Transcriber's Note:

Inconsistent hyphenation in the original document has been preserved.

Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. For a complete list, please see the [end of this document].

The opinions contained in this e-book are no longer considered valid.

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE
CHILDREN

BY

ALFRED BINET AND TH. SIMON, M.D.

AUTHORISED TRANSLATION
BY

W.B. DRUMMOND, M.B., C.M., F.R.C.P. (Edin.)

AUTHOR OF
"AN INTRODUCTION TO CHILD STUDY," ETC.

WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THE BINET-SIMON TESTS
OF INTELLIGENCE BY

MARGARET DRUMMOND, M.A.

AND AN INTRODUCTION BY

PROFESSOR ALEXANDER DARROCH

FOURTH IMPRESSION

LONDON
EDWARD ARNOLD

[All rights reserved]

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
BILLING AND SONS, LIMITED
GUILDFORD AND ESHER

INTRODUCTION[ToC]

The Binet-Simon tests of children's intelligence have been the subject of much discussion during the past few years, both in this country and in America. Much of this discussion seems to have been carried on, at times, without any knowledge of the original aim or purpose for which these tests were devised, and as if, so to speak, they were invented as a means for ascertaining the relative intellectual powers of all children, and so of affording to the teacher a ready and sure means of accurately classifying and grading the children under his charge. As a consequence, there is a tendency, in some quarters, to search for and to endeavour to establish some absolute standard or criterion of intelligence which shall be valid, irrespective of the nationality, or the class, or the particular environment of the child.

It is hoped that the publication in translation of the work of Binet and Simon in which these tests first appeared, along with the complete series of tests as extended and revised during the lifetime of the former, will tend to remove this twofold misapprehension, and make the educationalist, as well as the wider public interested in social questions, acquainted with the real purpose which underlay the devisal or invention of the tests, and so enable all to perceive that their relative value, as measuring stages of intelligence, must be judged by the purpose for which they were devised.

Now, the main purpose of the authors in the devisal of these tests is to furnish to the teacher a first means by which he may single out mentally backward children, who, upon further examination, may also be found to have some mental defect or peculiarity which prevents them from fully profiting by the education of the ordinary school, and who probably would benefit more by being educated in a special school or in a special class. But the final selection, it is contended, of defective children for special education demands the experience of the doctor and of the psychologist, as well as the knowledge of the teacher, and the aid of all three is necessary in the devisal of courses of study for the mentally defective. Especially important is the division of mentally defectives into two main classes—the feeble-minded and the ill-balanced. The latter, as a rule, are easily marked out from the normal child, and, if not specially looked after, may in later life become a menace to society. The feeble-minded, on the other hand, may easily escape the notice of the teacher, and may pass through the ordinary school unaffected and unimproved, enter into society, and propagate their kind. Both classes require the special care of the community, and their proper education and training are of the gravest importance for the welfare and stability of society. In this selection and education of mentally defective children, three positions of Billet and Simon are worthy of consideration. In the first place, it is contended that a physical examination alone can never allow us to dispense with a direct examination of the intelligence, and that "anthropometry, stigmata, and physical appearance must take a second place as means of discovering in school the feeble-minded and the ill-balanced." Again, "mental deficiency and want of balance are peculiar mental conditions which it is often impossible to connect with definite pathological changes." Hence the examination of the medical man is not decisive. It must be accompanied and reinforced by that of the psychologist. In the second place, it is affirmed that in the devisal of schemes of training for mental defectives, we must take into account that the dominant features in their life are the "senses, the concrete perceptions, and motor ability," and that "in the education of defectives the workshop ought to become a more important place of instruction than the class-room." In the third place, the position is strongly emphasised that "every class, every school for defectives, ought to aim at rendering the pupils socially useful. It is not a question of enriching their minds, but of giving them the means of working for their living."

Hence, the utility of special schools or special classes for such children depends ultimately upon their success in making their pupils, according to the measure of their intelligence, efficient workers. These two problems—viz., (1) the method of selecting abnormal or defective children who are not sufficiently good for the ordinary school, nor yet sufficiently bad to be classed as idiots or imbeciles; and (2) the devisal of courses of education and training which may tend to make them hereafter useful workers and citizens—are of first-rate importance to us at the present time. Under recent legislation, public local authorities have been entrusted with the devisal of the means for the proper selection and the proper education of defective children, and the utmost wisdom and care should be taken in the beginning of this new movement. The many errors that administrators may fall into are fully set forth in this little volume (cf. p. 78 et seq.), and the concluding chapter on the utility of special schools should be read by all who have to do with the administration of the new Act.

The importance of the work of Binet and Simon to teachers and inspectors is without question, and were the duties of the teacher and inspector carried out as set forth in this volume (cf. p. 86) throughout the whole school, a much-needed improvement in our ordinary school education would soon result.

Lastly, the volume is important as marking a new attitude towards educational problems, and as indicating the newer spirit in which we should undertake the training of all teachers. This new attitude and spirit are clearly set forth in the concluding words of the volume: "The essential thing is for all the world to understand that empiricism has had its day, and that methods of scientific precision must be introduced into all educational work, to carry everywhere good sense and light."

ALEXANDER DARROCH

University of Edinburgh,
July, 1914

CONTENTS

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

The Present-Day Interest in Social Questions.—Amongst questions of present-day interest, none are more discussed or attract a greater amount of attention than those which relate to social problems. The generous philanthropy of preceding generations seems to us to-day a little out of date, and we substitute for this virtue of the rich the otherwise fruitful idea that, by the very constitution of society itself, we are all in duty bound to occupy ourselves with the condition of our fellow-citizens, and especially of the less fortunate among them. This duty does not rest solely upon a sentiment of humanity. It is dictated equally by our own pressing personal interests; for unless, within a reasonable time, satisfaction is given to the just demands of the nine-tenths of society who are actually working for wages very little in harmony with their efforts and their needs, we already foresee that a violent revolution, from which the "haves" have very little to gain, will shake society to its very foundations.

The consequence is that the very people who up to the present time have kept themselves most aloof from the social problem are being brought into contact with reality. It is a curious thing to see how scientific men, who for the past fifty years have never stirred a foot outside their laboratories, are showing a tendency to mingle in affairs. In spite of the diversity of the forces at work, there is one general fact which is undeniable. Pure and disinterested science retains its votaries, but the number is increasing of those who are turning to science for useful and practical applications; albeit, they are thinking less of science than of society, for it is those social phenomena which are capable of amelioration which scientific men are now studying by the most exact methods for the benefit of men of action, who are usually empirics.

Innumerable examples of this intervention of science in daily life might be cited. On the one hand, we see physiologists—Imbert, for example—who are setting themselves to the study of the phenomena of the labour and the nutrition of different classes of workers; in order to find out whether the increase in wages and the diminution in the hours of work which the workers are for ever crying for can be justified by physiology. The day is not far off when such scientific observations, which are becoming more exact and more extensive, will play a part in the discussions between capital and labour.

Another example may be given of a different nature, but of identical signification. Psychologists are studying the value of evidence, and are thinking out better methods of arriving at truth, in order to discover reforms which may be introduced into the organization of justice. An important movement of this nature, started in France, is being continued in Germany with even greater energy (Binet, Stern and his pupils, Claparède, Larguier, etc.).

As a last example we shall cite the most striking of all. This is the increasing interest which doctors are taking in the upbringing of the young, both in infancy and later. This is puericulture, and includes everything that is being done for the supervision, protection, and assistance of the mother and nurseling. It includes the medical inspection of school-children, which gives the doctor the opportunity of caring for their ailments and preventing overpressure. It includes, lastly, all the reforms of but yesterday's date which make for a better hygiene, a better physical education. One might add also the work that is being done almost everywhere, in Germany, in America, in Italy, and in France (Laboratory of Psychology of the Sorbonne, and the Society for Child Study), with reference to the special aptitudes of children, and, as has been said a little ambitiously, the making of education an exact science.

Education of Defectives.—The movement referred to, of which we see only the beginning, but which will result, let us hope, in an amelioration of the lot of the great majority, is now being directed to the education of the mentally defective. Their problem has been discussed theoretically for a long time, but nothing has come of it. Now the problem is entering upon a new phase, and something practical will result.

Without attempting to write the whole history, which would be nothing more than the study of what has been done in other countries, let us state where we are ourselves.

It was in France that alienists first began to occupy themselves with the children known under the various names of "abnormal," "backward," "idiot," "mentally defective," "unstable," etc. Esquirol made the important distinction between the idiot and the dement; and after him many other alienists—notably Itard, Falret, Voisin—described the principal symptoms of idiocy, or attempted to show that it is capable of amelioration. Séguin, a teacher of defectives, who has left an honoured name, showed experimentally how one may, by dint of much ingenuity and patience, increase the intelligence and improve the character of some of these unfortunate children.[1] Lastly, in our own day, Bourneville, the well-known physician of Bicêtre, after having organised the most important clinique for idiots which exists in France, agitated with untiring energy for the formation in the public schools of special classes for the instruction of abnormal children. This scheme has been supported by a great many doctors and philanthropists, and laid before municipal councils, general councils, scientific societies, and all the numerous educational congresses which have been held in France and abroad during the last twenty years.

This effort has had no result; and whilst in the great majority of foreign countries there have been for a long time schools and classes for defectives—the first German school, that of Dresden, dates from 1867—with us the only children of this kind who receive the care and education appropriate to their condition are the children of the rich. Poor children continue to attend the ordinary schools.

