View report page

96
Willesden Urban District Council,
Health Department,
Town Hall,
Dyne Road,
Kilburn, N.W. 6.
6th August, 1925.
Dear Mr. Wood,
I am afraid that I did not make myself quite clear in the three paragraphs in my Annual Report
for 1924, which you refer to in your letter of the 31st ult.
The difficulty is as to the precise meaning of the term " Mental Defect," which requires to exist
before certification that a child is incapable of receiving proper benefit, etc. (Education Act, 1921,
Section 55 (1) (a) ). If this term is interpreted to mean a defect of educational capacity only, the
position is clear, but if, on the other hand, it is interpreted to mean a defect of education capacity plus
a social incapacity, i.e., a defect similar to that required for certification under the Mental Deficiency
Act, 1913 (vide definition of feeble-minded children, Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, Section 1 (c) ),
difficulties arise.
The following case which was recently considered by the Children's Care Committee of this
Authority will illustrate what I mean:—
A.H. was examined on the 21st November, 1924, and was certified as Mentally Defective under
the Education Act, 1921, by the Certifying Officer. Her chronological age was 12, her mental age 8
and her intelligence quotient 66. Her educational capacity in reading reached about a 7 year old
standard and her spelling and arithmetic about a 6 year old standard. Her writing was of poor
quality. On the other hand she had a sufficient degree of ordinary intelligence to adapt herself to
her environment and could "hold her own" with other children, in other words, there was not any
appreciable degree of social incapacity present.
The parents refused to allow the child to attend the Special School for Mentally Defective
Children, and the case was seen by Dr. Tredgold, the Council's Specialist for Mental Deficiency, and
I attach a copy of his report for your information.
In view of the opinion he expressed, the Authority did not see their way to take the matter
to the Law Courts, and this child was allowed to remain in an ordinary elementary school.
I would be very glad to hear from you on this matter for future guidance.
Yours truly,
GEORGE F. BUCHAN,
Medical Officer of Health.
A. H. Wood, Esq.,
Board of Education,
Medical Branch,
54, Victoria Street,
London, S.W. 1.
Board of Education,
Medical Branch,
54, Victoria Street,
London, S.W. 1.
11th August, 1925.
Dear Dr. Buchan,
(1) Thanks for your letter of August 6th. I know Dr. Tredgold's views and have, in fact,
discussed them with him. He knows that we disagree with him on this particular point and, I am
sure, that he would not mind my telling you so. The view of the Board is that in deciding whether
or not a child should be sent to a Special School, the Local Education Authority have to consider
the bearing of Section 55 (i.) of the Education Act, 1921, and that alone. Any definitions or requirements
of the Mental Deficiency Act are, for this purpose, quite beside the point and do not come
into the matter at all.
(2) In the case you mention it is agreed apparently by all parties that the child A.H. could not
profit by the instruction in an ordinary Public Elementary School, but could profit from the instruction
in a Special School. That appears to us to settle the question. The fact that there is no social incapacity
present is immaterial. I have no doubt whatever myself that the child ought to go to a
Special School, and I cannot imagine any court of law taking any other view. I think it would be
fair to put the matter as follows. Dr. Tredgold holds, and we should probably all agree with him,
that there are two types of mental defect, one of which we may for the sake of convenience, call an
intelligence defect, and the other a social or temperamental defect. We, at the Board, hold quite
clearly that if a child is suffering from the first type of defect, that is sufficient ground for putting it