Educational therapeutics or a clearing house for exceptional children?: the development of adjustment rooms in Los Angeles, 1916–1923

ABSTRACT

This study examines the purpose and practice of “adjustment rooms” established in special education classes in Los Angeles public schools in the early twentieth century. The establishment and practices associated with adjustment rooms are a local example of broader international trends related to the classification and streaming of schoolchildren. In this study, I argue that the function of classification and the structure of normalisation were embedded in the practices of adjustment rooms. Since a diverse group of children were being placed in ungraded rooms in Los Angeles and were not being properly educated, the adjustment room practice was initiated by identifying educable children from among them. New educational methods, which were gaining attention in progressive education at the time, were thus developed to compensate for educational delays. The goal of the adjustment rooms, which were designed to educate “backward” and “misfit” children, was to provide auxiliary education and return them to regular classes in a short period of time. Thus, on the one hand, the adjustment room had the function of promoting normalisation to the standard student model. On the other hand, the adjustment room functioned as a “clearing house” to categorise children, deciding their fate according to ambiguous criteria of educational potential. While attempts were made to return educable backward and misfit children to regular classes, “feeble-minded” children were judged to be uneducable and were removed from the adjustment room cycle, thereby promoting internal exclusion within schools.

KEYWORDS:

• Adjustment room
• special education
• backward
• misfit
• feeble-minded
• normalisation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

¹ W. S. Deffenbaugh, “Compulsory Attendance Laws in the United States”, in Compulsory School Attendance, ed. United States Bureau of Education (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1914), 10.

² In this study, “exceptional children” will be used as an umbrella term to refer to children who are considered difficult to teach in regular classrooms, including such anachronistic terms as “backward”, “misfit” and “feeble-minded” children (Philip L. Safford and Elizabeth J. Safford, A History of Childhood and Disability (New York: Teachers College Press, 1996), 3.

³ Margaret A. Winzer, The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration (Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1993), 323.

⁴ For example, Osgood discusses the development of special education in Boston, Massachusetts, which was the epicentre of the common-school movement in the nineteenth century, and claims the ideals of the common school were not realised. In Boston, the establishment of intermediate schools and ungraded classes justified the segregation of diverse children according to their characteristics, contradicting the idea of providing a common education for all children (Robert L. Osgood, “Undermining the Common School Ideal: Intermediate Schools and Ungraded Classes in Boston, 1838–1900”, History of Education Quarterly 37, no. 4 (1997): 375–398). Tropea also discusses how urban school authorities, forced to accept difficult children, including those considered “backward” and “defective”, attempted to maintain order in the regular classroom by excluding them through “backstage” rules, such as setting up special classes within public schools. In Tropea’s article, the difficult children were those characterised as “irregular attendants, and neglected children”, “unmanageable in the regular schools”, “incorrigible, backward and otherwise defective pupils”, “a type who could not be effectively taught in the regular classes”, and children of immigrants (Joseph L. Tropea, “Bureaucratic Order and Special Children: Urban Schools, 1890s–1940s”, History of Education Quarterly 27, no. 1 (1987): 29–53).

⁵ David F. Labaree, “Progressivism, Schools and Schools of Education: An American Romance”, Paedagogica Historica 41, no. 1–2 (2005): 281–282.

⁶ Diane Ravitch, Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 95, 100.

⁷ Barry M. Franklin, “Progressivism and Curriculum Differentiation: Special Classes in the Atlanta Public Schools, 1898–1923”, History of Education Quarterly 29, no. 4 (1989): 571–593.

⁸ Irving G. Hendrick and Donald L. MacMillan, “Modifying the Public School Curriculum to Accommodate Mentally Retarded Students: Los Angeles in the 1920s”, Southern California Quarterly 70, no. 4 (1988): 399–414.

⁹ Ibid., 400, 403, 411.

¹⁰ Perhaps following the example of Los Angeles, an adjustment class was established in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1923, but was discontinued just two years later because of a lack of funding. Consequently, there is little mention of the practice of this class (Barry M. Franklin, From “Backwardness” to “At-Risk” (New York: State University of New York Press, 1994)).

¹¹ Arthur H. Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction in the Adjustment Rooms of Los Angeles”, in Intelligence Tests and School Reorganisation, ed. Lewis M. Terman, Virgil E. Dickson, Arthur H. Sutherland, Raymond H. Franzen, C. R. Tupper and Grace Fernald (London: George G. Harrap, 1923), 65.

¹² Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Vintage, 1995), 182–183.

¹³ Marcelo Caruso, “The Coming of ‘Age’: Educational and Bureaucratic Dimensions of the Classification of Children in Elementary Schools (Western Europe, 19^th century)”, European Educational Research Journal (2022): 14.

¹⁴ André Turmel, “Childhood and Normalcy: Classification, Numerical Regularities, and Tabulations”, International Journal of Educational Research 27, no. 8 (1998): 666.

¹⁵ Antonio Fco. Canales and Simonetta Polenghi, “Classifying children: a historical perspective on testing and measurement”, Paedagogica Historica 55, no. 3 (2019): 343.

¹⁶ Paolo Bianchini, “The ‘Medico-Pedagogical Institutes’ and the failure of the collaboration between psychiatry and pedagogy (1889–1978)”, Paedagogica Historica 55, no. 3 (2019): 516.

¹⁷ Nelleke Bakker, “Professional Competence and the Classification and Selection of Pupils for Schools for ‘Feebleminded’ Children in the Netherlands (1900–1940)”, Paedagogica Historica 57, no. 6 (2021): 729.

¹⁸ Nelleke Bakker, “A Culture of Knowledge Production: Testing and Observation of Dutch Children with Learning and Behavioural Problems (1949–1985)”, Paedagogica Historica 53, no. 1–2 (2017): 22.

¹⁹ Bjørn Hamre, Thom Axelsson and Kari Ludvigsen, “Psychiatry in the Sorting of Schoolchildren in Scandinavia 1920–1950: IQ Testing, Child Guidance Clinics, and Hospitalisation”, Paedagogica Historica 55, no. 3 (2019): 413–414.

²⁰ Patrice Milewski, Christian Ydesen and Karen E. Andreasen. “Mental Testing and Educational Streaming in Ontario and Denmark in the Early Twentieth Century: A Comparative and Transnational Perspective”, Paedagogica Historica 55, no. 3 (2019): 377.

²¹ Ryo Yoshii, “Classification of Children with Learning Problems and the Establishment of Special Classes in Delaware from the 1930s to the mid-1940s”, Paedagogica Historica 55, no. 3 (2019): 359.

²² Intelligence Tests and School Reorganisation, ed. Lewis M. Terman, Virgil E. Dickson, Arthur H. Sutherland, Raymond H. Franzen, C. R. Tupper, and Grace Fernald (London: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd, 1923).

²³ Advisory Committee, Report of the Advisory Committee to the Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles on Certain Aspects of the Organization and Administration of the Public School System (Los Angeles, California, 1916), 53.

²⁴ R. Judith Raftery, “Missing the Mark: Intelligence Testing in Los Angeles Public Schools, 1922–1932”, History of Education Quarterly (1988): 77.

²⁵ James H. Hutt, “Board of Education Notes”, Los Angeles School Journal (Principals Club) 3, no. 8 (1919): 17.

²⁶ Irving G. Hendrick and Donald L. MacMillan, “Coping with Diversity in City School Systems: The Role of Mental Testing in Shaping Special Classes for Mentally Retarded Children in Los Angeles, 1900–1930”, Education and Training in Mental Retardation 22, no. 1 (1987): 12.

²⁷ Arthur H. Sutherland, “The Ungraded Room Situation”, Educational Journal 2, no. 4 (1918): 57.

²⁸ Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction”, 60–61.

²⁹ Ravitch, Left Back, 88.

³⁰ Sutherland, “Ungraded Room Situation”, 57–58.

³¹ Ibid., 58.

