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

INTRODUCTIONToC

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:

CHAPTER IIToC

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: