10. Before taking part in anything important, what should you do?

11. Why do we forgive a bad deed done in anger more readily than a bad deed done without anger?

12. If anyone asks your opinion about a person whom you know very little, what would you do?

13. Why should one judge a person by his acts rather than by his words?

These questions present various difficulties, both in thought and in vocabulary. We have tried them upon a great number of school children, and they correspond pretty exactly to the level of children at the ages indicated.

The answers of the children may be good, pa.s.sable, mediocre, or negative (the child makes no reply), or even absurd or unintelligible.

In marking the replies one does not take account of a wrong word or an awkward phrase, but considers the meaning and whether the child has really understood. It may seem that marking these replies would be rather delicate and arbitrary, but in practice the difficulty is not great. Here are some examples:

(10) The reply, "Ask some capable person, a master, a parent," is a good reply. "Ask it," "Listen for it," are pa.s.sable replies.

(7) The reply, "Pay and apologize," is good. "Pay for it," is pa.s.sable.

(8) The reply, "Forgive him," is better than the reply, "Don't tell tales."

(1) The reply, "Hurry up," is better than, "Ring the bell," "Hurry to-morrow," "One is kept in."

(3) The reply, "One remains ignorant," is better than, "One is punished."

(4) The reply, "Take a rest, then walk," is better, being more explicit, than simply, "Walk."

We mark the good replies 3, the pa.s.sable 2, the mediocre 1, the absurd and silence 0. Silence sometimes makes one hesitate. It may result from timidity, or even from prolonged reflection. It is necessary, without changing the form of the question, to encourage the child and to press him to reply. With a little practice one can easily see who is trying to find an answer and who does not understand.

We have stated that normal children of eleven years of age replied to the questions 10 to 13. It must be understood that by this we mean that the majority replied. There are no tests which can characterise all the subjects without exception of a given group. There are always failures. By way of example, we shall quote the observations we made in an elementary school with our questions 10 to 13, which we put to all the children of eleven, who were distributed, according to their ability, in the different cla.s.ses. There were thirty-six of these pupils. The maximum of marks obtainable was 12, since there were four questions, and a good reply was worth 3. We then obtained the following averages:

Tests of Intelligence put to Normal Children of Eleven Years of Age.

Average Marks.

Senior, first year 11 Intermediate, second year 6 Intermediate, first year 4.7

In the "intermediate course, second year," there were two children who obtained 0 and 1. In the "intermediate course, first year," there were four who got 0, and one who got only 1. What were these pupils, who had certainly not reached the average intellectual level of eleven years? Two are said to be defectives by the head-master. Let us subtract them, and there remain five; and these work sufficiently well to remain in their cla.s.s and to follow the lessons. Their success is a very important fact. A child may not have very much intelligence, but if he has a good memory, application, and will, he is regular in his studies, and this compensates for the mental feebleness. We have often noticed this. If a child is regular in his school work, the question whether he is a defective does not present itself. It only presents itself if the case is reversed. Supposing he is very clearly backward, by two years, by three years, with a sufficient school attendance. If, in spite of this r.e.t.a.r.dation, the psychological examination shows that he is all the same quite intelligent, this is a favourable circ.u.mstance of which he should have the advantage. In other terms, the psychological examination is capable of showing that he is normal, even when he is behindhand in his studies. This examination cannot, in any case, serve to make him be regarded as defective if he is regular in his studies. This is why we place this examination last.

Here are some very good replies from normal children:

_G. R----_:

10. It would be necessary to consider where the affair would lead us.

11. Because when a bad action is done without anger one knows what one is doing, while when one is angry one does not know what one is doing.

12. One should say nothing. If one does not know the person one cannot tell what he is.

13. By his words he may deceive us. By his acts we can tell what he is.

_G----_:

10. It is necessary to think what one is going to do.

11. Because when one acts without anger one has thought beforehand, and is more to blame; while, on the other hand, it is an act of pa.s.sion, and afterwards one regrets what one has done.

12. I would say that it would be necessary to know him first and then afterwards to judge him, not to say anything bad or good about him without knowing him.

13. Because there are people who say words and often do not do them.

Here are some replies which are mediocre or absurd:

12. You should try to ask the particulars of the person you do not know. (Mediocre.)

13. Because his acts are more terrible while his words are less threatening. (Mediocre.)

11. Because the action which has been done in anger is not so violent. (Mediocre.)

13. Because you must not speak after the person who speaks.

(Absurd.)