³² Los Angeles City Principals’ Club, “The Correspondents’ Meeting”, Los Angeles School Journal 3, no. 3 (1919): 9.

³³ G. J. McDonald, “Notes from Principals’ Club Advisory Committee”, Los Angeles School Journal 3, no. 30 (1920): 9.

³⁴ Susan M. Dorsey, “General Circular No. 35”, Los Angeles School Journal 3, no. 30 (1920): 19.

³⁵ Susan M. Dorsey, “General Circular No. 9”, Los Angeles School Journal 4, no. 5 (1920): 19.

³⁶ Ibid., 18.

³⁷ Susan M. Dorsey, “Important Notice”, Los Angeles School Journal 4, no. 9 (1920): 26.

³⁸ Dorsey, “General Circular No. 5”, Los Angeles School Journal 5, no. 3 (1921): 12; Susan M. Dorsey, “General Circular No. 4”, Los Angeles School Journal 6, no. 2 (1922): 15.

³⁹ Dorsey, “General Circular No. 4”, 15.

⁴⁰ Dorsey, “General Circular No. 35”, 19.

⁴¹ Susan M. Dorsey, “General Circular No. 17”, Los Angeles School Journal 4, no. 20 (1921): 16–17.

⁴² Susan M. Dorsey, “General Circular No. 5”, 12.

⁴³ Hendrick and MacMillan, Coping with Diversity.

⁴⁴ Tropea, “Bureaucratic Order”, 32.

⁴⁵ See note 40 above.

⁴⁶ Elizabeth Bates, “Courses for Principals”, Los Angeles School Journal 4, no. 7 (1920): 13–14; and Charles J. Fox, “Principals’ Club”, Los Angeles School Journal 6, no. 40 (1923): 19.

⁴⁷ Dorsey, “General Circular No. 17”, 17.

⁴⁸ Arthur H. Sutherland, “Round-Table Class for Adjustment Room Teacher”, Los Angeles School Journal 4, no. 7 (1920): 10.

⁴⁹ Los Angeles City Principals’ Club, “University of California Announcement”, Los Angeles School Journal 6, no. 20 (1923): 26.

⁵⁰ Los Angeles City Principals’ Club. “University of California – Summer Session in Los Angeles”, Los Angeles School Journal 5, no. 21 (1922): 23.

⁵¹ Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction”, 67.

⁵² In addition to the exhibitions described here, there were exhibitions at the Public Library in 1921 and an exhibition at the 61st Street School in 1922. Robert H. Lane, “Exhibit of Los Angeles Public Schools”, Los Angeles School Journal 5, no. 15 (1921): 4; Edith J. Hannon, “How to Develop Needed Abilities”, Los Angeles School Journal 5, no. 17 (1922): 15.

⁵³ Susan M. Dorsey, “General Circular No. 21”, Los Angeles School Journal 4, no. 16 (1920): 13–14.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 13–14.

⁵⁵ Charles Thompson Conger, “A Resume of Institute Meetings”, Los Angeles School Journal 4, no. 18 (1921): 10–11.

⁵⁶ Los Angeles City Principals’ Club, “Requisitions for Materials Prepared in Dr. Sutherland’s Office”, Los Angeles School Journal 7, no. 3 (1923): 21; Los Angeles City Principals’ Club, “Requisitions for Tests and Material Prepared by Dr. Sutherland’s Office”, Los Angeles School Journal 7, no. 4 (1923): 16–17.

⁵⁷ Department of Psychology and Educational Research, Handbook for Teachers of Adjustment Rooms (Los Angeles, CA, 1922), 23.

⁵⁸ C. Arleigh Griffin, “High School Research in Los Angeles”, Los Angeles School Journal 5, no. 9 (1921): 13–14.

⁵⁹ Arthur H. Sutherland and Robert H. Lane, “Notice to Grade Teachers”, Los Angeles School Journal 4, no. 13 (1920): 14.

⁶⁰ Los Angeles City Principals’ Club, “Algebra by Individual Method”, Los Angeles School Journal 5, no. 25 (1922): 21.