It was not till 1904 that the powers that be awakened from their indifference. The Minister of Public Instruction, M. Chaumié, appointed a Commission to study the abnormal—physical, mental, and moral—from the scholastic point of view. This Commission, over which M. Leon Bourgeois presided most ably, met a great number of times in 1904 and 1905, and drew up a complete scheme for the care and education of defective children, which has been embodied in a Bill by the Minister of Public Instruction.

Some Definitions.—Now, who are these abnormal children, and why should the authorities interest themselves in their education? For the sake of clearness, we must give some definitions.

In medical terminology the term abnormal is applied to every subject who diverges so clearly from the average as to constitute a pathological anomaly. As a matter of fact, the abnormal constitute quite a heterogeneous group. Their common characteristic, which is a negative one, is that by their physical and mental organisation these children are rendered incapable of profiting by the ordinary methods of instruction in use in the public schools. The most definite types are the deaf and dumb, the blind, the epileptic, idiots, imbeciles, cripples, etc. There are in this list some classes which are of less interest to us than others, because the State has already to a certain extent provided for their needs. This applies especially to the blind, and to the deaf and dumb. It has always been perceived that such children were not like others, and could not be taught by ordinary methods. The blind can learn to read only in a book whose characters are printed in relief, and the deaf-mute cannot follow an oral lesson. The necessity of a special education for these two groups was therefore obvious, and at the present time about five thousand are receiving care and a professional education in the State institutions and in private schools, the majority of which are religious. We shall not concern ourselves with them here, in spite of the interest which they awaken. Nor shall we discuss whether the methods which are used for their education might not be improved, though the question is attractive. But we must simplify the subject if we wish to get on.

We shall also exclude here the lowest grade of idiots, who require continuous medical supervision, and who are very seldom educable. These subjects are received into hospitals and asylums. When we have excluded these classes of children—the deaf-mutes, the blind, and the ineducable idiots—what remains?

Why, there remain just the very children with whom the new law will be concerned. In the meantime these are not in any special school; they are attending the primary schools, which cannot shut the door in their faces when they have arrived at school age. But they do not profit much by the instruction given in school, and this fact gives rise to vigorous complaints on the part of the teachers. These children, say they, are not in the least like the great majority of other pupils. A great many of them are mentally defective. Without being completely lacking in intelligence, they are not sufficiently endowed therewith to work alongside normal children; they do not understand, they cannot follow; they profit so little by attending the school that some of them are never able to assimilate the instruction even of the elementary course. Very often they pay no attention whatever to the work of the class; and this is quite a good thing, for then the teacher forgets them in their corner, and goes on as if they were not there. But many of these children are ill-balanced; they are excitable, and their bodies are never at rest; they are not amenable to ordinary discipline. They are a constant source of trouble and annoyance to their master and to their comrades. The supervision of a single ill-balanced child is more trouble, the teachers sometimes declare, than the direction of twenty normal ones. Either one or the other must be neglected, and the alternatives are equally objectionable.

What, then, must be done with those children who are not amenable to the ordinary school discipline? At first sight this seems a simple question. Let them be sent to an institution. We actually possess in the hospitals of Bicêtre and of the Salpêtrière, in the colony of Vaucluse—to say nothing of provincial institutions—establishments which make provision, both medical and educational, for children who are idiotic, imbecile, vicious, and epileptic. Is it not possible to send to these institutions all the abnormal children who encumber the primary schools?

No; it is neither possible nor desirable to pack them off to an asylum. These abnormal children are not in all cases so severely affected as to require segregation. We admit that such a measure is necessary for idiots of low grade who cannot even feed themselves. We have also no objection to leaving to the asylums cases of very severe nervous disturbance such as epilepsy, for only there can they receive the medical supervision appropriate to their condition. They have more need of the doctor than of the teacher. As for the other abnormal children who constitute the great majority, it seems clear that the proper place for them is not the asylum, but the special school. They have sufficient intelligence to attend a school. What they probably require is instruction specially adapted to their mental state, and such instruction can be profitably given only in classes small enough to permit of individual attention.

From all this we reach a very clear definition of what we mean by abnormal children, and a very simple indication of what should be done with them. Abnormal and defective children are those who are suitable for neither the ordinary school nor the asylum; for the school they are not sufficiently good, for the asylum not sufficiently bad. We must try what special schools and classes can do for them.

Statistics.—It is important to notice that the children so defined are not a negligible quantity. Their name is legion. And since number is the factor that gives importance to every social problem, we may say that the regulation of the lot of these children is a social question of the greatest gravity.

The statistics which have up till now been published abroad do not give such precise information as one could wish regarding the number of the defectives. Some give the bare figures; others, using a better method, state the proportion of mentally defective children to the total population. There is also much doubt as to the way in which the statisticians have used the term "abnormal" or "defective." One inquiry relates only to children slightly affected; another bears upon all abnormal children, including the lowest grades of idiocy, and is therefore much more comprehensive. In other cases we are not told how the selection was made.

As to France, precise information has not been available until last year, when two inquiries were held—one at the instance of the Ministerial Commission, the other organised by the Minister of the Interior. According to the former inquiry, we find that the proportion of defectives amounts to scarcely 1 per cent. for the boys, and O.9 per cent. for the girls. These percentages are evidently far too small, and we ourselves have discovered, by a small private inquiry, that many schools returned "none" in the questionnaires distributed, although the headmasters have admitted to us that they possessed several genuine defectives. In Paris, M. Vaney, a headmaster, made some investigations by the arithmetical test, which we shall explain presently, and reached the conclusion that 2 per cent. of the school population of two districts were backward. If we were to include the ill-balanced, whose number is probably equal to that of the backward, the proportion would be about 4 per cent. Lastly, and quite recently, a special and most careful inquiry was made at Bordeaux, under the direction of M. Thamin, by alienists and the school medical inspectors, and it was found that the percentage of abnormality amongst the boys was 5.17. Probably the true percentage is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5. All these inquiries are comparable because they all deal with the school population. The great variation in the figures is due to several causes, the chief of which are the following: (1) The proportion of the abnormal varies to a surprising extent in different schools even in the same neighbourhood. Dr. Abadie, for example, has expressly noted that in some schools the proportion may be four times as great as in others. (2) The definition of a child of backward intelligence has usually and quite gratuitously been left vague by the investigators; each interprets the term in his own way, whence arise great differences in the figures. (3) It is particularly difficult to define the cases that are to be reckoned as ill-balanced or unstable, and some teachers, if they are allowed, will place in this category all the pupils that they dislike.

We have been led to interest ourselves in abnormal children in the following way: One of us, Binet, President of the Société Libre pour l'Étude de l'Enfant, has for many years been in daily contact with the staff of the primary schools. In obedience to the wish of a great many teachers, he has formed, in connection with the Society, a committee for the care of abnormal children, upon which are many distinguished people, such as M. Rollet, M. Albanel, Dr. Voisin, Mme. Meusy, and, above all, M. Baguer, who is deeply interested in the education of defectives. This committee initiated various investigations relating to backward children. Some time afterwards M. Binet, having been nominated a member of the Ministerial Commission on Abnormal Children, became the director of the work of the Commission relating to the backward and the unstable. He then, in conjunction with Dr. Simon, undertook in certain districts various inquiries into the condition of such cases. In regard to several questions we enjoyed the intelligent and devoted co-operation of M. Vaney, Head of the Primary School of the Rue Grange-aux-Belles, where one of us has founded a laboratory of pedagogy. We have thus been interested in abnormal children for a long time, either from the point of view of school organisation, or from that of their differentiation from the normal. Let us add that lately M. Bédorez, the distinguished Director of Primary Education in the Seine District, has kindly permitted one of us (Binet) to co-operate in the organisation of some classes for defective children, which have been started experimentally in the primary schools of Paris.

Let us now state quite clearly our aim in writing this book. Ever since public interest has been aroused in the question of schools for defective children, selfish ambition has seen its opportunity. The most frankly selfish interests conceal themselves behind the mask of philanthropy, and whoever dreams of finding a fine situation for himself in the new schools never speaks of the children without tears in his eyes. This is the everlasting human comedy. There is no reason for indignation. Everyone has the right to look after his own interest, so long as he does not compromise interests superior to his own—namely, those of society. It is this social interest with which we are concerned. Having found out by our own personal experience how a class for defectives may be established and conducted, we have noted the faults which could not but be committed, and the mistakes which will certainly occur unless one is forewarned and makes every possible effort to prevent them. May our book, then, be regarded as a means of prophylaxis, a means of escaping conscious or unconscious error. May it also prove a guide—imperfect, no doubt, but still useful—for the organisation of some of those social inquiries conducted in a strictly scientific spirit, which are becoming more and more necessary for the proper management of public affairs.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is common to cite with respect the names of one's predecessors, and Séguin's portrait may justly hang in such a gallery of one's ancestors. But Séguin's work must not be examined too closely; those who praise it have certainly not read it. Séguin impresses us as an empiric, endowed with great personal talent, which he has not succeeded in embodying clearly in his works. These contain some pages of good sense, with many obscurities, and many absurdities. We refer the curious reader to his chief work, Traitement Moral, Hygiène, et Education des Idiots et des autres Enfants Arriérés, published in 1846. One might make many criticisms on the writings of alienists; but to what end? We prefer to say of such predecessors what Ingres said to his pupils in the Rubens gallery at the Louvre, "Salute them, but pay no attention to them!"

CHAPTER II[ToC]

SOME FEATURES OF THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DEFECTIVES

Although this book is specially intended as a guide to the admission of mentally defective children to special schools or classes, we cannot commence by an exposition of the methods of recruiting such children. We must first describe the children and indicate their principal characteristics, mental and moral. We must also discuss the question what a mentally defective child really is—a very important question, upon which depends everything else, the organisation of the schools and the special methods of education. Every educational method depends upon a theory, formulated or implicit, which is at once its point of departure and its justification. One would run the risk of falling into a blind empiricism if one were content to apply an educational method independently of the theory which is its soul.

