Sharpe Report (1898)

The Departmental Committee, chaired by TW Sharpe, who had been appointed the first Senior Chief Inspector in 1890, aimed to improve the education and lives of 'defective' and epileptic children.

Its recommendations underpinned the 1899 Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, though because of the costs involved, the Act's provisions were not as far-reaching as the Committee had wished.

See also the 1889 Egerton Report Royal Commission on the Blind, the Deaf and Dumb.

The Sharpe Report was published in two volumes with large pages (21 x 32cm): the text of the first (containing the report itself) is presented in this single webpage. You can scroll through it or use the following links to go to the main sections:

I Introductory (page 1)
II Defective children (3)
III Epileptic children (30)
IV Recommendations (36)
Appendices (39)

Notes on the text

I have omitted the marginal references to the transcripts of witnesses' evidence, but retained the footnotes.

I have modernised some of the punctuation, corrected a couple of typographical errors, replaced the archaic l with £, and given metric equivalents of imperial measures.

A few sections of the text were printed in small type (in some cases for no obvious reason): for convenience on a computer screen, I have not reproduced this format here.

Volume II is not currently online. Its contents are listed on page ii of this Volume.

The text of the 1898 Sharpe Report was prepared by Derek Gillard and uploaded on 14 June 2023.

London: HM Stationery Office

[title page]

[C. 8746]      Price 5d.

[page i]

[page ii]

List of Witnesses.

Minutes of Evidence.

Appendices -

A. NOTES ON FORElGN SYSTEMS OF EDUCATION OF FEEBLE-MINDED CHILDREN.
B. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO TEACHERS OF SPECIAL CLASSES.
C. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO OFFICERS OF INSTITUTIONS FOR IDIOTS AND IMBECILES.

General Index to the Report, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices

[page iii]

The Committee was appointed by the Lord President in December 1896, and was constituted as follows:-

The Rev. T. W. SHARPE, C.B., H.M. Senior Chief Inspector of Schools (Chairman).
Mr. H. F. POOLEY, Senior Examiner, Education Department.
Mr. A. W. NEWTON, H.M. Inspector of Schools.
Dr. SHUTTLEWORTH, late Medical Superintendent, Royal Albert Asylum for Idiots and Imbeciles.
Dr. W. R. SMITH, Medical Officer of the London School Board.
Mrs. BURGWIN, Superintendent of Schools for special instruction under the London School Board.
Miss TOWNSEND, Member of the Council of the Association for Promoting the Welfare of the Feeble-minded.

Mr. H. W. ORANGE, Examiner, Education Department, to act as Secretary to the Committee.

The TERMS OF REFERENCE to the Committee were:

To inquire into the existing systems for the education of feeble-minded and defective children not under the charge of guardians, and not idiots or imbeciles, and to advise as to any changes, either with or without legislation, that may be desirable.

To report particularly upon the best practical means for discriminating on the one hand between the educable and non-educable classes of feeble-minded and defective children, and on the other hand between those children who may properly be taught in ordinary elementary schools by ordinary methods and those who should be taught in special schools.

To inquire and report as to the provision of suitable elementary education for epileptic children, and to advise as to any changes that may be desirable.

[page 1]

1. We have the honour to submit to your Grace the following report, in accordance with the order of reference from the Education Department, dated 20th December 1896, instructing us "to inquire into the existing systems for the education of feeble-minded and defective children not under the charge of guardians, and not idiots or imbeciles, and to advise as to any changes, either with or without legislation, that may be desirable:

to report particularly upon the best practical means for discriminating on the one hand between the educable and non-educable classes of feeble-minded and defective children, and on the other hand between those children who may properly be taught in ordinary elementary schools by ordinary methods and those who should be taught in special schools:

to inquire and report as to the provision of suitable elementary education for epileptic children, and to advise as to any changes that may be desirable."

28. Different systems are adopted in different places for conducting the examination of children with a view to their admission to special classes. In Bradford, the examination is made by a medical officer. In Brighton, in Bristol, and in London, a medical examination is also held; but in Leicester an examination is held by the Inspector of the Board, and in Birmingham, by the teacher of the special class. Many witnesses have laid stress upon the necessity of a medical examination of the children before being admitted to special classes. With this opinion we agree, and we think that the examination of the children by a medical officer should be a necessary condition of the recognition of the classes by the Department, and that the recommendation to the School Authority (with whom must necessarily rest the responsibility of acting upon the recommendation) should be made by the medical officer.

[page 12]

In deciding whether a child is feeble-minded or not, Dr. Ferrier has stated that three elements are necessary - the opinion of the teacher, the life history of the child, and the medical examination. With this view, most of the witnesses who have come before us agree. Experience, however, shows that it is not always possible to get an accurate statement of the life history of a feeble-minded child from its parents, especially on the first occasion of inquiry. When the children have been admitted to the special classes, and have begun to make progress, the teachers of these classes are often able to ascertain the life history of the children from the parents or other relatives, where the improvement made by the child inspires confidence in the teacher. Opportunity should, however, be given to tho parent to be present at the examination of the child before admission to the special class. Direct benefit to the child may in some cases result from the presence of the parent, for it often turns out that the child who is believed to be feeble-minded really suffers from curable defects in eyesight or hearing. In such a case the medical officer is able to impress upon the parent the desirability of having the child treated for the defects in question. The School Authority should notify to the parent the time and place of the examination; and it is also desirable that, in addition to an official notification, some personal explanation should be given by a visitor, with a view to smoothing the way for the proposed change. In the majority of cases, parents are willing to send their children to the special classes, if they clearly see that it will be for their benefit; but, at the same time, a certain prejudice exists against the classes, which are popularly known as the "silly schools", and this prejudice, though it tends to disappear, must still be reckoned with. Probably the personal explanation will come best from the teacher of the school which the child has been attending, for such teacher often has the confidence of the parents; but, failing this, it will be well that the parent should be personally approached by some other visitor.

The Education Department recently ordered that in London these examinations, which are held at fixed periods, should also be attended by Her Majesty's Inspectors. It is desirable that the Inspector should be present in order that he may be acquainted with the details of the cases from the first. It is also usual for the teacher of the special class, who is in future to be responsible for the children, to be present at the examination, and it is desirable that this practice also should be continued, in order that this teacher's acquaintance with the child may date from the first examination, and that any necessary questions may be asked from the teacher who brings the child, and from the doctor who examines it; and her opinion is also likely to be of value in forming a judgment as to whether the child is a suitable candidate for admission to the special class.

29. There are, therefore, four persons who should be present at the examination of children with a view to their admission to special classes, namely, the teacher of the school where the child has been, the medical officer of the School Authority, Her Majesty's Inspector, and the teacher of the special class; and a fifth, namely the parent, should be given an opportunity of being present.

The medical officer should receive from the teacher presenting the child a form duly filled up, containing a statement of the child's attainments, and he, after conference with the two teachers and the Inspector, should make his recommendation to the School Authority. The form of the recommendation should be as follows; "I certify that A. B., not being imbecile, is, by reason of (1) physical or (2) mental defect, incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools, but capable of receiving benefit from instruction in special classes." If the certificate is based upon physical defect, the precise nature of that physical defect should be stated. As regards those children whose admission to the special classes he does not recommend, the medical officer should state the reason of such rejection, viz., either that the child is not incapable of receiving instruction in ordinary schools, or that it is not capable of receiving benefit from special classes.