In a cla.s.s of defectives of eleven years of age we obtained from seven children an average of replies equal to 1.3. This figure, therefore, is considerably less than that of the normal children regular in their studies, and even than that of the normal with a r.e.t.a.r.dation of two years. Let us note in pa.s.sing a very curious fact. We had had to examine these defectives before their admission into the special cla.s.s. Now, the teachers sent us as defective two children who were clearly intelligent, for one of them obtained five marks and the other eight. Let us give the replies of the latter, whose name was Cler, age eleven years:

10. You would have to think. (Good.)

11. Because anger is less serious. (Absurd.)

12. Say nothing bad about him, because I do not know him well.

(Good.)

13. Because words are not correct. It is not certain that he will do it. (Pa.s.sable.)

These replies are evidently not very brilliant, but they are so superior to the level of a defective that we have sent this child back to the ordinary school. We have since learned a fact which was not originally communicated to us. This child came from the country, and he did not begin to go to school until the age of ten.

To sum up, we offer the psychological examination as a means of rehabilitating a child who has a marked degree of r.e.t.a.r.dation. That is its sole utility. Never, in any case, must this examination be used to label as defective a child who keeps up with his lessons.

A last word regarding the necessity of these examinations.

We know that, after having read the preceding pages, more than one inspector, more than one teacher, will exclaim, "What is the use of all this? I am quite accustomed to questioning children, and I don't require such precautions in order to distinguish between those who are intelligent and those who are not. By two or three questions which are quite familiar to me I can judge the state of instruction."

We have paid homage to the ability of the teachers and inspectors sufficiently often to be permitted to maintain here against those who would contradict us the necessity of our methods or of others of a similar kind. In order to determine the degree of intelligence or the state of instruction of a child one would require to have in mind the normal levels. Now, frankly, who knows what these are? Let any inspector, any teacher, glance over our test questions. He will be very much at a difficulty to say whether it is at nine years or at seven years that a child ought to be able to reply suitably to a particular question. We will go even farther. Let an inspector look at our scale, and say at what age reading is "fluent," at what age a child should write the third phrase with less than ten mistakes. Just let him try, and he will find the result. Let us add that people who are neither inspectors nor teachers will be still more embarra.s.sed. We recollect that at the recent opening of a special cla.s.s some eminent people appeared much astonished at the intelligence of the pupils.

They were surprised at children of twelve years who made replies of which in reality normal children of eight should have been capable. It is impossible to form a correct judgment about matters so delicate unless one makes use of exact tests. We insist upon this because we foresee that all who visit the cla.s.s for defectives will be subject to this illusion. All the more will they have an optimistic tendency to overestimate the intelligence and instruction of the children since they know in advance that they are going to see defectives, and consequently have a preconceived expectation of seeing degraded imbeciles with low foreheads and dirty habits. They will be quite surprised to find that the great majority of defectives do not answer to this description, and seeing that they have fallen into an error, they will correct themselves as usual by falling into the opposite mistake.

=Estimation of Want of Balance.=--If it is easy to determine backwardness by a direct examination of a child's state of instruction, the difficulty of establishing a lack of mental balance is, on the other hand, very great. Such want of balance is indicated by breaches of discipline, inattention, naughtiness, lying, violence, brutality, etc. But it would be a very unruly child who would not behave quietly when taken apart by the inspector. Isolated in the examination room, surrounded by strange, grave people, the child shrinks into himself. He has little occasion or desire for a display of rebellion or naughtiness when his comrades are not there to admire him. Possibly an exact estimation of his reactions, of his motor ability, of his power of attention, would indicate the presence of some anomalies; but this is not certain, and is not to be relied upon.

There may be some hope in that direction for the pedagogy of the future, but scientific investigations cannot help us to-day. In short, mental want of balance cannot, in the majority of cases, be the object of direct examination.

How, then, can it be estimated? Indirectly, by the evidence of others.

The inspector, then, must be content to accept the facts which are given to him by the teacher, but he must not accept them altogether on trust. Are these facts correct? Are they probable? Is any evidence of them to be found? Have they been altered in the telling? Such will be the first queries to awaken the critical spirit of the inspector. Then it must not be forgotten that he can question the parents, and hear their replies before letting them know the opinion of the teacher, and that everything they say will help him to judge not only the child, but the family circ.u.mstances in which he lives. The ill-balanced are often spoiled, or only children, or children not looked after, or children whose father has disappeared. The sons of widows form a considerable contingent. Now, the inspector will gain a good deal of information from the school history of the child. The ill-balanced is a nomad. He has attended several schools. It is important to find out what impression he has left behind him. The proof of want of balance is not to be taken from a single teacher. If three teachers, at least, whose pedagogic reputation is good, agree about a child, the chances are that their estimate is correct. The inspector will resort to such controls, and if he is not satisfied, and if the alleged facts are not very serious, he will remove the child to another cla.s.s or another school rather than send him to a cla.s.s for defectives.