There are two conceptions of a totally different nature, either of which may inspire the training of defective children. Let us examine each of these in turn, and find out which is the more reasonable.

According to the first, the defective child is practically the same as a normal child several years younger; or, in other words, he is a child who has been retarded in his development. A backward child of twelve years of age, who has not yet been able to learn to read, would thus be comparable to an ordinary child of six, who is just beginning to spell. It is evident that such a comparison must not be pushed too far. Many reservations must be made. On the one hand, the defective has not so much time in front of him for development as a normal and younger child. He is then not strictly comparable to the latter. On the other hand, the very fact of his age has given to the defective of twelve a bodily and even a mental development never attained at six. For example, he is nearer puberty; his vocabulary is more extensive; and he possesses greater general knowledge. But these reservations once made, the theory that the defective is the victim of a retardation of development has seemed reasonable to many competent people. As a rule one just accepts it without taking the trouble to formulate it in precise terms. Perhaps it is for this very reason that one accepts it so easily; it is the classic theory. To the cursory reader it may seem that we adopt this theory ourselves, for we shall frequently use such phrases as "defective of eleven who is at the level of a child of nine." But the sense in which we use such an expression must not be misunderstood, because it is only intended to imply that a certain standard has been attained. It has no bearing on the cause of the retardation, nor upon its particular nature, nor upon the means of rectifying it.

Now for the educational consequences of the preceding theory. If the backwardness is only a slowness of development, it will suffice to apply to the backward the same methods as to the normal. One will make them follow the same course of study and go just as far as possible. Every defective must work towards the primary school certificate. To attain that end, he ought to pass through seven regular stages, one each year. The teacher of defectives cannot hope that he will bring his pupils to the last stage. He will stop half-way. One day, at the agricultural colony of Vaucluse, when some foreign doctors were visiting the establishment, the teacher showing his class to the visitors remarked with naïve pride: "Our pupils follow step by step the curriculum of the primary school."

A second and totally different theory is tenable, and this one appears to us to be much nearer the truth. It is that a defective child does not resemble in any way a normal one whose development has been retarded or arrested. He is inferior, not in degree, but in kind. The retardation of his development has not been uniform. Obstructed in one direction, his development has progressed in others. To some extent he has cultivated substitutes for what is lacking. Consequently such a child is not strictly comparable to a normal child younger than himself. So far as certain faculties are concerned, he remains at the level of a younger child; but in respect to others, he is on a level with normal children of his own age. An unequal and imperfect development is consequently his specific characteristic. These inequalities of development may vary to any degree in different subjects. They always produce a want of equilibrium, and this want is the differentiating attribute of the defective child. But to draw a faithful picture we must add yet other traits. According to general opinion, mental deficiency is a disease, and although the idea of disease is very vague, we are inclined to fall in with this general opinion. In the first place, we frequently find in such children defects of speech. Besides, in studying their mental condition more closely, one finds in some cases peculiarities of understanding, reasoning, imagining, difficult to define, but which do not appear to have their equivalent in younger normal children, and which therefore do not result from simple retardation of development. Here is a boy, twelve years of ago, who tries to answer our questions, and succeeds pretty well; but hardly has he finished his answer when he deserts the subject altogether and begins to talk a lot of nonsense. This want of coordination in thought constitutes a special defect, and not a retardation of development. Possibly one would not find analogous features in other backward children, who tend rather to be laconic; but it is also possible that a careful analysis of their mental state might reveal in them other mental symptoms, and, indeed, such are very obvious in the variety called "unstable" or "ill-balanced."

To sum up, we are of opinion that the defective child usually exhibits the following characters: (1) A retardation of development; (2) a defect of equilibrium—i.e., the retardation is more marked in some faculties than in others; (3) individual peculiarities of a pathological kind in the mental powers.

If this second theory is correct, there follows a very important practical consequence—namely, that the curriculum drawn up for normal children is very imperfectly suited to the defective. We cannot force the latter to fit the ordinary course. To attempt this would be quite as unreasonable as to make our teaching appeal to the ears of the deaf or the eyes of the blind.

The first duty of the teacher is to take account of the faculties already developed, the aptitudes which are already apparent. His work is thankless and difficult; he would be foolish not to take advantage of the indications of nature. If a pupil show a special taste for any subject, it is evidently towards such a line of study that he should be directed. Consequently, in conformity with these ideas, we would reject on principle any programme of special instruction which would rigorously include all the children in a common plan. On the contrary, we would prefer for the defective a scheme which would take the most account of their natural aptitudes.

Such considerations lead us to put the following question—What are the most common aptitudes in children of this class? We say "the most common," because we have not to do with a single well-defined type, for there are as many varieties as there are individuals; but in spite of the number of those varieties, which shows the need for individual teaching, it will always be possible to establish categories in which those most nearly alike may be grouped It is also possible that the aptitudes most frequently lacking are always, or almost always, of the same nature.

To solve the question which we have just raised, we shall employ two methods—

The questionnaire.
Direct observation.

A printed questionnaire containing thirty-eight questions has been distributed through the agency of M. Belot, school inspector, to the heads of all the elementary schools in two districts of Paris—one central, the other suburban. Nothing would be gained by reproducing here the questionnaire, which has served its purpose. We shall simply lay down the conclusions we have reached, after studying the replies with the greatest care.

The replies confirm the division, which we have ourselves suggested, of all the abnormal into three groups: (1) The mentally defective; (2) the ill-balanced; (3) a mixed type which includes those who are both mentally defective and ill-balanced. The simply defective do not present any well-defined anomaly of character, but they do not profit, or profit very little, from the ordinary school teaching. The ill-balanced, who might also be called the "undisciplined," are abnormal chiefly in character. They are distinguished by their unruliness, their talkativeness, their lack of attention, and sometimes their wickedness.

The Distribution of Defective Children in the Public Schools.—In which school divisions do we find these several varieties of children? Let us begin with the mentally defective. These are found chiefly in the junior division, as might be expected. Some manage to reach the intermediate division, but scarcely any reach the senior. The exact distribution is as follows: 75 per cent. in the junior department; 25 per cent. in the intermediate.

Let us be more precise with regard to two points—the age of the child and his school position. Some heads of schools, not all, have taken the trouble to satisfy our demands, and have fixed to almost a year the mental retardation of the child as compared with normal children of the same age. The following table summarises these replies, and shows that the majority of cases present a retardation of three years:

Mentally defective children with a retardation of—

According to a convention, of which we shall speak more fully later, we regard as defective in intelligence a child who shows a retardation of three years, when he himself is nine years of age or more. The results shown above agree with this convention. Moreover, one may draw the conclusion, which is of practical value, that one need not seek children of this group in the senior division of a primary school.

The distribution of the ill-balanced in the divisions of the primary school is quite different. In the first place, one is surprised to find none, or practically none (only two out of forty-five) in the senior division. We did not expect this. A priori, we should have supposed that, in spite of their defect in character, the unstable were not without intelligence, and that a fair number of them would succeed in passing the gates of the senior division. If none are found there, this shows clearly that instability must be associated with some mental defect, unless some independent condition, such as inveterate laziness, has checked the child on the way. The ill-balanced, like the simply defective, are to be found in the intermediate and junior divisions, but their distribution is different. While 75 per cent. of the simply defective are in the junior division, and 25 per cent. in the intermediate, 45 per cent. of the ill-balanced are in the junior, and 50 per cent. in the intermediate: practically, they are divided equally between these two divisions. This indicates a degree of intelligence superior to that of the defective, as one would expect. But, on the other hand, their absence from the senior division shows that the intelligence of the ill-balanced is in general below the average. As this conclusion is new, and may be open to question, let us examine it more closely:

The amount of the retardation of the ill-balanced, as shown in our returns, is as follows:

Mentally ill-balanced children with a retardation of—

These figures show, in a novel form, that the mental retardation is much less clear in the ill-balanced than in the defective properly so called, since in the former group are to be found many pupils—about a third—who, in the opinion of their teachers, are not at all backward; but the majority are backward, while none are in advance of their years. Consequently, the whole group shows a slight retardation, averaging about one year, which confirms and makes more precise our original conclusion. We may therefore affirm that mental instability or want of balance is usually accompanied by an intellectual retardation of about one year.

Age Distribution.—It is worth while making another remark about the ages of these children. The simply defective are of all possible school ages, while the unstable are usually young children. Here is the distribution:

The defectives remain in the schools till the end of the prescribed terms, whilst the ill-balanced hasten to leave before the time. Thus the defective, like an inert mass, become a dead weight which encumbers the school. They adapt themselves as well as they can to their environment. Their parents are apt to leave them at school as long as possible, because they do not know what to do with them, and probably the teachers do not complain very much, but are ready to put up with these defectives who do not interfere with discipline. The ill-balanced, on the other hand, find the school environment irksome, the discipline hostile. They do not wish to stay at school; their parents do not keep them there, owing to the constant complaints of the teachers; and the teachers do not want to have anything more to do with them. Conclusion: The ill-balanced leaves school early, and takes his place in society, where, owing to his character, he may very easily become a danger. To sum up, the simply defective remain at school, while the ill-balanced leave early.

Another observation may be made. Since the ill-balanced are so numerous at ten years of age, and even at eight, we conclude that in many cases the mental instability is not the result of the perturbation which precedes puberty. This physiological explanation is not of such general application as is sometimes supposed.