If the above procedure be adopted, we anticipate no great difficulty either in arriving at a decision or in enforcing it, but in doubtful cases there should be an appeal to the Education Department, who are, in the last resort, obliged to decide whether it is reasonable to refuse a child admission to an ordinary school or to a special class; and for the proper performance of the duty of deciding these appeals, the Department should have at their disposal the services of a Medical Adviser.

[page 13]

30. We have already given a form to be filled in by teachers of the first school attended by the child. This form should be copied, as at present is the practice, into a record book kept at the special class. The medical officer, at the time of the examination of the child, should also make a record as to the facts observed, and this also should be copied into the same record book, and should be of assistance in guiding the teacher of the special class. At present, no form is in use for these records. It is desirable that they should be uniform, (1) for statistical purposes, (2) in order to show whether the standard adopted is the same in different places, (3) in order to facilitate inspection by anyone charged with that duty on behalf of the Education Department, and (4) in order to support the decision in the event of appeal. We do not here suggest the precise form in which the medical records should be made, as this would probably be better left to medical advice.

31. With regard to the record of family history, we subjoin a form drawn up almost exactly as it is in use in London. If the parent attends the examination of the child, it may perhaps then be filled up, but the responsibility for the due filling up of this form should rest with the teacher of the special class, and such teacher should be expected to fill up the form to the best of her ability within six months of the admission of the child.

32. Records of the child's progress in the special class are kept with varying degrees of completeness. These, too, should also be uniform. We, therefore, subjoin a form which we issued during the course of our inquiries, and which appears to have been successful in attaining its object.There should be a book of these forms for each class.

[page 14]

33. Medical records of the children should also be kept, and it should be a rule that a regular medical examination should be held of every class every 12 months by the medical officer, and of individual children, at other times, when necessary. Teachers of special classes are aware of the necessity of studying the physical defects of the children, and suiting the instruction and discipline accordingly.* This is a matter upon which advice should be given to the teachers by the medical officer of the School Authority, both upon the admission of the children and at the periodical inspections. The teachers should be guided by the advice, and should record the treatment adopted in accordance therewith. Her Majesty's Inspector, on visiting a class, should see that all these various records have been kept up to date.

34. Children are admissible at seven years of age at all the special classes, and the greater number enter at the age of eight. Dr. Harris prefers eight to seven as the age of admission. The teachers of the Hugh Myddelton School would prefer five. Dr. Ferrier recommends seven. We recommend that children should not be admitted at less than seven years of age to the special classes, and we consider that the present practice should be retained.

35. As to the age of retention in special classes, a few are retained over 14, and it seems to be agreed that children ought not necessarily to be removed on reaching that

*See Appendix I.

[page 15]

age. Opinions, however, differ as to whether feeble-minded children should, as a rule, be retained up to the age of 16 in the special classes as at present constituted, being mixed classes under women teachers. Dr. Kerr and Dr. Martin think they should, and General Moberly and Mr. Chard appear to desire the retention of the child in the special class till 16, and Miss Whenman, in some cases.

On the other hand, Dr. Harris thinks that if, at 14, the children are not fit for the world, they should, as a rule, go to institutions. We think that all children may be kept in the classes till 14, and that their retention till 16 should depend upon the decision of the managers made upon the recommendation of the medical officer, and should be conditional upon the arrangements being suitable for the older children. The rules here suggested as to age resemble those in force in Germany.

36. The state of the law on this subject has already been explained to be the same as for other children. Two questions appear to arise in connexion with the further provision now contemplated for feeble-minded children: firstly, whether a child ought to be compelled, against the wish of the parent, to attend a special class, rather than the ordinary school; secondly, whether the age of compulsory attendance for feeble-minded children should, in any case, be raised to 16. To the former point is relevant the evidence received as to the willingness or otherwise of the parent to use special classes. Often there is at first some shyness and even aversion. This is overcome in most cases by persuasion, and the parents generally approve the classes, but care is required in approaching them on the subject. We think that, following the precedent of the Blind and Deaf Children Act, attendance at an ordinary certified efficient school should not be considered sufficient compliance with the byelaws in places where special classes are available, and that the School Authorities should be empowered to compel a child's attendance at a special class, where available.

37. Opinions differ as to raising the age of compulsory school attendance for feeble-minded children, to 16. Some witnesses, such as Mr. Chard, Miss Verrall, Miss Whenman, Mr. Martin, and Dr. Warner, do not think it desirable, or think that it would be difficult to enforce attendance up to the higher age. Others, such as Dr. Beach, Dr. Kerr, and Dr. Harris, think it necessary or desirable. General Moberly recommends that universal attendance up to the age of 16 should not be compulsory, but that the School Authority should have a discretionary power of compelling attendance up to that age. We recommend the adoption of General Moberly's proposal.

38. The special classes are organised in many different ways, ranging from the use of an ordinary class-room of an ordinary school under an uncertificated assistant teacher, to separate buildings, with separate playgrounds and offices, under certificated teachers. In the event of any grant being proposed, with or without legislation, for special classes, it is desirable to lay down the minimum amount of separate provision which is necessary in order to constitute a special class.

A special class may be defined as one so certified by the Education Department. For the certification of it the following conditions should be regarded as essential: That the children should be admitted by the procedure already laid down; that they should be periodically examined by the medical officer; that they should have a room of their own suitably furnished (a term which will be defined hereafter) and used exclusively by them, and a special teacher of their own having no other day-school duties; that the children should not be mixed with ordinary children for any lessons; that there must be managers specially appointed and a special time table; that the principal teacher must be certificated, unless the class is for fewer than 10 children; and that in any case the staff shall satisfy the requirements of the Department.

39. The classes range from 12 at Leicester to 38 at Abbey Street, London. There is a consensus of opinion that not more than 20 children can properly be taught at one time by one teacher. We think that the maximum number of children to a teacher should be on the following scale: If there is one teacher at a class or centre, 20 on the roll; if two teachers at a centre, 20 on the roll for each class; but if there is a third teacher, 30 may be allowed to be on the roll in the third class, and in the fourth and fifth, if any, these being the highest classes in the school.

[page 16]

40. Nearly all the special classes are mixed; and in Germany, in towns where, for ordinary children, there are no mixed schools, the special classes are mixed.

All the witnesses, except one, see no objections to mixed classes for children up to 14 years of age. We see no objections to mixed classes, and it will, of course, be understood that, for children over 14, regard must be had to the question of the proper supervision of the two sexes in considering whether the provision is suitable.

41. All the teachers are certificated in London, Brighton, Leicester, Bradford, Bristol. Uncertificated assistants are employed at Birmingham. The teachers have generally been chosen from infant schoolmistresses with a knowledge of kindergarten work, and have attended some existing special class for a time in order to learn the work, but have received no other special training. Only women are in this country so employed. Subject to the continued recognition of the uncertificated teachers at present employed, we think that, at every class of 10 children, or more, on the roll, the principal teacher should be certificated, and that only in cases where two classes or more are taught at one centre should assistant teachers be employed. Uncertificated assistants should be persons qualified under Article 50 of the Code, or holding a Froebel certificate.

42. Some evidence has been received as to the employment of pupil-teachers in special classes. Miss Verrall and Mr. Martin approve, but Miss Whenman disapproves; also Miss Dale, who thinks that girls should not specialise so young; and Miss Poynton points out that the work is too depressing. Evidence is also gIven by the teachers as to the repulsive and immoral habits of some of the children. We agree with those witnesses who disapprove the employment of pupil-teachers, and we recommend that no one under the age of 21 should be recognised as a teacher in special classes.

43. In cases where there is a class with less than 10 children on the roll, the Department should not necessarily require a certificated teacher, but might accept a teacher holding the Froebel certificate, or qualified under Article 50. The recognition of teachers for this special work should depend upon the approval of Her Majesty's Inspector from year to year, and it should be understood that the withholding of such approval should in no way cast a slur upon the teacher's qualification for teaching in ordinary schools, and in no way prejudice the teacher in the official records of the Department.

44. At present there is no system of special training. The opinion is strongly held that it is desirable. Dr. Warner recommends that the teachers of special classes should receive special training in the observation of defective children and the treatment of defects by suitable physical exercises. Mr. Du Port thinks that physiological training is necessary, and also training in Sloyd [a system of manual training in elementary woodwork etc developed in Sweden], laundry, cookery, and dress-cutting. Mr. Van Praagh recommends special training, which he says resembles that required for deaf children. Sir Douglas Galton recommends special training, and suggests that the physio-psychological laboratory about to be opened at University College might be utilised for the purpose. Dr. Colman is of opinion that training is essential, and that lectures are not sufficient, and Mr. Price suggests that the teachers should have six months at an institution.

We agree with these witnesses that special training is desirable, and we recommend that the Department shall encourage the provision of such training. Until the means for giving such training exist, the supply of teachers would be entirely cut off if the Department made it a necessary condition of the employment of teachers in special classes.

The Department should, however, look favourably upon any practical proposal which might be brought forward by persons offering a good system of training and asking for its recognition. Such training cannot well be given to ordinary students at training colleges, as it is required for only a very small proportion of the teachers, and even for these the special training should be added to the other qualifications which the ordinary training in the training college gives. The special training should if possible, be given, not only after the teacher is certificated, but after she has had some experience in

[page 17]

ordinary schools. It should embrace: (1) such general school training and instruction in kindergarten methods as is required for infant school teaching, including lectures on observation of children; (2) a course of physiology and school hygiene with practical demonstrations; (3) gymnastics, on some rational system; (4) instruction in articulation and voice production; (5) Sloyd and other manual occupations; (6) two months' practical work under a qualified teacher in special classes.

Any system which would satisfy the above conditions would be well worth the support and recognition of the Department; but, at the present time, we do not see our way to suggest any further requirement being made by the Department than this: that, before any teacher is recognised as a head teacher, she should have at least two months' experience in a class approved by the Department, and that each teacher should require annual approval by the Department, as already explained.

45. The hours vary from four and a half to five a day, the hours in London being five hours a day for five days a week, with an interval of two hours in the middle of the day, and half an hour being given out of the five hours to recreation. In Germany, 27 hours a week are spread over six days. The undue prolongation of the hours for feeble-minded children must carefully be avoided, and we recommend that the hours during which the school is open should not exceed two and a half in the morning and two in the afternoon; that a proper interval of at least one and a half hours should be interposed between the morning and afternoon meeting, and that the Department should accept as sufficient for the purposes of a grant any attendance at secular instruction for not less than one and a half hours, which is the present standard in infant schools.

46. The length of lessons varies from 15 minutes in Leicester to 25 or 30 minutes in London. For lessons other than varied occupations the time should not exceed 30 minutes, including the time spent in giving out the apparatus. The customary plan which is to be recommended is to alternate brain work with hand work; to take the more difficult brain work in the morning, and to give short physical exercises between all lessons. Such exercises may be taken in the time assigned to the lessons on the time table.

47. Several teachers state that they do not have sufficient freedom in departing from the time table when desirable, as, for instance, in cases of atmospheric disturbances which appear to have peculiar effect on feeble-minded children. It should be generally understood that there is complete freedom in departing from the time table whenever it is reasonable to do so, subject of course, to the fact and the reason being noted at the time in the log book.

48. As to the distribution of the time between the various lessons, the time table of London is fairly typical, and shows the following analysis of a week's lessons:-

[Note These figures do not add up to 23 hours 30 minutes. There appears to be a digit missing in the figure for scripture: this should presumably read 3 hours 45 minutes, which would make the total correct.]

[page 18]

A rather greater proportion of the time in Germany is given to reading, writing, and arithmetic, which occupy twelve hours in the week as against four or four and a half given to manual instruction, including needlework.

Some of the witnesses have recommended that, in the English special classes, a greater proportion of the time should be given to manual instruction. Dr. Kerr would give ten or twelve hours out of twenty-five. Dr. Walmsley would give half the time. Mr. Du Port would make manual instruction the key of the whole training. On the other hand, Dr. Harris thinks that for younger children the time given at present to hand work is sufficient. We recommend that it should be a condition of the grant that not less than six hours a week should be given to suitable manual instruction, and, subject to the distribution of time being rearranged accordingly, the London time table may be taken as a good example.

49. Being worked at present under the rules for infant schools, some subjects are compulsory in the special classes, and some are optional. We recommend that the following subjects shall be compulsory in order to obtain any grant that may be proposed: reading, writing, and arithmetic, drawing, singing, object lessons, suitable occupations, needlework for girls, and suitable manual instruction for older scholars, with sufficient recreation. If these are provided for, other subjects may be introduced if desired.

50. It will be seen from the distribution of time, and the list of compulsory subjects which we have recommended that we do not desire to see the three elementary subjects of reading, writing, and arithmetic thrust into the background. The constant employment of children in manual occupations does not appear likely to lead to the best results, nor are there any instances in which any such system is at work, although, doubtless, some of the occupations, such as cookery and laundry work, may offer advantageous opportunities for the incidental introduction of elementary instruction. Officers of the institutions for idiots point out that "a knowledge of reading and writing is of great importance as opening up sources of information and recreation, and affording means of keeping up communication with friends. Most imbeciles derive great pleasure from receiving and writing letters." Miss Hoatson also finds that reading is the most interesting part of the mental work to her scholars who are imbeciles, and the three elementary subjects must also be for feeble-minded children a most important means, if properly applied, of cultivating their faculties and assisting them to live in the ordinary world under ordinary conditions.

The importance of concrete teaching of arithmetic and of adapting various methods of teaching children to read in a manner calculated to excite their interest is sufficiently recognised; we desire also to notice with special approval the use of the shop lesson, which has been mentioned, as an aid to the teaching of arithmetic.

As to the standard reached in the elementary subjects, the Teachers' Appendix shows that in more than half of the classes, the most advanced scholars are doing work which is usually done in the First Standard of an ordinary school; though in about 16 or 17 classes, work equivalent to the Second or Third Standard is being done. It must be remembered however that these classes include children physically, but not mentally, defective.