⁶¹ Lewis Madison Terman, “Editor’s Introduction”, in Intelligence Tests and School Reorganisation, 53.

⁶² Winzer, History of Special Education, 270.

⁶³ Irene Cuneo and Lewis M. Terman, “Stanford-Binet Tests of 112 Kindergarten Children and 77 Repeated Tests”, in The Pedagogical Seminary: A Quarterly: International Record of Educational Literature Institutions and Progress, ed. G. Stanley Hall (Worcester, MA: Florence Chandler, 1918), 414–428.

⁶⁴ Ibid., 371.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 468.

⁶⁶ Department of Psychology and Educational Research, Handbook for Teachers, 6.

⁶⁷ Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction”, 56–57.

⁶⁸ See note 66 above.

⁶⁹ Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction”, 63.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 62.

⁷¹ Hendrick and MacMillan, Coping with Diversity; Raftery, “Missing the Mark.”

⁷² Department of Psychology and Educational Research, Handbook for Teachers, 7–9, 13.

⁷³ Ibid., 7.

⁷⁴ Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction”, 62–63.

⁷⁵ Adele M. Mosseman, “The Experiment at 61st Street School”, Los Angeles School Journal 5, no. 19 (1922): 4.

⁷⁶ Alice Struthers, “Capacity Groupings and Special Features in the McKinley Junior High School Organization”, Los Angeles School Journal 5, no. 12 (1921): 3.

⁷⁷ Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction”, 61–62.

⁷⁸ Department of Psychology and Educational Research, Handbook for Teachers, 19.

⁷⁹ Griffin, “High School Research”, 13–14.

⁸⁰ Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction”, 63–64.

⁸¹ Robert H. Lane, “A Page from My Note Book”, Educational Journal 2, no. 23 (1919): 378.

⁸² Arthur H. Sutherland, “The Problem-Project Method”, Los Angeles School Journal 3, no. 18 (1920): 5.

⁸³ Ai Senga, Dewey Kyouiku Gaku to Tokubetsuna Kyouiku Teki Hairyo no Paradaimu: Jikken Gakko to Kodomo no Tayona Konnan Niizu e no Kyouiku Jissen. (Japanese) (Tokyo: Kazama Shobo, 2009). Previous studies have pointed out that Dewey addressed the issue of educational practice with special attention on educational difficulties and needs.

⁸⁴ Sutherland, “The Problem-Project Method”, 5–6.

⁸⁵ Ibid., 7.

⁸⁶ Department of Psychology and Educational Research, Handbook for Teachers, 5.

⁸⁷ Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction”, 65.

⁸⁸ Ryo Yoshii, “L. Witmer no Gakugyo Fushin Hiko Mondai e no Ninshiki to Rinshoteki Taio”, (Japanese) Tokushu Kyoiku Kenkyu 51, no. 1 (2013): 11–20.

⁸⁹ See note 87 above.

⁹⁰ See note 86 above.

⁹¹ Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction”, 64–65.

⁹² Ibid., 5.

⁹³ Struthers, “Capacity Groupings”, 5.

⁹⁴ This figure is based on the results of the previous two years. Furthermore, the proportions were based on the first 200 children to be accepted.

⁹⁵ Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction”, 68.

⁹⁶ This figure is based on Sutherland’s description in Intelligence Tests and School Reorganisation, published in 1923 (Sutherland, “Methods of Individual Instruction”, 68). Meanwhile, in the “Statistical Summary – Adjustment Room Reports June, 1923” of the Handbook for Teachers of Adjustment Rooms, 73 adjustment rooms were set up (Department of Psychology and Educational Research, Handbook for Teachers, 44). The reason for the discrepancy in the numbers is unknown.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Toyota Foundation Research Grant Program 2019 (Grant number D19-R-0145).

Notes on contributors

Mariko Omori

Mariko Omori, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Japan. Her research focuses on the development of educational welfare services for children with disabilities in early twentieth-century America. Her recent publications include “The discovery of feeblemindedness among immigrant children through intelligence tests in California in the 1910s” in Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education.