The Frequency of the Mixed Type, at once Defective and Ill-Balanced.—The third category of defective children which we have suggested includes those of a mixed type, who are at once mentally defective and ill-balanced. We shall not be surprised to find that these subjects have characters which are the mean of those of the defective and the ill-balanced, since they unite in themselves the two different forms of abnormality. Thus, as regards their intelligence, one finds that none of them are in the senior division; the majority are in the junior division (71 per cent.), and the remainder (29 per cent.) in the intermediate division, which proves that they are on the average less intelligent than the simply ill-balanced, and more intelligent than the simply defective. But we need not dwell on such details, which are easy to understand and even to foresee. The most important question is the number of the mixed cases. The groups of the two simple types are almost equal in number.[2] On the other hand, we find only twenty-one mixed cases in a population where the ill-balanced which have been notified to us amount to forty-four, and the defective to fifty-seven, so that the mixed cases represent only a fifth of the whole, whereas the simple cases form four-fifths. These very different proportions indicate that as a general rule mental instability and mental deficiency are quite distinct. They are not aspects of a single pathological condition, but are two quite independent pathological conditions which may coexist in the same subject, just as happens, for example, in the case of alcoholism and epilepsy, but which are none the less distinct, since as a rule they do not coexist.

Psychological Description of the Mentally Defective.—Now let us take a closer look at the children who are going to be pupils in our schools for defectives. In looking over the replies to our questionnaire, we are struck by the recurrence of certain phrases, by which the teacher attempts to sum up the defective child. Here are some examples of such phrases. They represent only general impressions, but the frequency of similar impressions arrests one's attention.

Charles does the best he can.

Augustine is very attentive.

Emile is very obedient and gentle.

Paul is always making himself useful in little ways.

Marcelle is obliging and polite.

Jeanne blushes on the slightest occasion.

Severity paralyses Ernestine and makes her lose what little wits she possesses.

Camilla smiles whenever anyone speaks to her, and immediately does what she is told.

Louis is very biddable.

Angela does not answer back when her companions tease her, and takes the blame herself.

Eugenie is affectionate and is loved by her companions who make her join in their games. Although she herself is fifteen, it was a child of eight who taught her to read and write.

From all these remarks it appears that the defective is a likeable creature. He is so even in proportion to the degree of his defect. With this thought in mind, we have examined the various descriptions, and have reached this very curious conclusion: The more likeable the child is represented to be, the greater the amount of retardation one may safely attribute to him. Few, indeed, are the exceptions to this rule.

The defective child is praised for his sweetness of disposition. If he does not understand the work which is being done in class, at any rate he does not show his want of comprehension in any noisy manner. Sitting quietly in his place, he allows himself to be forgotten. The lesson can go on just as if he were not present, and usually that is just what happens. It would not be just on this account to accuse of negligence a teacher who has charge of forty to sixty pupils. The sluggishness, both mental and physical, of these children is a negative quality which an overtaxed master is sometimes weak enough to value. When the defective child becomes subject to discipline, we are told, he does not rebel; for he is obedient, respectful, and probably suggestible. Sometimes the teacher may even recognise in him the presence of qualities of a more positive nature. Some defectives are pleased, and even eager, to do little services. They are kind to their companions, affectionate, and grateful for attentions paid to them. As they are usually older than the other children in their class, the teacher often trusts them with little commissions. So far as one can judge of the morality of natures whose intellectual level is so low, the source of the altruistic sentiments appears to be well represented in the defective, but it remains to be considered whether his docility and complaisance may not mislead us as to the true value of his sentiments; for one characteristic of the defective is his tendency to repeat the polite formulæ or moral maxims which have been taught him. He has a surface morality, possibly purely verbal. As a last trait, it may be noted that the defective is influenced by rewards and punishments, but, owing to his defective intelligence, the effect is very fleeting.

Psychological Description of the Ill-Balanced.—This description contrasts curiously with the preceding. In this there is nothing to be surprised at. In school the ill-balanced child is a perpetual nuisance. The teacher has no weakness for this naughty child, who is always disturbing the class and defying his authority.

As we have done in the case of the defective, let us quote some of the phrases by which our correspondents sum up the unstable.

Charles cannot sit still, nor keep in rank, and his heedlessness prevents reproof having any effect.

Albert never obeys but with a bad grace.

Martha always puts on an astonished look when she is checked.

Maurice receives any criticism with impatience.

Susan receives it with anger.

Eugenie, by tossing her head. She mimics her teacher, and makes the others laugh, so that they have to hide their faces.

Octavia replies, "What do I care!" She bursts out laughing and continues to do what she has been forbidden.

Leontine quibbles, answers back, and expresses aloud her bad humour.

Raoul flies into a passion when he is reprimanded. He poses as a martyr, a victim of injustice, and sometimes even utters threats. Punishment makes him give vent to intemperate language.

Victor assumes an attitude of revolt, turns pale, and refuses to obey when anyone checks him.

Lucy broke her pen in a fit of temper.

Helen in the same circumstances upsets everything in her neighbourhood.

Louise strikes her elbows on the desk, and one day she even kicked her teacher.

Leon is quarrelsome and his companions are afraid of him.

George does nothing but tease his companions. He destroys their copybooks, tears pages from their books, and puts the blame on them.

Charles, who is rendered obstinate by strictness and merely irritated by punishment, seems happy when one takes an interest in him.

Eugenie, who is greatly excited by punishment and who smiles at rewards, loves to be flattered and picked out to do some little service.

The three following traits are constantly met with in the descriptions of the ill-balanced: they are turbulent, boastful, and incapable of attention. To this may be reduced the psychology of the less strongly marked cases. They have an instability of body, of speech, of attention, which may result either from an excessively nervous disposition, or simply from a nature whose restlessness rebels against sedentary and silent study. But in many cases other features are present. In addition to the preceding symptoms, there are found impatience of discipline and a tendency to annoy their comrades. The ill-balanced are spoken of as brutal, deceitful, cruel; and as to their obstinacy, the abundant details in the questionnaires show that these children have left a disagreeable impression on the school staff. It is especially on their account that an outcry for special schools has arisen. The way in which these children react to discipline is very interesting. We are told that they are very little influenced by rewards, which they often receive with disdain, laughter, or irony, if they do not refuse them altogether. Punishments, on the other hand, produce a bad effect. The ill-balanced nearly always become angry, and rebel against punishment, so that the teachers strive to avoid coming into conflict with them. Here we have a trait which is very interesting for psychology, but very embarrassing for pedagogy. How, then, can the ill-balanced be subjected to any discipline whatever? This is an important question, which it will be all the more necessary to solve because it is the ill-balanced who profit most by special education; it is for them that one would have most hope. Our advice is that, in order to control these children, account should be taken, in the first place, of their dominant tendency. The study of the answers to the questionnaires shows us that the chief thing to which one can appeal in these cases is their amour-propre, their pride, their vanity—in a word, the whole range of the egoistic sentiments. On natures of this stamp punishment cannot have much effect, seeing that it is opposed by an often indomitable pride. The end may be reached more directly, not by breaking the resistance, but by giving it a different direction. It is better to praise the ill-balanced when he has done well than to punish him for his faults. It is desirable also to show him some appreciation, or even to trust him with some duty of a very modest kind, which he may perform under discreet supervision.

Mental Aptitudes of the Defective.—Having briefly sketched the moral aptitudes of the abnormal, let us now examine their mental aptitudes. We have here a very captivating subject of inquiry. The study of individual aptitudes ought to have been undertaken long ago in the interest of education. Everyone is crying out for it. No one, or almost no one, undertakes it. In the case of the abnormal there is even more urgent need that it should be undertaken, for the younger or less intelligent the pupils, the more depends upon educational methods. When a mind is of a superior kind, very little really depends upon the culture supplied to it. If a Berthelot or a Pasteur should even have had imbeciles as their first masters in chemistry, they would none the less have turned out men of genius. It is those of average intelligence who have need of good methods of instruction. It is the young children who really require intelligent methods. Consequently we should give the defectives the best teachers. Every fault of method committed in their education may have consequences which will prejudice them later on.

In order to discover the aptitudes of the mentally defective, we have three means of interrogating our questionnaires. In the first place these contain the following question: Does the child show any particular aptitude either at school or outside? This question has evoked replies which vary very little, for amongst the aptitudes of the children scarcely anything is mentioned but bodily occupations—errands, domestic duties, gymnastics, sewing, and drawing. In the same questionnaire another question, placed on the following page, is almost identical in form with the first: Is there anything in which the child is particularly interested? The replies to this second question have been a little more numerous than to the previous one. It is true that the two differ by a shade—the distinction between interest and aptitude. One may interest oneself in something for which one has no aptitude. The following table shows the distribution of the replies to the two preceding questions:

The Mentally Defective.

These two lists are not superposable, but if we take them together we shall notice that sensori-motor occupations, such as gymnastics, "practical life," sewing, writing, and drawing, are those which are most interesting to these pupils. Sewing, writing, and drawing are, indeed, their favourite lessons. We should have expected that singing would not have left them indifferent, for other investigations have shown us that the majority have a good voice; but it is quite apparent that singing is less attractive to them than drawing. A very characteristic feature is the absence of any mention of composition. Some of the abnormal are fond of arithmetic; none shine in composition. This fact, though negative, seems worth consideration. Speaking generally, we never find that a child who is good at composition is mentally defective.

We have mentioned that there is a third method of weighing the aptitudes of defective children. In our questionnaire we asked the teachers to give marks showing the relative ability of these children in the different subjects. From these marks it appears that in four subjects they are more successful than in others. These are gymnastics, drawing, writing, and reading. We regret that we did not include in our list sewing, manual work, and object lessons. Here are our results in figures. These indicate for each pupil the two subjects in which he has obtained the highest marks.

