Library Collections: Document: Full Text

However, much as I admire the leadership Dr. Rosenzweig has given in our field, and much as I concur with most of his findings and proposals, my major disagreement pertains to his strong affirmation of the validity of the three groupings. I will readily admit that five, six years ago the introduction of the concepts of "trainable" and "educable" was a great step forward in our effort to improve educational opportunities for the retarded. Yet when one follows educational studies and proposals of recent years one finds ample evidence that the educators themselves increasingly reject the original sharp dividing line between these two classifications without however being able to agree on a specific alternative. Some feel the need for designating a middle group of low-educable and high-trainable and others want to shift the trainable group to an approximate range of a 40 to 60 I.Q. From several European countries comes evidence that children originally assessed as more severely retarded can show a very substantial improvement changing in our terms from trainable to educable, and I am happy to see on one of the exhibit tables here the proceedings of the W. H. O. sponsored European Conference on Mental Subnormality which took place in Oslo in 1958 and where findings of this nature were reported, because I think we in North America have paid far too little attention to very significant work that England, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries are doing in this field.

Unfortunately by introducing in the educational realm the terms educable and trainable we have merely helped to reinforce the old classical division between idiots, imbeciles and morons which still to-day dominates our institutions, and which denies the imbecile or trainable any substantial potential for growth. Yet the most significant study by Gerhardt Saenger, entitled "The Adjustment of Severely Retarded Adults in the Community" (published by the N. Y. State Interdepartmental Health Resources Board, 1958) and the experience of a variety of sheltered workshops and, I might add, if you look closely enough, even the experience of quite a few of our institutions, demonstrates how much we have underestimated the capacity of those classed as trainable or imbecile.

But the problem of the insuitability of the present classification scheme which has become an institutional caste system is only one of many obstacles to progressive planning. Another one relates to the characterization you heard yesterday of the trainable namely, that "at maturity they will perform like children of four to eight years." This is, of course, precisely what has been accepted in many of our institutions and this is why they have no hesitancy to refer to grown-up men and women as boys and girls and to subject them routinely to treatment appropriate for young children. But does it really make any sense, my friends, to say that the 26 year old mongoloid young woman whom I observed manufacturing an attractive dress on an electric sewing machine in a sheltered workshop in the Hague, Holland, is performing like a child of six years? Her Binet I.Q. was 35. She had practically no speech and bore the physical characteristics of the mongoloid to a marked degree yet she worked an 8-four day and commuted alone by street-car.

I am mentioning her because it was this particular case that brought home to me the folly of our traditional institutional regime on the one hand, and of Dr. Cruikshank's educational theory on the other. But if you want further substantiation walk over to the exhibit table where free copies are available of the Proceedings of last year's C.A.R.C. Conference and on page 25 you will find specific references in a pertinent speech by your own Dr. Richardson whose work in mental retardation has spanned three continents.

My friends, I am keenly aware that with the limited time at our disposal, I must rush through material that deserves a far more detailed presentation. What I have been trying to convey to you is that we have indeed allowed to a marked extent years spent by the more severely retarded in our institutions to become "Lost Years", because traditional prejudice and prejudgement have kept us from recognizing and developing the potentials of these individuals. To be sure not all "trainables" or, as our clinicians would say, "imbeciles", by any means are capable of what we might call sustained productive work effort and this is the very reason why I object to the continued use of this rigid classification scheme. I realize that I will have to do a lot of missionary work in our own Association in the United States, and I shall do so on October 6th at the N.A.R.C. Annual Convention in a speech entitled "Are We Retarding the Retarded?"

Let me now turn to some of the specific points which I am sure the C.A.R.C. Institutions Committee expects me to suggest as guides for their future activities. Some words first about institutional architecture, again with particular emphasis on the group we are discussing here to-day.