What NEW provision has been made in your school system in the year 1912-13 for the education of exceptional children? Please tell how many classes have been started, how large these classes are, how many teachers, and any other details which are important and interesting: For delinquents?... For defective children?. Day schools for foreigners?. Parental or residential school?.. Classes for epileptics?... Classes for late-entering children?........... Special help teachers?. Classes for stammerers, stutterers, lispers? Classes for mutes (not deaf)?. Classes for children from subnormal homes? Do you have physical examination for Do you have dental clinics?.. The inquiry was limited to the public-school systems; private schools for backward and defective children, and State institutions for the blind and deaf and feeble-minded being omitted for several reasons. Most cogent of all is the fact that private schools are nowhere listed indeed many of them expressly avoid such listing. It would therefore be impossible to obtain a sufficiently complete address list of these schools to make it worth while to ask them for a report of progress, even if their progress were likely to be of a kind that could be reported. As for the newly established private schools, the ones most important to an inquiry of this sort, the case is hopeless. No one but the few people directly interested knows where they are or what they are doing. The reason for excluding State institutions was somewhat different. It was expected that they would be reported upon by the State superintendents of public instruction, but all except three failed to mention anything of the kind in their reports, even when they made any report at all. The gratifying exceptions were Philippine Islands, Missouri, and Idaho, which will be mentioned later. Twenty State superintendents out of a possible 52 made returns, about the same proportion as held for the returns of both State and city superintendents. In all, 330 questionnaires were returned (counting the report for the Philippine Islands as covering also Manila), or nearly 35 per cent of the number sent out. This in itself is a striking index of the apathy prevailing among administrators of public education with respect to a problem which should arouse their keenest interest and heartiest cooperation. Twelve State superintendents had nothing to report. Two of these, the superintendents of Ohio and California, said they had "no statistics on this subject." Two others, Maryland and Kentucky, were evidently aware of what was done in certain large towns, and referred us to the local superintendents for information. Another, Maine, remarked that "the information is more readily given for a single school rather than the State." The superintendent of South Carolina forwarded his report for 1912. Pennsylvania reported "nothing new was added to the legislation this year"; Texas, Arkansas, Iowa, Colorado, and Oregon apparently grasped the meaning of the inquiry, but had no progress to report. The returns from city superintendents, however, showed that Austin, Tex., and Little Rock, Ark., had made provision for exceptional children for the first time, and three cities in Iowa and three in Colorado had extended their provision. Seven States reported progress, as did also the Philippine Islands. Satisfactory detailed reports were received from New York, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Michigan has passed a law giving the care of blind babies to the State board of education, and at the time of writing (September, 1913) one child was cared for. Missouri has provided for a State reform school for negro girls. Kansas has a new law making night schools possible as a part of the regular school organization. The Idaho Legislature has made an appropriation for building a school for the feeble-minded. In Manila a school for the deaf and blind was established, in which were five classes for deaf and three classes for blind children. Two other institutions have been established and conducted by the Catholic Church. The first of these, the Hospicio de San José in Manila, is an orphanage giving academic and industrial training to about 250 boys and girls. The second is a reformatory for boys at Lolomboy, Bulacan, where industrial as well as academic training is given. As might have been expected, the reports from city superintendents, while preserving the same meager proportion of returns, were numerically more impressive and were much more satisfying in detail. Although information was plainly requested about new provision for exceptional children in the year 1912-13, a great many included provisions which had been in force for several years past, and this necessitated a laborious checking over of all returns by comparing them with the tables in the 1911 bulletin. Other superintendents anticipated history by setting forth what they were planning to do next year, and these data had likewise to be carefully eliminated.. The greatest progress in organization and the most interesting report were made in Philadelphia. Dr. Cornman's letter inclosing the questionnaire is an illuminating example of brains applied to educational problems. I quote from Dr. Cornman's letter at length, because it introduces an administrative change in the nomenclature of special classes which can be recommended for adoption: You will see from the inclosed questionnaire that little new provision in the way of additional classes and equipment for exceptional children was made during the year 1912-13. During that year, however, the entire corps of special class teachers, principals having special classes, and district superintendents interested were organized in a committee which did effective work in the study of problems connected with these classes and in the preparation of suggestive outlines of work, daily programs, etc. This material will be mimeographed and tried out in the classroom with the idea of printing it later with the modifications suggested by experience. You will be specially interested, I think, to learn that, as a result of the consideration of the classification of the children of the so-called "disciplinary" and "backward" classes, a somewhat different scheme of grading and nomenclature than that heretofore used has been worked out. So many of the pupils of the disciplinary classes were found to be very backward, or even mentally deficient, and so many of the backward classes were of the mixed type, that the distinction did not seem useful enough to retain it. It seemed better to lay the emphasis entirely upon the ways and means of securing the better development of the pupil. Using the term you use in the psychological clinic, the classes may be designated as "orthogenic," this term superseding the terms "backward” and “disciplinary'' heretofore employed. It has the advantage of characterizing the classes by the aim or method, rather than by terms more or less opprobriously descriptive of the children themselves. The same practice can be applied to other types of special classes; for example, "orthopedic" for crippled children, "open-window'' for under-nourished and anemic children, "open-air" for those with active tuberculosis who must be by law segregated in separate buildings. It has been customary heretofore to designate the grade of the children as nearly as possible in the special classes in rough accordance with the grading in the regular classes, the special class under such a plan having perhaps several of the eight elementary grades represented in its enrollment. This is so inaccurate, and has so many other obvious disadvantages, that it seems better to employ a simpler grading as follows: "A" designating pupils of low mentality held in special classes pending proper institutional provision. "B" designating pupils of a grade