in the mechanical calculation of retardation. Little Roger, who is ten and a half years, and cannot yet read by syllables, has only four and a half years of retardation, if we apply to him the usual rule. It would therefore appear that he is at the same level of intelligence as a child of thirteen and a half, who belongs to the intermediate course, first year, for the latter has also a retardation of four years and a half. The error of this method of calculation is at once apparent. The real significance of retardation is proportionate to the class and course which the pupil has reached. We shall return presently to the exact estimation of retardation.Let us quote another example to show the application of the arithmetical test.Ostrow, twelve and a half years, replies correctly to questions 1, 2, and 3. At the fourth he hesitates and begins by multiplying 7 by 89, and obtains as answer 783, which is doubly inexact, because he ought not to have multiplied, and the multiplication is incorrect. Then he draws back, and tries a division of 89 by 7; he obtains an incorrect answer (11), which does not satisfy him. Finally, he tries a multiplication: says 7 times 10 makes 70. He next adds 7 several times to reach 89, but he becomes confused, and finishes by finding the number 13, which is almost correct. This child is therefore at stage 4; he does not clear it, but he attempts it. Look at the scale.We give him full points for Problems 1, 2, and 3, plus 2 points for Problem 4, or a total of 8, which puts him at the level of children of eight and a half years, which amounts to a retardation of four years.
Roger B——, age ten and a half years, is asked orally, for he cannot write: "If I had 19 apples and ate 6, how many would be left?" He replies first 9, then 6. One then tries easier sums.Q."I have 4 apples, and eat 1?"R."Three are left."Q."I have 12 apples, and eat 2?"R."There are 9 left."Q."I have 8 apples, and eat 2?"R."There are 7 left." Evidently this child does not clear even the first step. He has therefore four years and a half of retardation.
In this connection let us remark that as Roger is a child whose attendance has been regular, it follows that in his four and a half years at school he has scarcely learned more than a normal child learns in two months. We recently met with a similar case at Bicêtre. This was a child of twelve, who had begun to learn his letters at the age of four, and who did not yet know how to spell! In presence of such cases one may well ask whether the teacher who has not managed in four and a half years or in eight years to teach a defective child what a normal child learns in a month has not wasted his own time and that of the defective. At this point let us call attention to a defect in the mechanical calculation of retardation. Little Roger, who is ten and a half years, and cannot yet read by syllables, has only four and a half years of retardation, if we apply to him the usual rule. It would therefore appear that he is at the same level of intelligence as a child of thirteen and a half, who belongs to the intermediate course, first year, for the latter has also a retardation of four years and a half. The error of this method of calculation is at once apparent. The real significance of retardation is proportionate to the class and course which the pupil has reached. We shall return presently to the exact estimation of retardation.
Let us quote another example to show the application of the arithmetical test.
Ostrow, twelve and a half years, replies correctly to questions 1, 2, and 3. At the fourth he hesitates and begins by multiplying 7 by 89, and obtains as answer 783, which is doubly inexact, because he ought not to have multiplied, and the multiplication is incorrect. Then he draws back, and tries a division of 89 by 7; he obtains an incorrect answer (11), which does not satisfy him. Finally, he tries a multiplication: says 7 times 10 makes 70. He next adds 7 several times to reach 89, but he becomes confused, and finishes by finding the number 13, which is almost correct. This child is therefore at stage 4; he does not clear it, but he attempts it. Look at the scale.We give him full points for Problems 1, 2, and 3, plus 2 points for Problem 4, or a total of 8, which puts him at the level of children of eight and a half years, which amounts to a retardation of four years.
Spelling.—The test of spelling is a piece of dictation given individually or collectively. The scale contains the first phrases of the dictation. We reproduce them all here, pointing out the grammatical difficulties which they contain, and the scale for marking faults which seemed to us most fair. [We quote the phrases in French, as a translation would not indicate the real difficulties. It will be observed that in many cases correct spelling implies grammatical knowledge.—Tr.]