It is not at all uncommon for a defective to take the first place in writing or in drawing. This is quite a remarkable fact, although we must hasten to add that in such cases the defective is usually the oldest child in the class.

All these observations are sufficiently uniform, and lead to the same conclusion. The dominant features in the defective are the senses, the concrete perceptions, and motor ability. These are the faculties which are normally developed. His constant weakness in composition shows that the function of speech is quite evidently inferior to the sensory and motor functions. Let us weigh these facts and sum up. What a great mistake it would be to give to children of this kind the syllabus of instruction which has been made to suit normal children. This syllabus harmonises with the development of all the faculties. How, then, could one make children follow it whose aptitudes are limited?

Inquiries by questionnaire have one defect which has often been noted. They bring together statements furnished by correspondents who are often unknown, and whose judgment and accuracy it is impossible to estimate. Each of their observations, taken by itself, has little authority. It is the sum of concurring observations which should alone be taken into consideration; and even then it is necessary to be cautious before drawing any practical conclusion, because an agreement in the replies sometimes indicates nothing more than a general misconception.

Such doubts, which are known to all investigators, led us to decide to make direct observations on our own account upon abnormal school-children, and to compare them with normal children of the same age—a long and difficult task, as all pioneer work is. We have collected facts which we were not seeking, whilst we often failed to find what we expected. It would be impossible to summarise here everything which contact with reality has taught and suggested. We shall extract from our observations only what concerns the aptitudes of the abnormal, and shall even limit ourselves to a single category of these. It happens that we have methodical observations relating to twelve defective children of between eleven and twelve years of age. These form a sufficiently homogeneous group from the point of view both of age and of mental ability. We shall inquire what are the best marked aptitudes and the most apparent deficiencies of this little group. Without denying individual differences or forgetting that defectives cannot easily be reduced to a single type, we have thought it more interesting for the present to emphasise their resemblances rather than their differences. Let us, then, compare them en bloc with a group of normal children of the same age and the same social position, attending the same schools, in the same district. This equivalence of conditions is necessary if we are to lay our finger on the distinctive characters of the defective child.

We have subjected our twelve defectives to certain tests as speedy and precise as possible.[3] We devised these tests before studying the returns furnished to our questionnaires, and the latter were tabulated before our observations. There have, therefore, been two studies absolutely independent, both in their mode of execution, and in their aim. Consequently, any points in which they agree will be very significant.

Our collection of tests of mental deficiency is already known to readers of the Année Psychologique.[4] In vol. xi. we described at length the details necessary for making use of our method of experimentation. Since then Dr. Decroly, who specialises on defective children in Belgium, has tried our methods, and verified our conclusions. The end which we have constantly set before ourselves has been to bring to light the intellectual capacity of the child, taken by itself, as distinct from what the child actually knows. Our psychological examinations are consequently the very opposite of school examinations, which test chiefly the candidate's memory, his judgment very little.

We have made numerous observations in this way. The best way to explain our method, and more especially our results, will be to describe a few of the experiments.

Memory of Pictures of Known Objects.—The children are allowed to look for thirty seconds at pictures of thirteen objects, which they are then told to enumerate from memory.

Comparison of Short Lines.—Two lines for comparison are drawn in ink side by side on the same sheet of paper, so that they can both be seen at a glance. We have a whole series of such pairs. Between the lines, whose average length is 30 millimetres, there is a variable difference.

Estimation of Weights.—Five little boxes, weighing respectively 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 grammes, are to be arranged in order of weight.

Memory of Figures.—This test consists in repeating a series of figures immediately after having heard them.

Memory of Phrases.—The child is asked to repeat a phrase of twelve to fifteen words immediately after having heard it.

We do not wish to insist on the details of these observations. They are still very incomplete. It will be necessary to experiment for a long time[5] before it will be possible to say exactly what it is that is wanting, or that is wrong, in the mental machinery of the defective. No doubt when the classes for defectives shall be under way, when a great many such children are brought together in conditions which suit the convenience of the experimenters, the latter will be able after persevering effort to see daylight in this matter. In the meantime we must be content with a general survey. But however superficial, however defective, our first attempts may be, they may at least give us a start.

Let us see, then, what results have been obtained from our tests. These results clearly separate the tests themselves into two groups. To the one set the defectives furnished replies practically equivalent to those of normal children. To the other, on the contrary, they gave answers which clearly exhibited their retardation, or rather their defect. This difference would be deprived of all significance if any of the tests presented no difficulty to a normal intelligence. But in all cases the difficulty was so great that even the normal made many mistakes, and we can affirm that, whilst for the one set the two groups of children were practically equal, for the other, on the contrary, the inferiority of the defective is quite clear.

The tests in which the defectives are on a par with the normal are—(1) The comparison of short lines; (2) the memory of pictures. Let us give some details of the latter test, which appears to us typical. Each child individually was shown a sheet of paper, on which were pasted thirteen pictures of known objects. These pictures, drawn in black and very simple, almost reduced to outlines, represented a nose, a head of hair, a rose, two cherries, a bed, a barrel, a nail, a key, an omnibus, some eggs, a bell, a sun setting in the sea, and a mouth. We have here a test of sense memory, for the child is asked to recall a visual impression. Something more, however, is necessary, for he must understand the picture and give it a name. But this constitutes no real difficulty, and the whole exercise is a test of sense intelligence. We were quite surprised to find that in this case our defectives were at the level normal for eleven years. The average of their replies is seven, which is exactly the normal value. This is shown in the following table, which gives the comparison between them and normal children of eleven:

Naming by Memory Thirteen Pictures.

Have we not here a very interesting confirmation of what we have already learned from the questionnaires? The exercise is one which certainly presents some difficulty, since the normal children forgot some of the pictures. If it had been too easy, one would not have been surprised at the fact that the two groups—the normal and the defective—were equally successful. Now, in spite of the difficulty, the defective shows no inferiority as compared with the normal. Any commentary would diminish the eloquence of this result.

Without lingering over each of the other tests, let us select from the group one which forms a remarkable contrast to the preceding. Just as striking as the equality between the defective and the normal in visual memory of pictures is the difference between them in memory for phrases.

The latter is a test of immediate memory. One repeats to the child a phrase of about twelve to fifteen words, and asks him to repeat it immediately afterwards. For this memory is necessary, and also voluntary attention, and some power of comprehension into the bargain; for if some of these phrases are quite easy to understand (e.g., Germaine has not been good; she did not want to work; she will be scolded), others, again, are a little involved (e.g., The chestnut-tree in the garden casts the quite faint shadow of its new leaves on the ground). The number of phrases which the defectives managed to repeat correctly is very small. It averages only two. Here are the figures:

Immediate Memory of Phrases.

If one examines these results, one is surprised to find that some of the defectives are superior to normal children of the same age, since they repeat four phrases, although some of the normal repeat only three. In all experiments on groups one finds exceptions of this kind. We are glad to give examples in order to show how complex everything is. In order to comprehend such anomalies, it is necessary to analyse the exceptional cases. One generally finds then that the defective who has broken the rule has made use of a pure sense memory, has repeated like an echo without understanding. If the repetition is delayed a little, he is lost. In other cases the defective is not far removed from the normal. Without stopping to discuss these exceptions, let us examine the group as a whole. When we do this we reach the important conclusion that our group of defectives resembles in a striking manner the group of children of seven years. On an average, they repeat practically the same number of phrases. The average for seven years is 3.1; that of the defectives of eleven years is a little less: it is 2.1.

Now, to sum up, let us compare just these two extremes, the memory of pictures and the memory of phrases. Is not the contrast remarkable? And does one not here hit upon one of the principal differences between the normal and the abnormal? Give the defective a piece of work which interests him, which appeals to his organs of sense, and which is concrete. If the work is not too difficult, he will acquit himself tolerably well. If, however, the work involves words, phrases, composition—in a word, abstract ideas expressed in speech—the defective immediately reveals wherein his inferiority lies. Abstract thought, and all other mental operations that involve it, are to him a closed domain. The replies of the teachers to our questionnaires had already led us to suspect this. Our tests are a confirmation, and even an exact demonstration, of it.

The normal curriculum of primary education, as one can imagine, is therefore not suitable to the mental condition of the majority of defectives. Even by reducing it to its first elements, one would make only a bad fit, for if one were to diminish the abstract portion which is not intended for defectives, one would equally diminish the concrete portion, which, far from being reduced, when defectives are in question, ought to be amplified. It is necessary, therefore, to change the proportions of the different parts of the curriculum, and give the whole a special direction. We shall conclude our observations by remarking that, if we take the workshop in opposition to the class, as the symbol of concrete work opposed to the symbol of verbal work, the workshop ought in the education of defectives to become a more important place of instruction than the class.

A slight reservation, however, must be made as to the value of this conclusion. In spite of the existence for a number of years of institutions for the abnormal, we have yet scarcely begun our researches. Everywhere we are up against the same ignorance, and shall be so for a long time to come. Our knowledge of these children is very imperfect. We do not pretend that anything we are about to say is in any way complete.