51. Manual instruction is at present the least satisfactory point in the instruction given in the special classes; but the evidence shows that those who are responsible for the classes are alive to this deficiency and intend to remedy it when circumstances permit. For the younger children of both sexes, kindergarten occupations form a satisfactory preparation for more advanced manual training, but a proper system requires that this should be completed by definite manual instruction for older children and for both sexes separately, devised with a view both to its educational value and to fitting the children for supporting themselves in after life.

It may here be observed that the technical or manual instruction which may be given to blind and deaf children, and may also be extended to feeble-minded children, is not subject to the Technical Instruction Acts, and that the distinction which is

[page 19]

in those Acts laid down, between technical instruction and the teaching of a trade, need not be applied to the manual instruction of feeble-minded children, which should have, as one of its direct objects, the teaching of employments to children, so as to prepare them to earn wages on leaving school at the age of 16.

We have already recommended that it should be a condition of any grant that may be proposed, that suitable manual instruction shall be given to all the children. For this purpose, the manual instruction should be divided into instruction (a) for younger children of both sexes, (b) for older boys, (c) for older girls. There is no need to lay down precisely the age at which a child should pass to the instruction suitable for older children. Feeble-minded children vary greatly in the stage of development reached at any given age, and it will be sufficient to lay down a rule that every child must have manual instruction suitable for it, and that, when the child is fit for manual instruction of a more advanced kind than that provided for younger children, it should receive the manual instruction suitable for older children.

52. The forms of manual instruction at present in use for younger children of both sexes are as follows: At Bradford, knitting, building with little wooden cubes, clay-modelling, colour work; at Brighton and at Bristol, kindergarten; at Birmingham, clay-modelling, macramé, colour-work, (the occupations being changed every three months); at the Hugh Myddelton School, bead-threading and colours, and pricking outlines, macramé-work, clay-modelling and painting, paper designs and colouring. At Darenth, the first forms of manual instruction for imbeciles are threading reels, grasping and holding balls, putting small nails into holes, fitting pins into pin-cushions, clay-modelling, knotting and looping, colouring, paper-folding, basket-making and mat-making.

Suitable forms of manual instruction for younger scholars can readily be supplied by any teachers who have had sufficient experience of infant classes. We need only remark that, (1) the instruction must be specially suited to feeble-minded children; (2) that frequent change in the forms of instruction may be desirable; (3) that considerable freedom of choice of the fittest form for each scholar in accordance with his particular defects must be given, and, if necessary, under the guidance of medical advice; (4) that there will be, owing to these causes and owing to the greater proportion of time given to manual instruction, necessity for making a liberal provision of material.

53. At Bradford, Dr. Kerr is trying to introduce wood-work. In London, woodwork instruction is given, but only in those places which are near to manual training centres; and Dr. Harris thinks that even there the time is insufficient, and he desires teaching in carpentry and joinery. In Brighton, a little carpentry is done, and Miss Verrall points out that it requires to be taught in a manner specially adapted to feeble-minded children. In Birmingham no wood-work is taught. At the Hugh Myddelton School, some basket-weaving is done. At Bristol, the introduction of wood-work is hoped for. In Norway, machine sewing and knitting, weaving, shoe-making, lace-making, and farm-work are taught. In Germany, book-binding, chair-caning and papp-werk (or modelling in pasteboard). At Darenth, mat-making, mattress-making, tailoring, shoe-making, farm-work, basket-making, and cane-seating. The officers of idiot institutions suggest basket-making, cane-seating, simple wood-carving, fret-work, shoe-making, brush-making, mat-making, joinery, and gardening, and farming where possible.

We recommend as regards the manual instruction for older boys: (1) that it shall be a necessary condition of any grant that may be proposed that suitable manual instruction shall be given to every boy for at least six hours a week; (2) that all the above-named forms of manual instruction shall be accepted as suitable by the Education Department, and that the list may be kept open for subjects to be approved by the Department; (3) that such manual instruction may be given off the premises of the school, that is to say, in manual training centres; (4) that in no case shall the feeble-minded children be taught with children not feeble-minded, and that no class for manual instruction shall exceed eight children.

It will be necessary for Her Majesty's Inspectors to look carefully at the instruction given, and to see that instructors adapt their teaching properly to the needs of the

[page 20]

feeble-minded children. It may, perhaps, be found possible to tell off those instructors who are most successful in this special work, to give their time solely or chiefly to the teaching of the feeble-minded, and it will be desirable that any necessary information as to the peculiarities of the children, or the special points to which attention should be given, should be communicated by the teacher of the special classes to the giver of manual instruction. Where a special class is not situated conveniently near to a manual instruction centre, it should be required that a room, properly furnished, should be supplied on the premises of the special class.

54. Needlework, cookery, and laundry work are the forms most in use. Needlework is universal. Cookery and laundry work are not yet taught at Bradford nor at Brighton. They are in future to be taught at Birmingham. They are not taught at Leicester nor at Bristol. In London, cookery and laundry work are taught to the defective girls where the special classes are near to the centres. Mr. Du Port suggests wood-work for the girls, and points out that a great deal of elementary instruction can be well combined with cookery, laundry work, and dressmaking. The officers of the idiot institutions recommend instruction in sewing (hand and machine), housework and laundry work.

The custom appears to vary in London classes as regards the amount of elementary instruction combined with the cookery and laundry work, in some cases the teaching being only practical, and in other cases the children being taught to write notes of their lessons.

We have been favoured by Miss H. M. Deane, Inspectress of Cookery and Laundry Work, with the following memorandum:

I have inspected several classes of cookery and laundry work given to feeble-minded children, and have arrived at the following conclusions, which I have the honour to submit to you, with various suggestions which appear to me advisable with regard to their instruction in these two subjects.

LENGTH OF DEMONSTRATION

These children are naturally not capable of concentrating their attention for any length of' time; therefore, the demonstration should never last longer than one hour, while the teacher should be permitted to use her discretion in shortening the period to ¾ or even ½ an hour, according to the mental capacity of the children under instruction.

LENGTH OF COURSE

The length of the course given should extend over double the period allowed for an ordinary normal class and should include constant though varied repetition of the principles taught.

SCHOOL BOARD SYLLABUS

(a) Cookery

The present Board School Cookery Syllabus, which is used at all the normal classes and also at some of those for the feeble-minded, is much too full and varied to suit the requirements of the latter children. It is preferable that only one kind of dish should be taught and practised at each lesson, and this should illustrate a definite principle of cookery.

(b) Laundry

The syllabus for laundry work used for the ordinary classes is fairly simple, and might be further simplified at the discretion of the teacher.

THEORY

The very simplest theory should be given, and such details as the choice of materials and price of food. Object lessons on fish, vegetables, flour, etc. would be very valuable, but no attempt should be made to discuss the dietary value and chemistry of food, instruction in which I heard given to some feeble-minded children at a mixed class which I visited recently.

SPECIAL CLASSES

I do not consider it at all satisfactory, at any rate at the commencement of the instruction, to mix normal and feeble-minded children together in a class, a method which is adopted at Laxon Street Board School and various other cookery centres under the London Board.