Phrase 1.—To write phonetically, without liaison, a phrase dictated in the ordinary vocabulary of the child.Example.—Émile est un petit élève bien sage; il écoute son papa et sa maman; il va à l'école.Phrase 2.—To put thes'sof the plural to words chosen from the vocabulary of the child.Example.—J'ai une tête, deux bras, deux jambes, une bouche, vingt dents, une langue, et dix doigts.Phrase 3.—Plural of qualifying adjectives in simple cases; verbs to the third person plural, present indicative.Example.—Le soleil brille déjà de ses plusgaisrayons. Les hommespartenten chantant. Les bergers sontheureuxde la belle journée qui seprépare: ils suivent au pâturage legrandtroupeau des vachespesantes.Phrase 4.—Feminine of the qualifying adjectives without phonetic indication; verbs with the plural endingsons,ont,ez,aient.Exercise.—Le garçon de ferme, de son pas lourd,entraitdans la grange encoreobscure, ou nousréposions. Les bœufsmugissaienttout bas. Dans la cour le coq, les poules, le chien,allaientetvenaient.Phrases 5, 6, and 7.—Finals of verbs in the singular of the different tenses of the four conjugations. Past participle with or withoutavoir. Infinitive iner, and past participle iné.Example.—Joyeux merle, nevienspas dans le bocage.Prendsgarde à ce méchant quiveutte saisir et t'enfermer. Pendant que je teparle, tuviens picorerles raisins que l'oiseleur adisposéscomme un piège. Ils sontgarnisde glu: si tu ytouches, c'en est fait de ta liberté.
Phrase 1.—To write phonetically, without liaison, a phrase dictated in the ordinary vocabulary of the child.
Example.—Émile est un petit élève bien sage; il écoute son papa et sa maman; il va à l'école.
Phrase 2.—To put thes'sof the plural to words chosen from the vocabulary of the child.
Example.—J'ai une tête, deux bras, deux jambes, une bouche, vingt dents, une langue, et dix doigts.
Phrase 3.—Plural of qualifying adjectives in simple cases; verbs to the third person plural, present indicative.
Example.—Le soleil brille déjà de ses plusgaisrayons. Les hommespartenten chantant. Les bergers sontheureuxde la belle journée qui seprépare: ils suivent au pâturage legrandtroupeau des vachespesantes.
Phrase 4.—Feminine of the qualifying adjectives without phonetic indication; verbs with the plural endingsons,ont,ez,aient.
Exercise.—Le garçon de ferme, de son pas lourd,entraitdans la grange encoreobscure, ou nousréposions. Les bœufsmugissaienttout bas. Dans la cour le coq, les poules, le chien,allaientetvenaient.
Phrases 5, 6, and 7.—Finals of verbs in the singular of the different tenses of the four conjugations. Past participle with or withoutavoir. Infinitive iner, and past participle iné.
Example.—Joyeux merle, nevienspas dans le bocage.Prendsgarde à ce méchant quiveutte saisir et t'enfermer. Pendant que je teparle, tuviens picorerles raisins que l'oiseleur adisposéscomme un piège. Ils sontgarnisde glu: si tu ytouches, c'en est fait de ta liberté.
One mistake for a letter omitted.One mistake for a letter too much.One mistake for a letter substituted for another.There may therefore be several mistakes in the same word, but the number of mistakes for any word cannot be greater than the number of letters in the word. A word omitted counts as many mistakes as it has letters.The liaison of two words counts for one mistake. Failure to join the two parts of a word also counts one mistake.
One mistake for a letter omitted.
One mistake for a letter too much.
One mistake for a letter substituted for another.
There may therefore be several mistakes in the same word, but the number of mistakes for any word cannot be greater than the number of letters in the word. A word omitted counts as many mistakes as it has letters.
The liaison of two words counts for one mistake. Failure to join the two parts of a word also counts one mistake.
It is to be noticed that we do not speak of grades of spelling—that is to say, of different phrases which the children of each age should be able to write without mistake. No doubt such could be found. But we have been content to count the mistakes; it is by the number of mistakes that the children of each age are distinguished.