Thus, having set forth a quite general principle relating to concrete, intuitive, sensory education, let us hasten to add that in practice this principle must be applied to children of widely differing temperaments, and that nothing is more complicated than the pedagogy of defectives, if one desires it to be adapted to the numerous ends which it is necessary for it to attain. One will certainly bear in mind that a greater place must be given to intuition than to abstraction; one will bear this in mind in the detail of the education of defectives, as well as in its general direction, but without forgetting the numerous interests which it is necessary to satisfy. There is no question but that there will be admitted into the special schools and classes many children only slightly defective, who are destined to return as soon as possible to the ordinary school; and one would put an obstacle in the way of this return, or even make it impossible, if, from the day the child entered the special class, a totally different direction should be given to his education from that of the ordinary school. This would be both serious and troublesome. The amount of abstract material in the lessons should be diminished simply in proportion to the mental deficiency. There is no reason why the slight cases should not be taught in the special class in accordance with a programme little different from that of the elementary school, except that it gives them the benefit of greater individual attention. Such individual attention is still more necessary in the case of the ill-balanced, of whom we have scarcely spoken in this chapter. It is not their insubordinate spirit which sets them against anything abstract, and one would do them a very poor service by depriving the more intelligent of them of the ordinary curriculum, and all the more as the majority of the ill-balanced are destined to improve considerably. Thus there are many reasons why, in the case of certain classes of the abnormal, one should not lose sight of the usual curriculum. These reasons are as follows: the slight degree of the deficiency in certain cases, or the existence of instability without retardation, or the necessity of sending the children who improve most back to the ordinary schools. Such are the reasons which are important from the school point of view. There are others with a social bearing which are more important still. At the present day it is necessary, especially in towns, that everyone should be able to read, to write, and to express himself in suitable language. It has been remarked, and justly, that reading is the triumph of abstraction, and that a defective may require two years to learn to read by syllables, and very poorly even then. No matter: if the thing is possible, even with considerable effort, such a defective ought to learn to read. This is demanded, not by the state of the child's intelligence, but by the society in which he lives, where illiteracy would bring shame upon him. In questions of this kind the indications of psychology and pedagogy should be subordinated to the needs of life. Necessity makes the law. All instruction given to defectives must be dominated by the question of its practical usefulness. A pedagogy which should be fitted easily to the measure of their intelligence would be dangerous, in that it might result in making them useless. It is evident, therefore, that the problem is very complex, and it would be quite useless to attempt to express it by a single formula. The nature of each individual case must be taken into account, and one must aim at an essentially practical training, a pedagogy of ends rather than of abstract principles. Our advice, consequently, is that in the meantime no definite curriculum should be fixed upon, but that the teachers of defective children should be allowed some freedom, under the cautious control of the primary school inspectors. We ask that all intelligent initiative should be accepted and encouraged, and that the teachers in special schools should frequently meet together in order that they may compare their experience. In short, we should give to the schools and classes for defectives such freedom and elasticity that the kind of education best adapted for such children would be able to evolve and perfect itself like a living organism.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] On the other hand, Dr. Abadie found 309 defective to 134 ill-balanced.

[3] At the Laboratoire de Pedagogie Normal, 36, Rue Grange-aux-Belles. For details of the work of this laboratory see Année Psychologique, tome xiii., pp. 1, 233.

[4] [See vols. xi., 1905, p. 191; xiv., 1908, p. 1; xvii., 1911, p. 145. Also Bull. de la Soc. pour l'Étude de l'Enfant, 1911, p. 187.]

[5] [The results of later observations are embodied in the tests published in 1911, which are given complete in the Appendix.]

CHAPTER III[ToC]

PEDAGOGICAL EXAMINATION OF DEFECTIVE SCHOOL CHILDREN

When legislation provides special schools and classes for the benefit of defectives, it will be imprudent to make use of legal force to bear down the will of the parents. It will be better, in the first instance, to have recourse to persuasion. It will be pointed out to the parents that their children are behindhand in their lessons. The parents, as a matter of fact, know this quite well. It will be explained to them that classes of forty pupils are too large for children like theirs, and that the teacher cannot devote sufficient attention to them. It will be explained also that classes are being organised for ten to twenty pupils at most, in which it will be possible to give individual attention. Before instructing their child, it will be necessary to begin by awaking his intelligence, which involves the teacher devoting himself to him with method, order, and patience. One will appeal to the heart of these parents, and will surely manage to persuade them, especially the mothers. For such interviews we must rely upon the school teachers and the inspectors. It will only be necessary to warn them to avoid the use of certain expressions. It would never do to say to the parents that their child is an idiot, an imbecile, a fool, or even abnormal. The admission of their son or daughter into a special school should be represented to them as an advantage or even a favour. Their consent should not be demanded in too formal a manner. This would make them think that it is they who are giving something, and many would refuse. In a word, much can be done by prudence, sympathy, and a little tact; and the personal experience that we have acquired has shown us that it is not difficult to gain the parents to the cause of special education.

Composition of a Board of Examiners.—We have now to consider how the selection of the children is to be made. It has been determined by statute that the examiners shall be three in number—the head of a special school, an elementary school inspector, and a doctor. As to the manner in which this committee is to carry out its work, the law preserves an absolute silence.

When the three examiners meet in order to judge the degree of retardation of the children who are presented to them, is this absence of a definite programme embarrassing? We do not think so. A committee which is duly authorised always manages to do something. The work is done more or less empirically, perhaps, but it is done. Tell the jury to find defective children, and they are sure to find them. The only question is, What will be the value of their selection? and, above all, How can so delicate a quest be saved from empiricism and rendered exact? It is to be hoped that at first there will not be too many mistakes. This would have a bad effect upon the new institution. It is unfair to a normal child to send him to a special school, just as it is unfair to a defective to keep him in the ordinary school. It is better to make such mistakes as seldom as possible. Moreover, it is of the greatest interest to try to forecast the exact way in which errors are most likely to arise. In every machine there is a point of least resistance which requires to be watched. In every human institution there is a detail of organisation where fraud and charlatanism are most liable to occur.

Since we have supervised the organisation of some classes for defectives, and have been able by some preliminary observations to take account of these dangers, we take it upon ourselves to give warning of them in advance. We fix buoys to the rocks that they may be avoided.

It seems to us that the selection of defectives calls for three varieties of experience—that of teachers, of doctors, and of psychologists. We shall proceed to indicate the services which these various persons may render. In this chapter we shall speak only of the pedagogical examination. The duty of making the first selection among the school-children and indicating those who are suspected of being defective belongs partly to the teachers and partly to the school inspectors, whose respective rôles, it seems to us, can easily be defined.

A. THE RÔLE OF THE TEACHER: TO SELECT THE CHILDREN SUSPECTED OF BEING DEFECTIVE.

It is out of the question to make an entire school pass before a committee in order that 500 pupils may have their mental faculties analysed. Such a task, at once troublesome and useless, would require several months. One should rather, in the first place, adopt a rapid method of picking out the children suspected of mental defect. It is quite sufficient that they should be suspected. Such a selection once made, the committee will have before it only a moderate number of candidates upon whom it will be possible to concentrate attention.

Let us proceed to show how the teachers may make their selection:

A retardation of three years indicates a child who should be regarded as a suspect. A child enters the elementary school at the age of about six years. Each year he ought to advance one class. From six to nine years he is in the elementary course; from nine to eleven in the intermediate course; from eleven to thirteen in the senior course. All are not quite regular. Some are a little in advance, some are behind, but the majority conform to the preceding scheme. When a school is well managed, when the assignation of the children to their respective classes is made by means of suitable tests, and without too great regard to the demands of the parents, the classification which results is very good. There is then no better means of finding out whether a child is intelligent or not than to take into consideration his age and his class. Intelligence, so extraordinarily difficult to judge, is indicated in the above way with a really curious exactness. A child two years behind his age, when irregularities in attendance, absence on account of illness, etc., do not explain his backwardness, is very likely to be less intelligent than one who is in, or in advance of, the usual class for his age. This amounts to judging intelligence by the degree of instruction. Theoretically, such a method is open to plenty of meticulous objections, of which the most important is that we are confounding intelligence and memory. To this we shall reply that the stage of instruction reached is not the result of memory alone. It presupposes also some degree of application, some facility of comprehension, quite a collection of diverse aptitudes. The child's success in his studies is, in fact, the best indication we have of his capacity to adapt himself to the school environment. If the child is unable to keep up with the classes suited to his age, if he is unable to profit like other children from the education provided, this shows that he has not the same degree or the same kind of intelligence as his companions, and there is a presumption, if not an absolute demonstration, that his intelligence is inferior to the average, or that his character is different.

From these statements, which we have expounded at length elsewhere,[6] it follows that not only the head-master, but an entire stranger, can determine which are the less intelligent children, the less well adapted to that school, without taking the trouble to interrogate them all individually. It is only necessary to compare their position in school with their age.

We thus obtain no merely subjective appreciation, but a simple statement of the actual condition of things. The only thing one must be careful about is to make allowance for irregular attendance. Backwardness in school instruction is significant only when it coincides with regular attendance. At the present time the regulations as to school attendance are very little respected. In country districts there are children who do not go to school till they are eight or nine years of age. It is not surprising that they cannot read, when no one has taught them. Allowance must also be made for long illnesses. When the absences have been considerable, their total amount must be subtracted. A child of nine, who has come to school at the age of six—i.e., the usual age—and who has been absent for about 250 days, should, from the present point of view, be counted as eight. The school authorities will have no difficulty in making such estimates. That is their business, and they will quickly make up their minds even in a difficult case. One will, of course, bear in mind that the number of classes differs in different schools, and that certain classes are parallel. Lastly, one must remember that a defective may, on account of his age, be placed in a class too advanced for his knowledge. This, indeed, is often the case.

Exception may be taken to the rôle that we have assigned to the teachers. We may be reminded that about two years ago, when statistics concerning defectives were being collected by circular, many of the head-masters replied in a notoriously unsatisfactory manner. Even in Paris one school was stated to contain 25 per cent. of defectives, whilst not a single one was acknowledged in another in the same neighbourhood. This amounted, as M. Bédorez ironically remarked, to an average of 12 per cent.