I have noticed that those feeble-minded children which have attended special classes set apart for them have been much improved; that they were capable, in many cases, of answering and reasoning almost as well as carefully taught normal children after their first course, whereas those girls who were attending a mixed class and whom I questioned and watched at their work, were very little advanced from their former state, either in mental capacity or manual dexterity.

LIMIT TO NUMBER OF CHILDREN AT THE CLASSES

It would appear to me that the number of children attending these classes for feeble-minded should be limited in the case of cookery to eight girls, and to six girls for a course in laundry work.

[page 21]

We recommend, as regards the manual instruction of older girls, that it shall be a condition of any grant that may be proposed (1) that suitable manual instruction shall be given to all older girls for not less than six hours a week, of which not more than two shall be given to needlework; (2) that such instruction shall be, where possible, cookery for two hours a week and laundry work for two hours a week, and that other forms of manual instruction, such as practical housewifery and machine-sewing, with other forms approved by the Department, shall be permitted; (3) that such instruction may be given off the premises; (4) that in no case shall feeble-minded children be taught with children not feeble-minded, and that no class shall exceed eight for cookery or six for laundry work.

We also make the same recommendations as to the necessity of attention being paid by laundry teachers to the adaptation of their instruction to feeble-minded girls, and as to the supervision of such teaching by the Inspector, as in the case of older boys.

We are aware that the recommendations with regard to the manual instruction to be given in future in special classes, will, in many cases, not be easy to carry out, but with a full sense of the practical difficulties which may arise, we recommend the Department to make the compliance with these recommendations an essential condition of any grant that may be given for this instruction.

55. The choice of suitable physical exercises adapted to feeble-minded children, especially with a view to their physical defects, is occupying the attention of the expert teachers. The principle laid down by Dr. Kerr is one that can be generally approved, namely, to practise the use of the bigger muscles before the finer ones. Mr. Holm has been good enough to advise us upon the subject of physical exercises for the feeble-minded, and his evidence may be commended to the notice of School Authorities and teachers. In addition to the ordinary physical exercises, suitable games, both indoor and out, should be provided at all the classes. This is already done at many schools, the teachers giving the necessary initiative. Games are particularly valuable, especially games of ball, in developing quickness, and practising children in actions which will tend to overcome their defective powers of muscular co-ordination.

Among other forms of physical exercises that are mentioned in use in the special classes are breathing drill and eye movements.

56. Most of the teachers use punishment when it is required, and most of the witnesses think it is occasionally required. It is obvious that for this class of children the greatest care is required in using corporal punishment.

57. The need of further supply of special classes is recognised in all the places where they at present exist. The number of children requiring to be taught in special classes is, approximately, 1 per cent, and the age at which they should be taught has been laid down as from 7 to 14 for all children, and, for some, the continuation of teaching up to 16.*

In a population of 10,000 people of average age distribution, 1,596 are aged 7 to 14, and 428 are aged 14 to 16. If it be assumed that 1 per cent of these are defective, and that provision is required for half of those between 14 and 16, then the total number of defective children requiring school accommodation on a population of 10,000 would be between 7 and 14, 16; and between 14 and 16, 2; total, 18. From these, furthermore, must be made some deduction, usually computed at one-seventh, for children of a higher social class. If the average held good for the

*Defective children between the ages of 13 and 14 may be exempt from school attendance by a certificate of five years' attendance, as provided by the Elementary Education Act, 1876; otherwise they are required to attend school until the age of 14, unless (which is improbable) they have passed the standard of exemption fixed by the byelaws. If our recommendations are followed, a further power will be conferred upon School Authorities of extending the period of compulsory school attendance of defective children, at their discretion, up to the age of 16.

[page 22]

country, this would point to requiring every place with a compact population of 10,000 to supply a special class; but the proportion of children to population varies in different districts, and it is probable that the proportion of defective children varies considerably in different districts. There may, therefore, be places with a population of 10,000 without sufficient children for a special class.

In Germany, as already mentioned, the Minister of Education appears to have called upon all towns of over 20,000 inhabitants to provide a school for feeble-minded children.

We consider that the Department should be empowered to require the provision of special classes in all districts where they think special provision necessary; and that, for towns of a population of 20,000, special classes will almost certainly be required, and that inquiry should at once be made in all towns with a population of 10,000 or over with the view of ascertaining whether a special class is necessary. Some of the returns which have been supplied to this Committee from towns will be useful to the Department in this inquiry.

58. The authorities charged with the supply of necessary accommodation for blind and deaf children are: (a) school boards, (b) for places not under school boards, the district council - urban or rural - acting through a committee appointed for educational purposes. The preference of district councils to school attendance committees appears to have been made in anticipation, not yet, however realised, of a transference of the powers of school attendance committees constituted under the Elementary Education Act, 1876, to district councils. A certain anomaly has thus been created in the constitution of two authorities charged with powers and duties in regard to education in rural districts. Mr. Colvill has suggested that the authority for providing for defective children should be the county council rather than the district council. His reason is that the county council would be likely to do the work better than the district council; an argument which might, however, equally be applied to the case of blind and deaf children. Unless upon general grounds county councils were entrusted with duties under the Education Acts, we recommend that, under existing circumstances, the precedent of the Blind and Deaf Children Act should be followed, and that the authorities for dealing with defective children should be the same as those named in that Act.

We notice, however, that by that Act a parish which is under a School Board and within the area of a district council may become liable, not only for the education of its own children, but also for its share in the education of children in other parishes under the district council, although such parishes pay no part of the expense of providing for the children in the parish under a School Board. We would suggest that this anomaly should be avoided in any legislation regarding defective children.

59. (a) In requiring provision to be made for ordinary children, the Education Department issue public notices to districts not under School Boards. Volunteers have the opportunity of supplying such accommodation, and if it is not supplied a School Board is formed. No such notices are issued in respect of the provision for blind and deaf children, but the Act requires the School Authority at once to provide the necessary accommodation for all children not otherwise provided for.

We recommend that the Education Department should give notice in such form as they think proper requiring the School Authority to provide for defective children. This notice need not, however, necessarily be in the form of a public notice, and will vary according to the size and requirements of a place, and according to the likelihood of volunteers coming forward.

(b) In regard to the provision of ordinary accommodation the Education Department have wide powers, either to combine two districts into a united district, or to call upon one district to provide and upon another to contribute.

We recommend that, for the purpose of providing for defective children, School Authorities should have power to combine and to contribute; and that the Education Department should have power to compel contribution in respect both of provision and maintenance of school accommodation. Cases may often arise in which children living outside the borders of an urban district provided with special classes can best be provided for by being sent to such special classes; and the necessary proportion of

[page 23]

the expense should be borne by the district in which the children reside; but to induce a satisfactory arrangement to be made for such payment, it is essential that there shall be in the background power in the Education Department to make an order for such payment as they may think fit.

(c) If a School Authority fail to do their duty in regard to blind and deaf children, the Department have the same powers of default as in regard to ordinary children, or may order it to pay a fixed sum to a certified school towards the expense of a particular child.

We recommend that these powers should also be conferred on the Department in regard to the provision for the education of defective children.

60. By section 95 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, School Boards are required to make such report and returns and give such information to the Education Department as the Education Department may, from time to time, require; and by section 43 of the Elementary Education Act of 1876, similar duties are laid upon the local authorities under that Act.