The dictation given in February by M. Vaney in his school and corrected by the teachers there has enabled us to draw up the following table, which shows the number of mistakes committed, counted by the method indicated above:[8]
Age of Children.Class.Course.1st Phrase.2nd Phrase.3rd Phrase.4th Phrase.5th Phrase.6 to 7 years1Preparatory1322———7 to 8 years2Elementary (first year)61532——8 to 9 years3Elementary (second year)2101920—9 to 10 years4Intermediate (first year)026.66.91710 to 11 years5Intermediate (second year)00441211 to 12 years6Senior000.60.75
To show how we classify a child from the point of view of spelling, let us take an example. We shall chooseOstrow, the defective whom we have already tested in arithmetic. He writes the first phrase with one mistake, the second with one mistake, the third with eight mistakes; he is at the level of a child of nine to ten (videTable, p. 54). He has therefore a retardation of three years. He must be reckoned as slightly feeble-minded.[9]
We now understand the manner of judging the capacity of a child in arithmetic, reading, and spelling. Which of all these tests is of the greatest value? We shall reply tothis question by giving a summary in a few words of the tests we applied to twenty children in a special class. The amount of retardation varied considerably from one child to another, and for the same child from one test to another. On the average, the amount of retardation was 3.3 years for spelling, 4 years for reading, and 4.5 years for arithmetic. These children did not do so badly in spelling; there was even one who was at the normal level. It was especially in the problems that their deficiency was noticeable, because the problem requires not only memory, but some understanding. They have great difficulty in defining what is the proper arithmetical operation. When addition is necessary they have a tendency to subtract, and if they ought to divide they will more readily multiply. These mistakes lead to absurd results, which usually do not put them about, unless their attention is drawn to the absurdity. A defective will admit quite readily that if I have 604 apples, and sell 58, I shall have 662 left. These results show that in the ordinary school they do, we will not say too much spelling, but too little arithmetic in comparison to the amount of spelling. Finally, we again insist upon the evidential value of methodical tests. We demand that the elementary school inspector should have these tests carried out without assistance to the pupils, without intervention to indicate the solution or the step to take. He must neither assist nor do the lesson, but simply note the result achieved. He must therefore reduce himself to the easy rôle of a benevolent spectator.
Retardation and Knowledge Percentage.—We said above, in estimating retardation, account should be taken of the course to which the pupil belongs—that is to say, the grade of instruction to which he has already attained. A child of nine years of age who has a retardation of three years has learned absolutely nothing; on the other hand, a child of twelve years who has a retardation of three years has learned something, since he has reached theintermediate course, first year. The difference between the two pupils is apparent; probably it will increase still more as years go on. To understand the matter clearly, it is necessary to compare the amount of retardation with the period of school attendance. The latter may be represented by the figure 100. Thus, our child of nine, who has learned nothing, has a retardation of three years in three years at school—that is to say, a percentage of 0; our child of twelve, who is in the "intermediate course, first year," has made in six years half the normal progress; he has therefore a "knowledge percentage" of 50. Such figures have evidently a quite different significance from those of the amount of retardation. Our opinion is that it suffices to make use of the simple calculation of retardation in selecting the defectives, for it is an easy and useful method; but when one is in the presence of a child, and desires to estimate his knowledge, not only for the actual moment, but with reference to his future and his capacity for learning, it is necessary to note also, and more especially, his "knowledge percentage."
We suggest the following schedule to be filled up after the examination of the child:
Date of examination:Place of examination:Full name of pupil:Date of birth of pupil:This child has attended .......... school, ...... class.Attendance regular or irregular?Has he been able to follow his class?What is the amount of his retardation?Reading.(Syllabic, hesitating, fluent, expressive, intermediate—e.g., fluent-expressive.)Observations on reading:Arithmetic.The pupil can do the problems noted without mistake:(Refer to scale.)Observations on arithmetic:Spelling.Phrase dictated:Number of mistakes:Conclusion.Retardation in reading (taking account of school attendance):Retardation in arithmetic (ibid.):Retardation in spelling (ibid.):Knowledge percentage:Name and position of examiner:
Date of examination:
Place of examination:
Full name of pupil:
Date of birth of pupil:
This child has attended .......... school, ...... class.
Attendance regular or irregular?
Has he been able to follow his class?
What is the amount of his retardation?
Reading.
(Syllabic, hesitating, fluent, expressive, intermediate—e.g., fluent-expressive.)
Observations on reading:
Arithmetic.
The pupil can do the problems noted without mistake:
(Refer to scale.)
Observations on arithmetic:
Spelling.
Phrase dictated:
Number of mistakes:
Conclusion.
