Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London County Council]
This page requires JavaScript
The Minister of Education, in circular 347, withdrew circular 179, accepted the pattern
advocated by the Underwood Committee for the organisation of child guidance clinics and
asked local education authorities to consult with hospital authorities and to furnish a
progress report by June, 1960.
Consequently the Council has reviewed the provision of child guidance facilities in
London and formulated provisional plans for future development, which were still under
discussion with the boards at the end of 1959.
(n) Summary of present provision in London—The main emphasis in the foregoing account
has, necessarily, been concerned with the activities of the Council. However, over the past
thirty years child guidance facilities have been introduced at many of the teaching hospitals
in London, and a number of special establishments have been developed. In 1948 most of
the latter were incorporated in the national health service, with the regional hospital boards
accepting responsibility. A few clinics remain independent, being run on a voluntary basis,
with assistance from the regional boards, in specific cases, on a contractual basis.
It is not easy to give a complete picture of the aggregate facilities available to London
children, since not in all cases does a 'clinic' provide the full team facilities which are
the essential framework of child guidance; some of the 'clinics' listed in directories
consist merely of an out-patient psychiatric clinic once a week. With this proviso there
were at the end of 1959 some 30 child guidance clinics in London; half of these were
provided by teaching hospitals; one-third by the regional hospital boards; and the
remainder by the Council, together with a few independent clinics.
III.—Special educational treatment
(a) Early beginnings—From the earliest days of the child guidance movement it was
clear that the solution to some children's problems lie purely in the educational sphere.
The report of the London Clinic for the period ended 31 March, 1931 (quotations from
which have been given earlier) also contained the following reference :
"In cases where an educational difficulty is present, the educational advisers of the Clinic are often
able to point out its cause, and to indicate necessary modifications of the school curriculum. Coaching
is also given, but only with the assent of the teacher. A speech training class is held twice a week for
the treatment of stammer and other speech defects
This same report also referred to the placement of some children away from home,
so that thirty years ago we have a picture of the child guidance clinic itself, faute de mieux,
engaging in special educational action.
(b) Review of 1943—The review carried out in London following upon the report of
the Feversham Committee, which led to the setting up of the problem case conferences,
still accepted the view that the Council should not use boarding placement for maladjusted
children, as the following quotation shows:
"Under the Evacuation Scheme many hostels have been opened by local billeting authorities for
'difficult' children, sometimes designated 'maladjusted'. There have been a few cases of evacuated
London children who have been admitted to voluntary schools for maladjusted children at the instigation
of the local authority of the reception area.
While we believe that many unstable and troublesome children would be improved if not cured by
going to boarding schools run by capable and understanding teachers, we have grave doubts whether
the bringing together of several 'maladjusted' children in the same small school or hostel does not
defeat its object. The experience of one headmaster who has conducted an efficient and happy boarding
school under the Evacuation Scheme is that he can cope successfully with superficially bad boys so long
as they do not exceed about ten per cent of the roll.
We do not think there is any occasion for the Council to change its policy not to agree generally to
sending children as a matter of medical treatment to voluntary schools or hostels set up solely for
maladjusted children.
Until such times as the Council may be given new powers to provide boarding schools for children
who are not destitute or not delinquent or not physically or mentally defective we think the Council
might express their willingness to co-operate with any parent who finds his child beyond control for
reasons of temperament by accepting the care of that child under the Children and Young Persons Act,
1933
147