We shall reply, in the first place, by asking whether a mistake has really been committed. This cannot be taken for granted, since the proportion of defectives varies enormously from one school to another. But let us admit a mistake, and ask who is responsible. The master of the school understood badly what the circular had explained more badly still. In these circulars we actually read the following definition of defectives: "Subjects who are in a condition of mental debility, possessing only a limited intelligence and a limited responsibility, which do not admit of their acquiring, at the ordinary school and by the usual methods of education, the average elementary instruction which the other pupils receive." If one interprets this badly constructed formula literally, it is evident that half the children of France must be defective, being of necessity below the average. If the teacher is to work intelligently, he must have more precise directions. After having explained to him that a defective child is one who does not adapt himself, or who adapts himself badly, to school life, one will tell him that the degrees of non-adaptation vary indefinitely; for it is quite exceptional for even a defective child not to adapt himself at all, and to learn absolutely nothing at the ordinary school. It remains, therefore, to decide what degree of retardation or of non-adaptation is to be recognised as determining a defective.

According to a convention accepted in Belgium, which we modify slightly, the retardation which determines a child as a defective is two years when the child is under nine, and three years when he is past his ninth birthday. Here we have a very precise rule, easy to apply to all children, with the corrections already indicated relating to school attendance. The rule is, perhaps, a little rigid, we admit, but it will always be possible to make allowances when examining closely the individual cases to which it will have to be applied.

Thus, the method which we have just indicated permits the making of a first selection.

This selection will be good, without being final. It will be good, for it is based upon a wide experience extending over several years. Just think what it means in the way of inattention and want of comprehension if a child is three years behind. For our own part, we consider this evidence from experience of the greatest value. It is the obvious point of departure. We can and should try to interpret it and to complete it, but we are not justified in taking no account of it. Let us even say boldly that if, by some unhappy chance, other finer methods should conflict with this, and indicate as defective a child who has shown himself well adapted to school life, it is school life which should be considered the more important test. How, indeed, could one call a child defective who succeeds in his studies and profits by the instruction in the normal way? Thus we sum up by remarking that we possess a very simple method which enables us to recognise all the children whom we have any right to suspect of mental deficiency. This method consists in taking account of the retardation of the children in their studies.

For the recognition of the ill-balanced children the rule is the same. The head-master must pick out those children whose undisciplined character has kept them from submitting to the ordinary school régime, and has made them a continual source of disturbance. Whilst the simply defective fail to adapt themselves to school life by reason of their mental deficiency, the ill-balanced fail owing to their inco-ordination of character. In the second case, as in the first, there is a similar defect of adaptation, and the best proof that this defect is present in a particular child is the continued evidence of several years, the testimony of different masters, who declare that, with the best will in the world, they cannot break in the recalcitrant child to rule. But it must be recognised that the appreciation of want of balance is more delicate, more subjective, than that of retardation. The latter is indicated by a definite incontrovertible fact—the insufficiency of instruction. On the other hand, lack of balance has only a slight effect on a child's intelligence and his success in his studies. It is indicated to outsiders especially by the complaints of the masters. And the latter, to tell the truth, may be led to exaggerate a little, especially if they see a means thereby of ridding themselves of children with whom they have not much sympathy. We shall see in a little, when we speak of the rôle of the inspector, how the latter must check the statements of the head-masters.

Distribution of the Pupils in a School.—To put into practice the principle which we have just formulated, a circular is distributed to the schools asking the head-masters to arrange the children in each class according to age upon a blank table furnished to them. The work is easy, and the return should be required in a maximum period of eight days. Within this period twenty elementary schools in Paris supplied us with the information which we asked for through their inspectors. We give one of these returns, which we shall examine briefly, insisting only on the essential points.

We ask, then, that on the table, of which a blank copy is supplied, the head-master shall give the number of children who on October 1—that is to say, the first day of the session—were of such and such an age—e.g., six or seven years. The normal ages for the different courses or standards are as follows:

Thus a child is "regular" in instruction when he is found in the class named at the age indicated.

The normal age for the infant class is from six to seven years. The children of that age are entered in the table in the appropriate column. Now consider the extreme ages between six and seven which obey this condition. On the one hand would be a child exactly six years of age on admission. Such a child is exactly normal as regards age. He is behind by 0 years, 0 months, 0 days. At the other extreme would be a child exactly seven—or, rather, one day less than seven—on admission. Such a child would be behind by exactly one year. Consequently, the column headed six to seven years for the infant class contains children behind by 0 day as a minimum, and one year as a maximum. The average will therefore be behind by six months (compared to the ideal). Analogous reasoning would show that the children of the infant class entered in the column headed five to six years would, on the average, be six months in advance of their age. Similarly, those shown in the column headed seven to eight years would be on the average one and a half years behind.

Interpretation of the Tables.—The next point is to sort out the defectives from these tables. Nothing is easier if we follow the rules already given. Turning to our tables, we would consider as suspects the children entered in the fourth and following columns for the infant class; in column five and following for the elementary course, first year; in column six and following for the elementary course, second year; in column eight and following for the intermediate course, first year; in column nine and following for the intermediate course, second year. If the reader will calculate the retardation implied in the columns which we designate, he will see that this retardation is equal to at least two years under the age of nine, and equal to at least three years above the age of nine.

DISTRIBUTION OF PUPILS IN THE SCHOOL FOR BOYS, RUE GRANGE-AUX-BELLES.

The number of children suspected of mental deficiency obtained by this method varies extremely from one school to another, independently of the mistakes which are made by the head-masters with lamentable frequency. We have found the proportions varying from 0.2 to 10 per cent., with all the intermediates represented. The average of suspects for ten girls' schools, with an average of 300 pupils, was 3.7 per cent.; for eight boys' schools in the same district, and strictly comparable to the preceding, it was 5.35 per cent. It must be clearly understood that these figures are provisional. They do not correspond to real defectives, but to children suspected of mental deficiency; and, moreover, they do not include the unstable, unless they are also defective.

Having made these deductions, one writes to the head-masters, or perhaps summons them to a meeting, in order to ascertain the names of these children and various other particulars.

These particulars will refer to three main points:

1. Give the full names and date of birth of the backward children (by two or three years, according to the distinctions given above), and indicate also whether the retardation is explained by irregular attendance, by want of application, or defective intelligence.

2. Indicate the children who, although they do not belong to the preceding category, yet appear to be distinctly abnormal.

3. Indicate also the children who are ill-balanced and rebellious to all discipline in the opinion of several teachers who have had them in their classes.

We have already received replies which seem to us instructive, and even carry us beyond the study of the abnormal, as they may throw some light on the psychology of those who are commonly called "dunces." As a general rule, the children classed as retarded are the victims of disease, constitutional debility, or malnutrition. We find included in our lists some who are the children of nomadic parents; some who have been kept from school; some who have attended a religious school, where they learned little but sewing and writing; some who have changed their school too often; some also who are foreigners, and understand little French; and, lastly, some who have been kept back in their studies by unrecognised myopia. Such causes are extrinsic to the child. The personal causes of retardation are defective intelligence, sluggishness of mind, insubordination, an eccentric and excitable nature, a constant want of attention, and, lastly, laziness.

The complete and methodical study of the documents relating to 223 children with a retardation of three years has taught us a number of interesting facts. It is very rare for the cause of the retardation to be single. Usually, several causes were at work simultaneously. Feebleness of mind complicated by illness is noted in 20 per cent. of the cases. Insufficient school attendance (due to other causes than illness), in conjunction with feebleness of mind, is met with in 25 per cent. of cases. If, without taking account of those associations of causes, one enumerates simply the frequency with which each single cause of retardation is mentioned, one obtains the following percentages:

If we admit, as a hypothesis, that the frequency of each of those four principal causes indicates its importance, we shall conclude that laziness very rarely explains a retardation so great as three years, and that the most important factor is undoubtedly feebleness of mind. We should have expected the teachers to give much more frequently the banal reason of lack of application. They have not done so, and these results confirm in a quite unexpected manner the convention according to which every retardation of three years should make one suspect feebleness of mind.

It would be interesting to know whether any children really defective in intelligence escape the revelation furnished by our tables. We have put this question in writing to the heads of the schools, and they have notified fifteen children, or 6 per cent., who seem to them to be clearly defective, although without a retardation of three years. On testing the statement, we found that mistakes had been made, and the sole residue of defectives who had escaped our census consisted of three subjects who wanted only a month or a few weeks to have shown clearly a retardation of three years. They were therefore on the border, and such exceptional cases are always to be found when one fixes an exact limit. There is no need to worry about them.

Hostile Head-Masters and Teachers.—It is important to state that the procedure for selection which we have outlined can be carried out without the concurrence of the head-masters. As a matter of fact, one has to be prepared for everything, even the hostility of the school staff. It may be that a head-master who has a defective in his school refrains from mentioning the fact. It may be that he is indifferent, or does not believe in special education, or simply does not choose to put himself about; or, again, he may be timid and afraid of trouble, or may shrink from the recriminations of parents, behind whom he sees the hostile shadow of some town councillor or journalist. Lastly, he may be an ignoramus who, even at this time of day, imagines that a child cannot be a defective unless he has incontinence of urine or a sugar-loaf head. We have already come across several fellows of this kind. The sceptical type is most common. We recollect a head-master who, in response to our inquiry, replied with irritating calmness: "I have five hundred pupils in my school. I am sure that not one of them is a defective. You are of a different opinion. Well, my school is open. Come and see for yourself." And he added with a sceptical smile: "The school doctor and myself will be very curious to learn how you manage the inquiry." As a matter of fact, the proportion of defectives in his school was just the usual one—about 2 per cent.

At the time when the Government Commission was holding its inquiry as to the number of defectives, we found in the statistical tables which we had in our hands that whole towns, even as important as Fontainebleau, had replied "None," yet we knew by personal inquiry that that reply was wrong.