Retardation in reading (taking account of school attendance):
Retardation in arithmetic (ibid.):
Retardation in spelling (ibid.):
Knowledge percentage:
Name and position of examiner:
In spite of the lengthy details into which we enter, it is evident that all this work of examination can be done pretty rapidly. The arithmetic alone is a little long, because it is necessary to allow time to put the child at his ease. We may put the total examination at fifteen minutes. Often it will be possible to abridge the time. The inspector is now in a position to estimate the retardation of the pupil and his knowledge percentage. He has several means at his disposal—the evidence of the teachers, the notes concerning the pupil, the examination of his copybook, observation of the attitude of the child, his physiognomy, etc., and, above all, the exact and personal test which he has made.
Is this enough? When the inspector has established the retardation and determined its causes, may he, should he, give his opinion immediately? In most cases, without doubt, a further inquiry is not necessary. But in other cases the need of further inquiry is felt. Instruction is not everything, and there are some children who have difficulty in assimilating school knowledge owing to want of aptitude, to inattention, to laziness, who are yet quite intelligent. It is the intelligence of these children that one would like to determine, and for this it is necessary to make use of some tests of intelligence. We propose, therefore, for the inspectors a last examination, a psychological one. Let no one accuse us of complicating the examinations. We do not impose them, we do not evenadvise them in all cases. But these tests are none the less very valuable tools to which one is very happy to have recourse when one feels embarrassed.
This consists in putting the following questions,[10]which have been grouped in such a manner that the four first can be answered by normal children at seven years of age, the five following by normal children at nine years of age, and the four last by normal children at eleven years of age.
1. If you were late for school, what would you do?2. If you lost a train, what would you do?3. If one is lazy and does not want to work, what happens?4. If you were tired and had not enough money to take an omnibus, what would you do?
1. If you were late for school, what would you do?
2. If you lost a train, what would you do?
3. If one is lazy and does not want to work, what happens?
4. If you were tired and had not enough money to take an omnibus, what would you do?
5. If one needed sixpence, how could one get it?6. Why should we not spend all our money, but put a little past?7. If you break an object that does not belong to you, what should you do?8. If a companion should strike you without meaning it, what should you do?9. If you require some good advice, what should you do?
5. If one needed sixpence, how could one get it?
6. Why should we not spend all our money, but put a little past?
7. If you break an object that does not belong to you, what should you do?
8. If a companion should strike you without meaning it, what should you do?
9. If you require some good advice, what should you do?
10. Before taking part in anything important, what should you do?11. Why do we forgive a bad deed done in anger more readily than a bad deed done without anger?12. If anyone asks your opinion about a person whom you know very little, what would you do?13. Why should one judge a person by his acts rather than by his words?
10. Before taking part in anything important, what should you do?
11. Why do we forgive a bad deed done in anger more readily than a bad deed done without anger?
12. If anyone asks your opinion about a person whom you know very little, what would you do?
13. Why should one judge a person by his acts rather than by his words?
These questions present various difficulties, both in thought and in vocabulary. We have tried them upon a great number of school children, and they correspond pretty exactly to the level of children at the ages indicated.
The answers of the children may be good, passable, mediocre, or negative (the child makes no reply), or even absurd or unintelligible. In marking the replies one does not take account of a wrong word or an awkward phrase, but considers the meaning and whether the child has really understood. It may seem that marking these replies would be rather delicate and arbitrary, but in practice the difficulty is not great. Here are some examples:
(10) The reply, "Ask some capable person, a master, a parent," is a good reply. "Ask it," "Listen for it," are passable replies.
(7) The reply, "Pay and apologize," is good. "Pay for it," is passable.
(8) The reply, "Forgive him," is better than the reply, "Don't tell tales."
(1) The reply, "Hurry up," is better than, "Ring the bell," "Hurry to-morrow," "One is kept in."
(3) The reply, "One remains ignorant," is better than, "One is punished."
(4) The reply, "Take a rest, then walk," is better, being more explicit, than simply, "Walk."
We mark the good replies 3, the passable 2, the mediocre 1, the absurd and silence 0. Silence sometimes makes one hesitate. It may result from timidity, or even from prolonged reflection. It is necessary, without changing the form of the question, to encourage the child and to press him to reply. With a little practice one can easily see who is trying to find an answer and who does not understand.