These provisions should be extended to School Authorities now to be constituted for providing for defective children; and we recommend that the Department should require a return from time to time from every Authority, stating what action has been taken to perform their duties in regard to defective children.

61. In thickly populated districts, provision may be made by single classes or by the collection of classes at a centre. The maximum number that can be so collected depends upon the distance which the children may be expected to go, and although there are cases in which children go a mile and a half and two miles, such distances are thought inconvenient. Subject to the classes being within easy reach, the centre system is approved in preference to a number of scattered single classes as giving better accommodation and better organisation.

The advantages in classification which are attained by three classes at a centre are so great that we recommend that, when possible, centres should be provided with at least that number of classes.

62. The inspection of special classes should be part of the ordinary duty of Her Majesty's Inspector. He should pay his visits without notice; should, without holding a formal examination, see that all the conditions of the grant are fulfilled; and should be instructed by circular from the Department as to the points to which notice should be directed with a view of raising and maintaining the level of instruction in the special classes.

Medical inspection in some form is also recommended by some witnesses. We recommend that it should be part of the duty of any Medical Adviser whose services may be at the disposal of the Education Department to inspect and report, when required, upon special classes, and that he should, in the ordinary course, inspect some classes in the company of Her Majesty's Inspector.

63. London appears to be the only place in which rooms exist which have been designed for the purpose of special classes; but premises planned for the purpose are in process of construction at Brighton. In Bradford the premises are classrooms of ordinary schools provided with separate entrances; in Birmingham the same, one being a room in the deaf centre; in Leicester and in Bristol the same; in one case the room is a teachers' room. The use of ordinary classrooms is approved by Dr. Kerr, Mr. Chard, and Miss Dale who, however, recommends that special lavatory accommodation should be provided.

Miss Verrall and Miss Whenman, on the other hand, prefer separation as far as possible, especially as regards playgrounds. Mr. Martin is of the same opinion, and the policy pursued in London is to extend the system of separate centres.

[page 24]

We recommend that, subject to the essential conditions herein laid down being fulfilled, latitude should be allowed to School Authorities in regard to construction of classrooms in connexion with or separate from ordinary schools; and that no requirement should be made for separate construction, except in the case of separate lavatory accommodation, where required for ease of access and supervision. But on each of the following points, although we do not think that separate construction should be made an absolute requirement, we nevertheless think that it is to be recommended: Playground, entrances and exits, cloakrooms, corridors.

Most rooms are on the ground floor, but there are exceptions in London and Leicester; and some of the rooms in use are unsuitable on account of their elevation. The ground floor is recommended by Dr. Kerr and by the teachers.

We recommend that it should be a condition of the recognition of all new premises that they should be on the ground floor.

Most of the existing classrooms are built to accommodate 30 children at 10 or more square feet [0.9m²] per child, but the average attendance in London is only 17. Consequently, the existing London classrooms are generally sufficient to afford 20 square feet [1.9m²] each to 15 children in average attendance. Most witnesses agree that more space is required than for ordinary children.

We recommend that 20 square feet [1.9m²] of area should be required for every child, and that no room should be less than 12 feet [3.7m] high.

(a) Desks. Dual desks are generally in use, single desks being preferred in exceptional cases. Single desks are recommended by Dr. Kerr, Miss Whenman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Du Port, and the teachers.

We recommend that single desks should he required for every child, suitably sized and sloped at an angle of 10 to 15 degrees. This will involve an almost complete removal of the desks at present in use, but we presume that they can be used in ordinary schools. For certain purposes, tables with trestles will also be useful in special classes.

(b) Books and Pictures. We have received little evidence as to the books used, which are chiefly those designed for infants and Standard I children. Pictures are found in most of the rooms, and are generally regarded as necessary.

We hope that illustrated books and pictures, specially suitable for these children, will be more generally found as the demand increases.

(c) Piano. Pianos are provided in Leicester and Bradford, and at some of the London centres. They are considered beneficial wherever provided, and are greatly desired by teachers.

We recommend that pianos should be provided, and that the Department should require provision of some musical instrument for the purposes of singing and drill.

(d) Means for Recreation and Physical Exercises. These are liberally provided in most of the classes. Games of ball, skipping, battledore and shuttlecock, quoits, and skittles may be mentioned as suitable for the purpose.

Where more than one class is taught at a centre, a wide well lighted corridor which can be used for drill and for assembling should be required in all new premises.

The cost of construction in London is estimated by Mr. Chard in £19 0s. 6d. per head in one case and £22 4s. 2d. in another. The cost of building in the way which we have recommended must necessarily be more expensive than for ordinary children, as more space is to be allowed and buildings are to be erected for a smaller number. It will be necessary for the Department to fix the limit of the amount to be raised by loan for each child, and, after consulting the architect of the Department, we recommend that the limit should be fixed at £20.

[page 25]

64. Mr. Loch and Miss Sewell have spoken as to the value of co-operation between charitable people and the School Authorities in connexion with the special classes. Miss Sewell, who desires to see a voluntary agency connected with every special class, points out that by this means necessary explanations can be given to the parents as to the examinations of the children with a view to their admission to special classes, and also as to medical treatment which may be necessary. We agree with these witnesses as to the value of the work which may be done by voluntary agencies in connexion with the special classes if acting in co-operation with the School Authority.

65. We have now completed that part of the subject which relates to the provision of special classes for feeble-minded children - a form of provision which is by far the most important of the means which we shall suggest for dealing with the question referred to us, and one which we desire to see extended as far as possible. There remain, however, feeble-minded children who may, for various reasons, be unable to attend special classes, and there remain also districts which are too small to provide sufficient children to maintain the special classes. Possible methods of dealing with these children appear to be - (1) to provide conveyance or guides to special classes; (2) to board out near special classes; (3) to maintain at institutions; (4) to make special provision in ordinary schools.

66. School Authorities have at present no powers to pay for conveying or guiding children to special classes; but they have both powers with regard to blind and deaf children. General Moberly desires to see these powers extended to defective children. Mr. Chard also speaks as to the necessity for providing for their travelling expenses. If these powers were possessed by School Authorities, the attendance at school of feeble-minded children might in many cases be more easily enforced. The School Authorities of towns would find such powers useful in outlying districts, insufficiently developed to support a special class of their own.

We have asked the teachers whether accidents have occurred to the children in coming to school, and although it is quite clear that the great majority of the children are able to come to school unattended, yet, on the other hand, several accidents - one of which was fatal - are recorded as having happened to the children on the way to or from class.

We recommend that powers should be given to School Authorities to provide for conveyance or guides for defective children to special classes.

67. If defective children are not within reach of special classes, even when powers of conveyance have been given to the School Authorities, the best practical means of providing for the children may often be to board them out near to a special class. This also is a form of provision which may be made for poor law children by the guardians. At present School Authorities have no power to board-out any except blind and deaf children. General Moberly desires that School Authorities should have boarding-out powers.

The Poor Law Schools Committee recommend boarding-out as one of the means for providing for feeble-minded children.

Boarding-out is recommended by Dr. Beach and Dr. Harris when the home is bad; Miss Blackmore; Mr. Loch (care being exercised); Mr. Van Praagh, for feeble-minded deaf children, in order to bring them near deaf schools; Mr. Colvill, but only for a few cases, and powers not to be compulsory.