of mentality above the institutional type, but not to be regarded as candidates for return to regular classes. "C" designating retarded pupils of higher mentality who ought to be restored, if possible, to regular grades; also pupils able mentally to do work of the regular grades, but who, by reason of moral deficiency, can not be permitted to attend them, these pupils to remain in special classes until better provision can be made for them. It is believed that these classifications will encourage the teacher to approach the problem from other points of view than that of the regular classroom, and assist her in escaping from some of the distinctions, ideals, and traditions of regular class work which do not properly apply to the special class. The greatest contrast to this letter is offered by a superintendent whose interest, it is easy to see, is far removed from the education of exceptional children. He says: You Under separate cover we are sending you a copy of the school laws of will see by referring to this book that most of the questions which you have asked in your letter of August 13 are taken care of either through the State schools, county organizations, or our parochial and vocational schools. A letter, which carries with it a rich flavor of the fine old early Victorian style in education, comes from a southern city. The super intendent writes: Ours is a public-school system; the object and effort is to give the children a practical and substantial education, such as will fit them for the practical problems of life. We do what we can to fit them for good citizenship; to educate them to understand that success in life for each individual depends upon well-directed individual efforts; that commercial honor, commercial integrity, is a large factor toward success; to live within their individual means; not to borrow from others with a view of not paying back; we want them taught to be against anarchy and anarchists, against socialists and socialism—all these isms they must get elsewhere. Further, we do not believe in relieving the family, father and mother, of all the burden and responsibility of rearing their family. It is pleasant to note that in spite of this superintendent's struggles, his school system is included in the table of cities making progress, on the strength of ungraded classes for backward, late-entering, and gifted children, manual training, and vacation schools. In compiling the returns, the first table (Table I) was constructed to cover cities which were not included in the previous bulletin and were therefore regarded as having for the first time made provision for exceptional children. The second table (Table II) covers all the cities which were included in that bulletin and have since extended their provision by adding to the number of their classes or by starting classes for different kinds of children. Wherever the data permitted, a quantitative record was made of the number of each kind of class which had been organized. Where numbers were not forthcoming, a cross in the column indicates a qualitative improvement, i. e., something has been done of unknown extent. Thirty-six cities in 24 States made provision for exceptional children for the first time; while 162 cities in 34 States extended their provision. Ninety-three cities which already provided for exceptional children had no progress to report, and 15 cities reported that no such provision had ever been made. The most interesting from the point of view of this study are naturally the 36 cities which have newly come into the ranks of the progressive. They are very widely scattered over the country, the largest number in one State being 4 in California, followed by 3 in Pennsylvania, and 3 in Washington. The distribution by States and geographical divisions is summarized in Table III. In Table IV is summarized the distribution of the 162 cities which extended their provision. In addition to the classified returns, four questionnaires were received which could not be classified, because they were unsigned and the postmarks were obliterated. THE TRAINING OF TEACHERS OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN. Courses in psychology and pedagogy, having the aim to fit teachers and other students for professional work with exceptional children, increased greatly in number during the year 1913. Many of the higher institutions of learning do not yet offer courses which either directly or indirectly serve to train teachers and professional experts with exceptional children, but several have undertaken this task, and teachers of exceptional children are now assured satisfactory courses at a number of institutions. Many also offered a more or less thorough training to students in the college and graduate school. Perhaps it is but fair to say that these courses are most fully represented in the college, graduate school, and summer session of the University of Pennsylvania. This institution was the first to offer courses, the direct object of which was to train teachers of backward children. As early as the year 1897 such courses were offered and a special class for backward children was organized and held daily · sessions during the summer school. A psychological clinic also was first organized at this institution, and has been employed to demonstrate to teachers and other students the characteristics of these children, as well as to investigate their mental and physical status and to suggest approved methods of educational treatment. A number of institutions now provide such courses, chiefly at the summer session, three offer instruction through a psychological clinic, and three conduct one or more classes of exceptional children for purposes of student observation. Up to the present time, with the exception of one class, the work has been confined to the various types of backward and feeble-minded children ordinarily to be found in classes for backward children in connection with the public schools. At the summer session of 1912 there was conducted at the University of Pennsylvania a special class for exceptionally bright children. There can be little doubt that this work in time will be extended to cover other groups of exceptional children than the merely backward. During the summer session of 1913 five classes for backward children were conducted at New York University, and a class was conducted for the first time at the University of California. In addition, the Vineland Training School (New Jersey) followed its practice of several years and most generously opened this institution to teachers of backward children. The institution provides board and training for these teachers. The types of children to be observed in this institution naturally are institutional cases, who properly should not be in public-school classes at all, but many of them are of mental grade the equivalent of perhaps about 50 per cent of the children to be found in the backward classes of our larger cities. The State of Pennsylvania may justly take pride in the fact that two of its universities are offering courses of instruction and providing a psychological clinic and a special class for observation. In 1913 the University of Pittsburgh at its summer session offered four courses and presented a special class for observation; moreover, this work is continued during the regular academic session, and a circular announces that a special class, a Montessori class, will be organized this fall. This class, owing to the clinico-psychological methods of the Montessori system, falls within the type of educational work to be considered in this report. In addition to the two Pennsylvania institutions, New York University offered in the summer session of 1913 nine courses and conducted five special classes. The University of California offered five courses, |