We have stated that normal children of eleven years of age replied to the questions 10 to 13. It must be understood that by this we mean that the majority replied.There are no tests which can characterise all the subjects without exception of a given group. There are always failures. By way of example, we shall quote the observations we made in an elementary school with our questions 10 to 13, which we put to all the children of eleven, who were distributed, according to their ability, in the different classes. There were thirty-six of these pupils. The maximum of marks obtainable was 12, since there were four questions, and a good reply was worth 3. We then obtained the following averages:
Average Marks.Senior, first year11Intermediate, second year6Intermediate, first year4.7
In the "intermediate course, second year," there were two children who obtained 0 and 1. In the "intermediate course, first year," there were four who got 0, and one who got only 1. What were these pupils, who had certainly not reached the average intellectual level of eleven years? Two are said to be defectives by the head-master. Let us subtract them, and there remain five; and these work sufficiently well to remain in their class and to follow the lessons. Their success is a very important fact. A child may not have very much intelligence, but if he has a good memory, application, and will, he is regular in his studies, and this compensates for the mental feebleness. We have often noticed this. If a child is regular in his school work, the question whether he is a defective does not present itself. It only presents itself if the case is reversed. Supposing he is very clearly backward, by two years, by three years, with a sufficient school attendance. If, in spite of this retardation, the psychological examination shows that he is all the same quite intelligent, this is a favourablecircumstance of which he should have the advantage. In other terms, the psychological examination is capable of showing that he is normal, even when he is behindhand in his studies. This examination cannot, in any case, serve to make him be regarded as defective if he is regular in his studies. This is why we place this examination last.
Here are some very good replies from normal children:
G. R——:10. It would be necessary to consider where the affair would lead us.11. Because when a bad action is done without anger one knows what one is doing, while when one is angry one does not know what one is doing.12. One should say nothing. If one does not know the person one cannot tell what he is.13. By his words he may deceive us. By his acts we can tell what he is.
G. R——:
10. It would be necessary to consider where the affair would lead us.
11. Because when a bad action is done without anger one knows what one is doing, while when one is angry one does not know what one is doing.
12. One should say nothing. If one does not know the person one cannot tell what he is.
13. By his words he may deceive us. By his acts we can tell what he is.
G——:10. It is necessary to think what one is going to do.11. Because when one acts without anger one has thought beforehand, and is more to blame; while, on the other hand, it is an act of passion, and afterwards one regrets what one has done.12. I would say that it would be necessary to know him first and then afterwards to judge him, not to say anything bad or good about him without knowing him.13. Because there are people who say words and often do not do them.
G——:
10. It is necessary to think what one is going to do.
11. Because when one acts without anger one has thought beforehand, and is more to blame; while, on the other hand, it is an act of passion, and afterwards one regrets what one has done.
12. I would say that it would be necessary to know him first and then afterwards to judge him, not to say anything bad or good about him without knowing him.
13. Because there are people who say words and often do not do them.
Here are some replies which are mediocre or absurd:
12. You should try to ask the particulars of the person you do not know. (Mediocre.)13. Because his acts are more terrible while his words are less threatening. (Mediocre.)11. Because the action which has been done in anger is not so violent. (Mediocre.)13. Because you must not speak after the person who speaks. (Absurd.)
12. You should try to ask the particulars of the person you do not know. (Mediocre.)
13. Because his acts are more terrible while his words are less threatening. (Mediocre.)
11. Because the action which has been done in anger is not so violent. (Mediocre.)
13. Because you must not speak after the person who speaks. (Absurd.)
In a class of defectives of eleven years of age we obtained from seven children an average of replies equal to 1.3. This figure, therefore, is considerably less than that of thenormal children regular in their studies, and even than that of the normal with a retardation of two years. Let us note in passing a very curious fact. We had had to examine these defectives before their admission into the special class. Now, the teachers sent us as defective two children who were clearly intelligent, for one of them obtained five marks and the other eight. Let us give the replies of the latter, whose name was Cler, age eleven years:
10. You would have to think. (Good.)11. Because anger is less serious. (Absurd.)12. Say nothing bad about him, because I do not know him well. (Good.)13. Because words are not correct. It is not certain that he will do it. (Passable.)