The systematic reticence of the head-master is therefore already in evidence, and will certainly turn up again even when the law is in full operation. Doubtless wiser counsels will prevail in the long run, and opposition will become less. But it will never disappear entirely. However, one will not be affected by it in picking out the backward children, but the children who are abnormal, though not backward, and the ill-balanced children, will perhaps escape, unless the inspector visits the school, and, knowing the disposition of the head-master, takes the precaution of questioning the teachers as to the children in their class who give them the most trouble in regard to discipline. As a rule the masters have an interest in pointing out these pupils in the hope that they will be removed.

B THE RÔLE OF THE PRIMARY INSPECTOR: TO ACT AS REFEREE.

In the pedagogical examination the inspector should exercise a measure of control. It is he who sets the teachers to fill up the schedules, who interprets the returns, and estimates their value.

Work is better done when it is subject to inspection. The head-masters will take more care in the selection of the defectives if they know that all their cases will be examined by a person whose competence is equal to their own, and whose position is higher. The inspector, who is generally well acquainted with his personnel, will see at a glance what he ought to think of the returns which are furnished to him. He knows that one master is too severe, and another too indulgent. He has to restrain the overzealous, to stimulate the indifferent, and encourage the despondent. When it is a question of estimating a child's want of balance, it is necessary to know the character of the judge. Some good teachers fail to gain the necessary ascendancy over one of their pupils, either because they are indulgent where strictness is necessary, or because by excessive brusqueness and severity they alienate natures which require to be humoured. The inspector will succeed in taking all these things into account. He will interpret correctly the facts which are laid before him, because it is his business, his métier.

Significance of Irregular Attendance.—The inspector will begin, let us suppose, by examining the returns given concerning the backward children. From the notes sent to him he will be able to distinguish between the children whose backwardness is due to irregular attendance and those who may justly be suspected of mental deficiency or want of balance. He will thus make a first selection.

Here are some examples of the notes referred to:

Renné G——, age thirteen years, is in the intermediate course, second year; she is therefore three years behind for her age. The explanation given by the teacher is as follows: "Had contagious ophthalmia; not admitted to school till ten. Intelligence middling." If the return is correct, one is not surprised that the child has not made more progress.

Suzanne M——, age twelve and a half years (two years behind); always very delicate and frequently absent; of average intelligence.

Yvonne D——, age ten and a half years (two years behind); lived a long time on a boat without going to school; intelligence average; very industrious.

Eugenie V——, age eleven and a half years (three years behind); educated at a convent school until October last; intelligence little developed; slow of comprehension; writes and sews pretty well; spelling poor.

Suzanne B——, age eleven and a half years (two years behind); an intelligent and industrious child, who has travelled much with her parents, and afterwards stayed in a little boarding-house. At school since October; she has made great progress.

Anna E——, age eleven and a half years (two years behind); born in German Switzerland, brought up in England, and has been in Paris only a year and a half.

Germaine G——, age ten years (three years behind); very short-sighted. It was only last year that it was noticed that this defect of vision was keeping the child from learning to read. Since spectacles were provided she has made rapid progress.

Marguerite L——, age ten years (two years behind). This child has some affection of the eyes; she has been operated on several times.

Without pretending to give a final opinion on the above cases, one may believe that the retardation is due to the ailment or to irregular attendance. If it were necessary, one might make further inquiries at the schools previously attended by the child, or find out at the present school the exact number of days of absence.

In other cases it seems clear that it is the intelligence of the child that is at fault. For example—

Jeanne L——, age ten years (two years behind); attends school regularly; stupid and lazy.

Hortense G—— (two years behind); irritable temper; very backward in arithmetic and spelling; intelligence mediocre.

Marie R—— (two years behind); intelligence very mediocre; inattentive; progress very slow.

Blanche B—— (three years behind); intelligence much below the average; has some slight aptitude for sewing and arithmetic, but very backward otherwise; incapable of giving a reply indicative of good sense and reflection.

Jeanne B—— (two years behind); intelligence decidedly mediocre; none of her answers particularly sensible.

When the inspector has read these notes and formed an opinion on the children, and obtained as far as necessary additional information about their school attendance,[7] etc., he will make his first choice. He will decide which children are to be examined, and will have them brought to him.

Be it understood, then, that the child must now be presented, and that it is by questioning him that the inspector will form an opinion of his mental level. This examination is important. The inspector must observe the child, induce him to talk, watch the play of his features. In this way he receives a living impression which rarely deceives an experienced eye. He will even chat with him a little about something—for example, the occupation of his parents.... After these preliminaries, the examination proper begins. It includes the estimation of the degree of instruction and the degree of intelligence.

Tests of Instruction.

A child is presented to the inspector, for example, as belonging to the intermediate course, first year. Is this correct? It may be that the child is at the foot of the class, or is even incapable of following the lessons. Thus, it may be that his class gives a very poor indication of his capacity. There are plenty of cases where the head-master, in order to please the parents, puts a child in a class too high for him. A rapid examination will suffice to test the grading. This testing is absolutely necessary, and presents no difficulty to the inspectors. They have the fortnightly report brought to them, examine the pupil's marks and his exercises, whereby they form a first impression. It is then necessary to ask some questions, and on this point we have something to say with respect to method.

There are two ways in which the degree of instruction may be tested. There is what we may call the casual method, which consists in putting the first questions that come into the mind; and there is the systematic method, which consists in putting questions arranged in advance, whose difficulty is known, and for which we have a scale (p. 54), which shows the average number of errors to be expected from normal children of each age. The latter method takes no longer than the former, and is even easier, because it makes no demand on the imagination. Moreover, we consider it quite indispensable for fixing in an objective manner the degree of instruction of the defectives on the day of their admission to the special school. It is very important that this degree of instruction should be definitely known, because it will be necessary to refer to it every time one wants to find out to what extent the child is profiting by the special instruction. We shall return to this point in our concluding chapter.

It has seemed to us that the test of instruction might bear upon three exercises, which are easily marked—reading, arithmetic, and spelling. Here is a very simple table of tests (p. 54), of which we have made much use. It has been arranged with the help of M. Vaney. The table is suited to the elementary and to the intermediate course, and that is sufficient for examining defectives, since none of them are found in the senior division. It is scarcely necessary to say that this table of tests is the outcome of careful experiment. We have established for each age the average acquirements of all the children of that age whatever their place in school. One might quite as well have taken into account only the results given by typical children in the class proper to their age, but on reflection we rejected this proceeding as arbitrary, because it is affected by the difficulty of the curriculum, which is constructed a priori, whilst the average furnished by all the children of a given age is less artificial and is an adequate expression of the reality. Let us remark in passing that these two methods of calculation do not lead to equivalent results. The average furnished by the typical children is higher than that furnished by all the children, for, as we have shown above, more children are backward than in advance. Lastly, the time of year when the tests are made is not a matter of indifference. For spelling and arithmetic the time chosen was the end of February—that is, the middle of the session. For reading we are obliged to make use of results a little more advanced, for they were furnished later, namely, in June.

SCALE SHOWING KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED BY PUPILS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

Let us now explain the details of the exercises shown on our table.

Reading.—The proceeding we adopt consists essentially in distinguishing five grades of reading:

1. Sub-Syllabic.—The child reads in syllables, but very slowly and with many mistakes.

2. Syllabic.—This consists in stopping at every syllable, but reading these pretty correctly. Thus the child reads "The—sol—di—er—car—ries—a—big—gun."

3. Hesitating.—There are stops as in (2), but they are less frequent. The child reads by words or groups of words—e.g., "The soldier carries—a big gun."

4. Fluent.—There are no stops except at the marks of punctuation, but the reading is monotonous, as if the child does not understand what he reads. The voice may fall at the end of the sentences.

5. Expressive.—The child shows by his intonation that he understands what he reads.

We found it necessary, as may well be believed, to use not only the expressions syllabic reading, fluent reading, etc., but compound expressions, such as hesitating-fluent, fluent-expressive, and even compound expressions with accentuation of one of the epithets, a2 hesitating-fluent. This is very useful in practice.

We have stated that the scale of reading was founded on experiments made by M. Vaney at the end of the school year. We have modified it slightly in consequence of experiments made by ourselves in February. It may be of interest to give here the table arranged by M. Vaney. It has been arranged not by age, but by class.

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 quickly and 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.

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's reading "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 words subtract, 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:

Correction of Sums.

First Sum (1 point).—1 point for correct answer (vide p. 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 if wrong); 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.

Results of Arithmetic Tests in an Elementary School in Paris.

It will be noticed in the table that the averages are a little less when calculated on all the 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 at that 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.

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 the s's of 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 plus gais rayons. Les hommes partent en chantant. Les bergers sont heureux de la belle journée qui se prépare: ils suivent au pâturage le grand troupeau des vaches pesantes.

Phrase 4.—Feminine of the qualifying adjectives without phonetic indication; verbs with the plural endings ons, ont, ez, aient.

Exercise.—Le garçon de ferme, de son pas lourd, entrait dans la grange encore obscure, ou nous réposions. Les bœufs mugissaient tout bas. Dans la cour le coq, les poules, le chien, allaient et venaient.

Phrases 5, 6, and 7.—Finals of verbs in the singular of the different tenses of the four conjugations. Past participle with or without avoir. Infinitive in er, and past participle in é.

Example.—Joyeux merle, ne viens pas dans le bocage. Prends garde à ce méchant qui veut te saisir et t'enfermer. Pendant que je te parle, tu viens picorer les raisins que l'oiseleur a disposés comme un piège. Ils sont garnis de glu: si tu y touches, c'en est fait de ta liberté.