1,000 Defectives: The afflicted Children of Birmingham: Big Education Scheme: With the remarkable facts given as to the increase of lunacy in Birmingham by the chairman of the Asylums Committee comes from another quarter an equally disquieting report with reference to defective children. At present some 500 children of this class are being educated in various temporary centres, but such is the pressure upon them that the Education Committee was warned yesterday that more provision must be made, and that without delay, for the number of defectives in Birmingham is estimated to reach four figures. Mrs. Pinsent, who presides over the special schools department, and is a member of the Royal Commission now inquiring into the subject, at yesterday’s meeting of the Education Committee brought forward a remarkable report, setting forth that deficiency of accommodation existed practically in every district, and suggesting the establishment of larger and permanent centres, and the provision of a boarding school to which morally and mentally defective children could be sent. The report included an account of the deliberations of the sub-committee in reference to the memorial respecting the proposal to erect a boarding school at Kenilworth, and the committee added that this site was the only one they could thoroughly recommend. In moving the adoption, Mrs. Hume Pinsent said that the sub-committee could now estimate with tolerable accuracy the number of defectives in the city. Roughly speaking there were about 1,000 and fewer than half were at present receiving instruction in special classes. It was absurd to neglect the other half. The present report provided a scheme for the permanent accommodation and suitable education of a thousand defectives, but it would take years to carry out. For the blind and deaf the accommodation was sufficient, but there was not nearly enough accommodation for the cripples. Two schools to accommodate 100 each would be sufficient for some years to come, and they felt the first should be built on the site in George-street West: PROPERLY-EQUIPPED SCHOOLS: Mrs. Pinsent then explained the scheme in detail, and remarked that they might as well throw their money into the River Rea as to attempt to deal with children of the defective class in schools not thoroughly equipped for their special training. She had heard it objected that the scheme was useless until the Guardians had compulsory powers of detention. That would be an advantage, but the surest way to get those powers was to establish industrial schools and colonies, so that they might have an object lesson for the Government. Experience led her to believe that parents of feeble-minded children would not be anxious to withdraw them either before or after the age of sixteen, also that children educated in a boarding school did not become restless and wish to leave. The committee was now educating 405 defectives at an annual cost of £3,383. Three hundred and three of those children were in temporary premises, and to provide permanent accommodation for 967 – would mean a cost of £9,380. In round numbers the committee would be giving adequate education to 1,000 defectives, at an annual cost of £10,000, instead of inadequate education to 500 at an annual cost of £3,400. ” I do not think,” went on Mrs. Pinsent, “that this can be called a great sum, especially when weighed against the amount of crime, misery, and pauperism it would save. The committee spends £ 1,000 a year on thirty-nine blind children, and the economic justification is that it saves them from being a burden on society. We ask them now to spend more money on defective children. Our justification is that it will not only save them from the workhouse, but from other evils — from prison, drink, vice, and every disgrace, and last, but not least, from being the parents of other defectives: TRIBUTES TO LADY MEMBER: Applause greeted Mrs. Pinsent as she resumed her seat, and her excellent speech evoked many commendations from the subsequent speakers, one of whom characterised it as the most eloquent, lucid, and moving utterance heard in the chamber since the Education Committee came into existence. As to the main question, however, there were differences, the city councillors in the assembly shying at the expense. Mr. Tonks, while acknowledging the subcommittee’s enthusiasm, complained that it lacked a representative directly elected by the ratepayers, and was really, therefore “a number of worthy and active people engaged in charity organisation, and coming to the City Council to pay the bill.” Before such an expensive scheme could be sanctioned, Mr. Tonks considered the reconstruction of the committee necessary, so that the majority would be those who had to stand or fall by the policy that was adopted. Mr. Keegan expressed himself as against the scheme being approved on the ground that a Royal Commission was now sitting. Without compulsory powers of detention, what, he asked, was the use of spending all that money? The lunacy returns were becoming so startling that the Government would be compelled, for the preservation of the race, to do something. Lunacy was growing at leaps and bounds, and Birmingham itself would have to provide further institutions in the immediate future. It was agreed that the children required attention, but what was needed was that the whole of the institutions should be codified and under a central administration: ALARMING EXPENDITURE: As representing the “financial side of the work,” Mr. Lloyd was alarmed at the extraordinary growth of the expenditure, and thought, as legislation might be confidently anticipated either from the present Administration or their successors, it would be better to wait. Mr. Coley took a similar view. Mr. Reynolds suggested that the report should be withdrawn. Alderman Kenrick was not so sanguine that the Royal Commission would result in legislative action as some ether members seemed to be. His experience of Commissions had been rather to the contrary. (Laughter) Mr. Bragg found in Mr. Titterton a seconder for an amendment to refer the whole report back to the committee, but an alternative suggested by Mr. Bethune Baker was that it should be adopted with the omission of the portion relating to a permanent site for a boarding school. Mr. Bayer threw the weight of his influence as chairman of the Board of Guardians into Mrs. Pinsent’s side of the scale. He advised the committee not to wait for Parliament, but to act at once from the point of view of economy, and for maintaining the welfare of the city. The Chairman (Mr. G. H. Kenrick) took Mr. Tonks severely to task for his description of the special committee and said it would be difficult to find a committee having a better grasp of the subject or more business-like methods. The committee knew as much about defective children as anybody in the United Kingdom. One of the first questions they would be asked if they made representations to Parliament for further powers was, “What are you making of the powers you have?” If it were a good economy to provide for the blind and for deaf mutes, it must be a good economy to provide in the same way for defectives. It was due to the City Council that they should have the facts before them. Mr. With the Brugge amendment being withdrawn, the report was approved, with the exception of the portion relating to the provision of a boarding school, on the understanding, however, that the facts given by the Special Schools Committee should be outlined by Mr. Kenrick when the report is presented in the Council. The other business was of a formal character. The resolution of the Birmingham Magistrates, suggesting a reconsideration of the conditions under which schools are hired for soirees, was referred to the Sites and Buildings Committee. Moving the adoption of the report of the Higher Education Sub-Committee, Mr. Cary Gilson stated that instruction would be given concerning the feeding of infants and would be made quite an important feature in the training of teachers at the school of domestic science. The report was approved:
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0245 Devonport: Ellen Frances Parker: 1866 – 1949