Library Collections: Document: Full Text

"The benefits to be derived from the establishment of a school for this class of persons, upon humane and scientific principles, would be very great. The school, if conducted by persons of skill and ability, would be a model for others .... it would be demonstrated that no idiot need be confined or restrained by force; that the young can be trained to industry, order, and self-respect; that they can be redeemed from odious and filthy habits, and that there is not one of any age, who may not be made more of a man, and less of a brute, by patience and kindness, directed by energy and skill." "Now, we claim for idiots a place in the human family" (p. 17).

As the foregoing quotation and the one following below illustrate, the founding of the early institutions was accompanied by a pride, hope, and euphoria we can scarcely comprehend: "Let us now turn to the present: like Rome, we Americans can also boast of God-like men in our annals, and illustrious deeds on the historic page; as she had, we likewise are perhaps characterized by prominent faults, and by some compensating virtues." "Our eagles too have flown over a space equal to that which was traversed by those of Rome. To the Obelisks, and especially to the Cyclopean Coliseum we can show nothing equal or analagous. But we possess a class of institution scattered throughout our country, to which Rome was a stranger, and through which we have attained an exalted position that she never reached, or even had the soul to aspire unto" (attributed to an 1859 superintendent by DeProspo, 1966, p. 37).

Protecting the Deviant From the Nondeviant

As mentioned earlier, history appears to have wronged the founding fathers in ascribing to them the hope of "curing" large numbers of retardates. Our texts also seem to be partially mistaken in judging the early institutions to have failed to reach their objectives. Many residents were much improved under the tight and well-planned training regimens of the pioneers, and a substantial proportion of trainees did, indeed, return to the community.

About 26 per cent of residents discharged in Connecticut were believed to be self-supporting (Knight, 1879). In Kentucky, in 1884, alone, about 3 per cent of the residents of the state institution were placed into community employment (Kerlin, 1885, p. 166), and about 19 per cent of all new admissions were eventually discharged as self-supporting (Rogers, 1888, p. 102-103). "The experience of the past thirty years proves that, of those who are received and trained in institutions, 10 to 20 per cent are so improved as to be able to enter life as breadwinners; that from 30 to 40 per cent are returned to their families so improved as to be self-helpful, or at least much less burdensome to their people;" (Kerlin, 1888, p. 100). At Glenwood (Iowa), 68 of 195 residents were separated between 1885 and 1887, and 10 to 20 per cent of the residents appeared to attain eventual self-sufficiency in the community (Powell, 1887). "All of our schools for the feeble-minded have succeeded in sending out a goodly number of persons who are bearing bravely their share of the burden of life" (Rogers, 1888, p. 102).

There were, however, four problems:

1. There were bound to be failures with a certain proportion of residents.

2. For every resident successfully discharged, the statistical probabilities (due to the law of regression) were that his replacement would be less successful. It is hard to improve upon successful habilitation; it is much easier to fail thereafter.

3. Many residents who could have been partially habilitated had no place to return to, and thus, after some years, their continued presence reduced turnover. Seguin referred to this as early as 1870 as a ". . . paternal, not yet legalized, arrangement" (p. 12), and Fernald (1893, p. 210) later described it as follows: "In the course of a few years, in the annual reports of these institutions we find the superintendents regretting that it was not expedient to return to the community a certain number of the cases who had received all the instruction the school had to offer." "It was found that only a small proportion . . . could be so developed and improved that they could go out into the world and support themselves independently. A larger number, as a result of the school discipline and training, could be taken home where they became comparatively harmless and unobjectionable members of the family, capable, under the loving and watchful care of their friends, of earning by their labor as much as it cost to maintain them. But in many cases the guardians of these children were unwilling to remove them from the institution, and begged that they might be allowed to remain where they could be made happy and kept from harm. Many of these cases were homeless and friendless, and, if sent away from the school, could only be transferred to almshouses where they became depraved and demoralized by association with adult paupers and vagrants of both sexes. It was neither wise nor humane to turn these boys and girls out to shift for themselves. The placing of these feeble-minded persons always proved unsatisfactory. Even those who had suitable homes and friends able and willing to become responsible for them, by the death of these relatives were thrown on their own resources and drifted into pauperism and crime. It gradually became evident that a certain number of these higher-grade cases needed life-long care and supervision, and that there was no suitable provision for this permanent custody outside these special institutions."