10. You would have to think. (Good.)
11. Because anger is less serious. (Absurd.)
12. Say nothing bad about him, because I do not know him well. (Good.)
13. Because words are not correct. It is not certain that he will do it. (Passable.)
These replies are evidently not very brilliant, but they are so superior to the level of a defective that we have sent this child back to the ordinary school. We have since learned a fact which was not originally communicated to us. This child came from the country, and he did not begin to go to school until the age of ten.
To sum up, we offer the psychological examination as a means of rehabilitating a child who has a marked degree of retardation. That is its sole utility. Never, in any case, must this examination be used to label as defective a child who keeps up with his lessons.
A last word regarding the necessity of these examinations.
We know that, after having read the preceding pages, more than one inspector, more than one teacher, will exclaim, "What is the use of all this? I am quite accustomed to questioning children, and I don't require such precautions in order to distinguish between those who are intelligent and those who are not. By two or three questions which are quite familiar to me I can judge the state of instruction."
We have paid homage to the ability of the teachers andinspectors sufficiently often to be permitted to maintain here against those who would contradict us the necessity of our methods or of others of a similar kind. In order to determine the degree of intelligence or the state of instruction of a child one would require to have in mind the normal levels. Now, frankly, who knows what these are? Let any inspector, any teacher, glance over our test questions. He will be very much at a difficulty to say whether it is at nine years or at seven years that a child ought to be able to reply suitably to a particular question. We will go even farther. Let an inspector look at our scale, and say at what age reading is "fluent," at what age a child should write the third phrase with less than ten mistakes. Just let him try, and he will find the result. Let us add that people who are neither inspectors nor teachers will be still more embarrassed. We recollect that at the recent opening of a special class some eminent people appeared much astonished at the intelligence of the pupils. They were surprised at children of twelve years who made replies of which in reality normal children of eight should have been capable. It is impossible to form a correct judgment about matters so delicate unless one makes use of exact tests. We insist upon this because we foresee that all who visit the class for defectives will be subject to this illusion. All the more will they have an optimistic tendency to overestimate the intelligence and instruction of the children since they know in advance that they are going to see defectives, and consequently have a preconceived expectation of seeing degraded imbeciles with low foreheads and dirty habits. They will be quite surprised to find that the great majority of defectives do not answer to this description, and seeing that they have fallen into an error, they will correct themselves as usual by falling into the opposite mistake.
Estimation of Want of Balance.—If it is easy to determine backwardness by a direct examination of a child's stateof instruction, the difficulty of establishing a lack of mental balance is, on the other hand, very great. Such want of balance is indicated by breaches of discipline, inattention, naughtiness, lying, violence, brutality, etc. But it would be a very unruly child who would not behave quietly when taken apart by the inspector. Isolated in the examination room, surrounded by strange, grave people, the child shrinks into himself. He has little occasion or desire for a display of rebellion or naughtiness when his comrades are not there to admire him. Possibly an exact estimation of his reactions, of his motor ability, of his power of attention, would indicate the presence of some anomalies; but this is not certain, and is not to be relied upon. There may be some hope in that direction for the pedagogy of the future, but scientific investigations cannot help us to-day. In short, mental want of balance cannot, in the majority of cases, be the object of direct examination.
How, then, can it be estimated? Indirectly, by the evidence of others.
The inspector, then, must be content to accept the facts which are given to him by the teacher, but he must not accept them altogether on trust. Are these facts correct? Are they probable? Is any evidence of them to be found? Have they been altered in the telling? Such will be the first queries to awaken the critical spirit of the inspector. Then it must not be forgotten that he can question the parents, and hear their replies before letting them know the opinion of the teacher, and that everything they say will help him to judge not only the child, but the family circumstances in which he lives. The ill-balanced are often spoiled, or only children, or children not looked after, or children whose father has disappeared. The sons of widows form a considerable contingent. Now, the inspector will gain a good deal of information from the school history of the child. The ill-balanced is a nomad. He has attended several schools. Itis important to find out what impression he has left behind him. The proof of want of balance is not to be taken from a single teacher. If three teachers, at least, whose pedagogic reputation is good, agree about a child, the chances are that their estimate is correct. The inspector will resort to such controls, and if he is not satisfied, and if the alleged facts are not very serious, he will remove the child to another class or another school rather than send him to a class for defectives.
