View report page

97
into a Special School. Dr. Tredgold holds that you cannot send a child to a Special School unless it
is suffering from both types of defect. I can only repeat that I see nothing whatever in the Education
Act which justifies this view, and I shall be surprised if you find any Local Education Authority in
England which acted upon it.
(3) If it were argued that a child might be sent to a Special School if it were suffering only from
social or temperamental defect while it was possessed of normal intelligence, this, no doubt, would
be a very different affair and one on which I should hesitate to dogmatise. The argument would be
that social or temperamental incapacity was, in fact, a form of mental defect and brought a child
within the meaning of Section 55 (i.), in spite of normal intelligence in academic subjects. I think
this raises difficult questions, and you would, no doubt, walk warily in such a case. But the point does
not arise in the case of A.H. This child admittedly suffers from mental defect from the intelligence
point of view, and that appears to us to clench the matter.
(4) I may add that quite apart from this, we do not agree with Dr. Tredgold that the definition
of a feeble-minded child in the Mental Deficiency Act differs substantially from the definition of a
mentally defective child in the Education Act. In our view, the words in Section 1 (c) of the Mental
Deficiency Act which refer to care, supervision and control, do not apply to children and we hold,
therefore that the definitions of the mentally defective child in Section 55 (i.) of the Education Act
and of the feeble-minded child in Section 1 (c) of the Mental Deficiency Act are practically identical.
Even, therefore, if the Mental Deficiency Act affected the action of an authority under Section 55 (i.)
of the Education Act in deciding whether or not to send a child to a Special School (which we do not
think it does) we should still not agree that social incapacity came into the picture.
(5) You will, of course, regard this letter as unofficial; but I feel fairly clear myself that if
your authority thought that it was to the interest of A.H. that she should be sent to a Special School
they would be on perfectly safe grounds in proceeding to secure her attendance. Both your Certifying
Officer and Dr. Tredgold consider that she is incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction
in an ordinary Public Elementary School, and I cannot myself see what more you want, or how any
court of law could take any other view.
Yours sincerely,
A. H. WOOD
Report on A.H., Aged 12 Years.
I have to-day examined the above named girl and find as follows.
She is much retarded educationally and of sub-normal scholastic capacity, so much so that I
consider she may fairly be described as incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in
an ordinary public elementary school.
In addition, she is timid, nervous, and below the average of her years in general knowledge
and in the capacity for making mental comparisons, forming judgments and reasoning. She has,
however, sufficient intelligence to adapt herself satisfactorily to her environment, and my opinion
regarding this was confirmed by the statement of her father, that she could hold her own in games,
and could employ herself in a satisfactory manner in the performance of simple household duties.
In the event of little further development of the higher mental functions taking place it is
possible that at a later age, and when she is called upon to face responsibilities unaided, she might
prove unequal to the task, and that she might then be certifiable under the Mental Deficiency Act ;
but at the present time I do not regard her as so certifiable.
Her certifiability as a mentally defective child under the Education Act depends upon the
interpretation of the term "Mental Defect" in that Act. If this term is interpreted to mean a defect
of educational capacity only, then she could be certified and sent to a special school. If, on the other
hand, the term is interpreted to mean a defect similar to that needed for certification under the Mental
Deficiency Act, then she could not be so certified. This is an important distinction which has not yet
been settled, and the precise interpretation will probably need a decision by the Courts. I think it is
quite likely that in this particular case, if it were decided to send the child to a special school and the
parent contested this decision, the Court might decide in favour of the father.
I am of the opinion that the child is undoubtedly in need of more special, practical, and individual
training than she can obtain in an ordinary elementary school ; but I think that, in view of the
comparatively slight social incapacity which she presents this training would best be afforded by a
practical or backward class in an ordinary school, rather than by a special school, were such
available.
(Signed) A. F. TREDGOLD, M.D.
12th January, 1925.