The advantage of boarding-out as compared with institutions is that the boarded-out child under favourable conditions remains in touch with ordinary life, and comes in contact with ordinary children; and thus avoids the disadvantages which many of the witnesses have represented to us, and which we feel strongly, of secluding the feeble-

[page 26]

minded child, during its school life, within the four walls of an institution. Careful regulations are, however, necessary to ensure successful boarding-out.

We recommend (1) that School Authorities should have powers of boarding-out defective children, but that such powers should be limited to children residing in districts where special classes cannot be provided. (2) That the parents' consent should be a necessary condition. (3) That the system of boarding-out should be administered under regulations to be laid down by the Education Department. (4) That no special classes should be allowed to refuse admission to boarded-out children. (5) That no money should be paid by the Education Department in aid of such boarding-out. (6) That the Education Department should provide for inspection, either by Her Majesty's Inspector or by a person appointed for the purpose, of boarded-out children in their homes. (7) That the School Authority of the district from which the child comes should contribute to the School Authority providing the special class, the payment to cover the proportionate cost incurred by the School Authority both in providing and in maintaining the special class; and that poor law guardians should similarly be empowered and required to make such payments to School Authorities in respect of boarded-out children attending special classes.

As regards the regulations to be laid down by the Education Department as to boarding-out defective children, we recommend the adoption of the regulations now in force as to boarding-out blind and deaf children, with this modification, that the defective children resident in the same home at the same time, whether boarded-out or not, should be limited to one, except in the case of brothers or sisters. Subject to this amendment, the regulations may be adopted, with the substitution of the word "defective" for the words "blind or deaf" wherever they occur.

The managers of the special classes are the proper persons to form or appoint the boarding-out committee; but we do not recommend that this duty should be made compulsory upon them.

68. School Authorities have at present no power to provide for the maintenance or education of defective children in institutions. General Moberly desires that School Authorities should be empowered to provide institutions for feeble-minded children.

The class of children in respect of whom provision by means of institutions has been recommended is as follows: Neglected, ill-treated or starved; girls who leave school at 14 and require some special care in a training home to fit them for earning their living; very defective children in the country, a small residuum. Miss F. A. Cooper, in her evidence, has described the existing state of the training homes associated with the Society for the Promotion of the Welfare of the Feeble-minded, and the policy of that Association with regard to the development of these homes. At present the homes are chiefly occupied by persons over the age of 16; and we do not consider that the training of such persons comes within the terms of reference to us.

There are no training homes of a similar character for feeble-minded boys.

69. Generally speaking, we do not consider that large institutions are the best form of provision for the education of feeble-minded children. Dr. Walmsley, in his evidence, has referred to some of the improved cases in Darenth and to the disadvantages of retaining them in such a place; and these disadvantages apply only in a less degree to the system of retaining feeble-minded children in institutions by themselves. Mr. Colvill has well expressed the disadvantages of institution life when applied to children who will have to try to earn a living in the country. "Defective children in the country are better fitted for their future by living at home in family life, and seeing all the sides of rural life and labour among their own people than by being drafted away to an institution necessarily very different in its arrangement from the ordinary rural home. In the institution all the manual work is of a more specialised type and under constant supervision, and the child is returned after a few years to things which have become unfamiliar and to people who have ceased to be friends."

Moreover, when once School Authorities begin to set up institutions for feeble-minded children, there is a risk that the line of discrimination may be drawn too low, in other words that they may send to such institutions children who are not merely feeble-minded, but imbecile, and may thus undertake work which lies outside theIr province, and may interfere with provision made for imbecile children by other means.

[page 27]

There are, however, cases of children admissible to the special classes as feeble-minded for whom an institution may be for a time preferable by reason of bad general health, or unsatisfactory home surroundings: or, again, by reason of some disabling physical defects, which prevent a child from attending day classes.

70. We recommend that School Authorities shall have the power of sending such children to certified institutions with the consent of the parents, but that institutions should only be certified on the following conditions:

The homes to be exclusively confined to children, the number of whom must not exceed 20, and the age of retention not to exceed 16; the sexes to be separated as a rule for all purposes except meals and lessons and recreation under supervision; the homes at all times to be open to the inspection of Her Majesty's Inspectors and any visitors deputed by the School Authorities sending the children; the accounts to be audited by a professional auditor, and to be submitted in prescribed form; the premises to conform to building rules similar to those laid down for schools for the blind and deaf; and the instruction in all respects to be the same as in special classes, except that, as regards religious instruction, the conditions should be those applicable to industrial schools.

We do not anticipate that this power of sending children to institutions will be largely used. There may be some children who have attended special classes up to the age of 14, and for whom a temporary stay in a training home may be desirable, with the view of enabling them to earn wages. We recommend that, for children over 14 and under 16, homes may be recognised where the conditions as to instruction being the same as that given in special classes are not complied with. But the manual instruction should be such as would be approved in special classes, and the institution should be conducted in other respects in conformity with the rules laid down above. In such homes some elementary instruction should be provided satisfactory to the Inspector. We recommend that School Authorities should have power to contribute to such training homes.

71. It will be observed that we have not recommended that any power shall be conferred upon School Authorities to send children to homes for feeble-minded children without the consent of their parents. Children who are ill-treated can already be taken from their parents by the procedure of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1889, if the ill-treatment comes within certain limits defined by that Act; and it is open to School Authorities to set the law in motion. By section 5 of the Act a petty sessional court has the power to order a child to be taken out of the custody of any person having the custody or control of such child, and to be committed to the charge of a relation or other person willing to undertake such charge, if the parent or other person having custody has been (a) convicted of an offence under sec. 1 of the Act (i.e., ill-treatment, neglect, abandonment, or exposure), or of any offence involving bodily injury to the child, and punishable with penal servitude, (b) committed to trial for such offence, (c) bound over to keep the peace toward the child. The person to whom the child is so committed is placed in loco parentis, and the parent cannot claim the child back, but the parent may be made liable to contribute to the child's support, except under (b) above.

We are not prepared to suggest further legislation in this direction on account of feeble-minded children as distinct from others.

72. In the case of blind and deaf children, it is provided by section 9 of the [1893] Blind and Deaf Children Act -

1. Where a school authority incur any expense under this Act in respect of any blind or deaf child, the parent of the child shall be liable to contribute towards the expenses of the child such weekly sum, if any, as, regard being had to the provisions of the Elementary Education Act, 1891, may be agreed on between the school authority and the parent, or, if the parties fail to agree, as may, on the application of either party, be settled by a court of summary jurisdiction, and any sum so agreed on or settled may, without prejudice to any other remedy, be recovered by the school authority summarily as a civil debt. 2. It shall be the duty of the school authority to enforce any order made under this section, and any sum received by a school authority under this section may be applied by the school authority in aid of their general expenses. 3. A court competent to make an order under this section may at any time revoke or vary any order so made.

[page 28]

of the maintenance of defective children in institutions, boarding out, and the expense of conveyance or guides, we have found some difference of opinion among the witnesses as to whether the parents should be liable for such contributions as they are able to make. We think that the parents should contribute, and that the procedure adopted in the case of blind and deaf children should be extended to defective children. Similarly, the parents of defective children should not, by reason of any payment made by the School Authority in respect of the child, be deprived of any franchise, right, or privilege, or be subject to any disability or disqualification.

73. By far the greater proportion of feeble-minded children who are at present attending school at all are found in the ordinary schools. The unsatisfactory nature of the provision there made for them is well known to the Department.

In the circular which we issued to the inspectors, both in rural and in urban districts, we asked for information as to the best methods observed for dealing with feeble-minded children in ordinary schools. The replies were of a uniform character, and amounted to this: that though the children are, as a rule, treated kindly, little success is attained in their instruction. They are classified with some regard to age, so that the older scholars may not be in the lowest classes, but chiefly according to attainments. The children are given as much individual attention as possible, but this is described as not much, and often are taught by a monitor. They are taught the same subjects as other children, but in a lower standard in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and with little expectation of success in class subjects. They "pick up what they can", "take their chance", and "mark time"; generally taking an extra time in the infants' class and two years or more in a standard. They are easily amenable to discipline, and do not appear to be considered as much trouble. As to their subsequent fate there is no evidence.

Miss Blackmore gave evidence before us as to the treatment of some feeble-minded children in her school whose teaching answers generally to this description. Some attempt is made to give them special attention by a pupil-teacher; but they make but little improvement, cause some disturbance, and would be better in a special class. The following Inspectors gave evidence to the same effect: Messrs. Willis, Harrison, Airy, Fisher, and Synge.

74. The only suggestion made for improving the provision for feeble-minded children in ordinary schools comes from Mr. Colvill. He recommends that in the case of defective children, a great deal of reading, writing, and arithmetic should be dispensed with and the child given some manual occupation, while the class is engaged on subjects beyond its powers. Desks or tables might be arranged for defective children, where they might sit under the eye of the teacher while the rest of the class are doing something else. The children should take certain lessons with the rest of the school, but might devote a third of each day to manual instruction, and some grant might be made by the Department to aid such special provision.

The difficulties in the way of carrying out these suggestions universally will be an additional demand upon the teacher of the rural school, who will ill be able to spare the necessary supervision, and who also cannot be expected to be qualified to teach all the forms of manual instruction that may be useful for defective children. The defective child occupied on manual instruction without proper supervision will gain but little benefit from his occupation. It may, however, be possible to find in some villages voluntary teachers willing to come forward, from charitable motives, and to devote a part of the day to assisting the manual instruction of defective children under the general supervision of the principal teacher.

75. We recommend that Inspectors shall make inquiry, when inspecting ordinary schools, as to the methods used for teaching defective children with a view of suggesting such special provision as may appear to be suitable.

76. We have already pointed out that most, if not all, the feeble-minded children come within the category of physically defective children. Unless some strong reason can be shown, we think that physical defect alone is not sufficient cause for the admission of a child to a special class, but that children of normal intellect, if they can attend school at all, should attend ordinary schools. A case is mentioned in Bristol of one boy brought to school by his mother, and carried up to the special

[page 29]

class, who is described as defective in his legs, but "all right in the upper part". We do not consider that the admission of such children to the special classes, to be taught with feeble-minded children, is proper. Children who are physically, but not otherwise, defective should, in our opinion, and in that of most of the witnesses, not be taught with feeble-minded children.

We come, however, to more difficult cases, such as are described by Miss Verrall, of children, who, without being mentally defective, are constantly ill and not capable of regular attendance or of hard work at school. Consequently they are very backward and require special care in teaching; and she is of opinion that the special classes are suitable for them, and that both they and feeble-minded children gain by their presence, and that if they did not attend these classes they would be absent altogether under a permanent medical certificate.

Dr. Warner also refers to children who are both dull and delicate, and who require special treatment; and Dr. Colman points out that the work of the ordinary school is too severe for some delicate children. Dr. Harris thinks that there are some such cases suitable for special classes; and Dr. Kerr would admit them, his rule being that any child who was unfit to be in the ordinary school, but could go to a special class and be educated, should go there.

The London School Board also desire that children should go to a special class who, by reason of physical defect, are unable to attend school.

We recommend that physically defective children shall be admitted to special classes if, owing to chronic ill-health they are not capable of receiving proper benefit from instruction in the ordinary school while capable of benefiting from instruction in the special classes.

77. Except in the case of blind or deaf children, School Boards have at present no power to pay for the conveyance of children to school or for guides to accompany them; nor have they any power to provide instruction outside the walls of a public elementary school. They have power to provide suitable furniture for children in school, and so may provide chairs suitable for crippled children in school, and probably also suitable chairs for carrying helpless children from one part of the school premises to another.

For districts not under School Boards there is no public body with any of these powers. Dr. Warner, Mr. Aldis, and General Moberly recommend that such powers of conveyance should be conferred upon School Boards.

We recommend that School Authorities should be empowered and required to provide means of conveyance to school of children who, by reason of physical defect, are otherwise unable to attend, and who are capable of profiting by the instruction; and that they should also provide guides where necessary. For children for whom ordinary schools cannot be made available by this means, we recommend that School Authorities should have powers of boarding-out near a school under regulations similar to those which we have recommended for feeble-minded children, and also of maintaining them at institutions where the instruction should be that of a public elementary school. Children of normal intellect should not be mixed with feeble-minded.

78. Physical defects may be so severe that children are neither able to be conveyed or guided to the ordinary school, nor able to bear regular instruction of the kind that will satisfy the conditions of a public elementary school.

We have considered whether any relaxation of the conditions of public elementary school-teaching can be recommended with the view of giving such children a certain amount of instruction under special arrangements. We do not, however, recommend that such instruction should be recognised by the Department. These children will, in most cases, be capable of occasional attendance at a public elementary school, and we do not think that instruction in the home or at the bedside, or in the hospital, can be undertaken by School Authorities. We agree with Mr. Loch that it is a fair field for voluntary effort; and we may refer to the interesting account given by Miss Sewell of her class for such children conducted by voluntary teachers in Southwark.

79. The teachers report 61 such cases in the special classes. The case of a child partially blind is mentioned at Bradford. It appears likely, from the description

[page 30]

of the children, that some of the cases mentioned by the teachers are blind within the meaning of the Blind and Deaf Children Act, which thus defines "blind and deaf":

"The expression 'blind' means too blind to be able to read the ordinary school-books used by children.

The expression 'deaf' means too deaf to be taught in a class of hearing children in an elementary school."

It is necessary that exact regulations shall be laid down for dealing with such cases. We recommend that the medical officer shall decide in respect of any feeble-minded child, whether it is blind or not blind, deaf or not deaf within the meaning of the Act. Feeble-minded children who are blind or deaf should not be taught in special classes for feeble-minded children who can see or hear. They should be classified as blind or deaf and provided for under the Blind and Deaf Children Act; and it is desirable that separate provision should be made in a blind or deaf school or institution for dealing with such children.

Probably the most convenient way of dealing with feeble-minded children who are blind, and feeble-minded children who are deaf, will be to send them to some institution, already existing for blind or deaf children, which may be willing to open a special branch for the reception of such children and to make special provision for their education.

[page 39]

[The complete Act was reproduced on this and the following page: you can see it here.]