Elimination of Hospital or Asylum Cases.—Only defectives likely to improve are to be admitted to the special schools. That is only common sense. Everyone knows that the epithet "defective" does not belong to a single type. There are various categories which extend between two extremes: the purelyvegetative idiotwho cannot speak, or walk, or even feed himself; and the slightlyfeeble-minded, who may easily be taken for normal. In spite of all our sympathy for these poor creatures whom Nature has treated so cruelly, we could not think of supplying them without distinction with all the benefits of education. It is certain that the worst affected would not profit much thereby. It is pure folly to devote six or eight years to teaching the letters to a child who will never be able to read, or who, if he should manage to read a little, will not understand what he reads. To such an unfortunate it is quite enough to give lessons in walking, feeding, dressing himself, and in simple occupations, such as dusting or sweeping. Such cases do not require schools so much as places where they can be taken care of. These will cost less to establish, especially in the country. Educational efforts should be concentrated on the defectives who are less profoundly affected. It is they alone whom one should try to instruct. This is the practice which is rightly followed abroad. For administrative purposes the defectives of different grades may be divided into two groups, medical cases and educational cases, or preferably,in order to obviate the use of the equivocal term "medical," we may speak simply of hospice cases and school cases to show the difference in their destination. The exact terms employed matter little so long as we understand what we mean by the words.
We have just pointed out the importance of reserving the schools for defectives for improvable cases. But it is necessary to correct this word "improvable," because all defectives can be improved more or less. Their assertedarrestof development is not complete, and the expression is equivocal. It would be better to replace the word "improvable" by the following more precise phrase: "Capable of being taught to gain, in part, their own living." Which of them are in this position? Unfortunately, we do not know. All such questions should have been solved long ago, since thousands of defectives have passed into the hospices. It would have been enough to have followed them up, to have found out what became of them, and to have drawn conclusions. But this has never been done methodically, and for the present we are reduced to conjecture. The nearest estimate we can form is that the social value of any individual case, not epileptic, is in inverse proportion to the degree of deficiency; the imbecile would seem to be more improvable than the idiot, and the feeble-minded than the imbecile. But this is simply hypothesis, and we accept it quite provisionally, until exact investigations have been made which will permit us to replace conjecture by demonstrated truth. Consequently we shall open wide the doors of the school to the feeble-minded and close them to the idiots, while as to the imbeciles, we shall have to find out whether the proper place for them is the school or the hospice. It will be necessary to find out in what measure, and at the price of what effort, an imbecile can be instructed to the point, say of being able to read. There are two other indications which may help us. Cases ofacquiredmentaldeficiency—that is to say, cases who have become defective as the result of something which affected them after birth—are usually less improvable thancongenitalcases, or cases where the deficiency is due to some cause acting before birth. And, secondly, cases affected by epilepsy, with fits or frequent attacks of vertigo, usually undergo a progressive mental deterioration.
What distinctions can we draw between the different degrees of mental deficiency? Such a question, we think, might be asked with regard to the ill-balanced as well as the defective. With respect to the former, we have no criterion at present to offer. It will be enough to pick out and send to the hospicesthe most ill-balanced, those whose presence among normal children would be a danger owing to the perversion of their instincts or the brutality of their impulses.
With regard to mental deficiency, we think it possible to formulate precise definitions which will enable all competent persons to agree as to the diagnosis of idiocy, imbecility, and feeble-mindedness. We are aware that in making this statement we are running counter to the general practice of medical alienists. When these, in an admission certificate, call a child "idiot," "feeble-minded," or "imbecile," they are rarely in agreement with the confrère who, a few days later, examines the same child, and makes a new diagnosis. We have made a methodical comparison between the admission certificates filled up for the same children with a few days' interval by the doctors of Sainte-Anne, Bicêtre, the Salpêtrière, and Vaucluse. We have compared several hundreds of these certificates, and we think we may say without exaggeration that they looked as if they had been drawn by chance out of a sack. This is a fact which many alienists have already suspected, and Dr. Blin[11]has expressed himself frankly on the subject.
What is the cause of such contradictions? They result, in great measure from the use of ill-defined terms. To the majority of alienists, the idiot is one who isprofoundlyaffected in his mental faculties, the imbecile isa little less, and the feeble-mindedless still. What mean those words: "profoundly," "a little less," "less still"? No one defines them. They are taken to be indefinable. It is no wonder they are understood so differently. All this trouble would disappear if the following definitions were adopted: