PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 693 
greater knowledge and skill than a Standard I1I. boy in another. But the 
important point is that the phrase ‘a Standard III. boy’ came to have a definite 
meaning apart from any particular school. It began to be used absolutely, and 
not merely relatively. Further, if a boy were found to be in a standard lower 
than his years warranted, people had no diffidence in drawing their own con- 
clusions regarding his ability. It will be remembered that Binet tells us, some- 
what vaguely, that if a boy is a year behind others of the same age who have 
had the same opportunities it indicates that he is duller than the others, but 
not necessarily permanently so. If, however, the pupil is two years behind the 
normal test for his age there is a presumption in favour of his being inherently 
and permanently duller than his fellows. All this is very familiar and indeed 
commonplace to the elementary teachers who were brought up under the Code 
Examinations by standards. To tell the truth, M. Binet’s tests are regarded 
with much suspicion by such elementary teachers as have been induced to give 
them attention. They have the feeling that here we have a University Professor 
working out as something new a belated scheme that has had its day, and in that 
day done a great deal of damage. They are afraid that the prestige given to 
the intelligence tests may encourage the re-establishment of the rigid individual 
examination system from which they have escaped. All the same, experienced 
elementary teachers do not deny that the old system did at least have the effect 
of establishing a generally recognised standard. Their belief is that the standard 
was not worth what it cost. 
It is left for Binet’s successors to invent a better scheme than he was able 
to produce, and in this way to establish an objective standard, at least in respect 
of intelligence. Such a standard is needed in many connections, but there is one 
special department of educational administration where such a standard is at 
present urgently required. Nothing better illustrates the groping of Education 
after a scientific basis than the present demand for some means of determining 
which children are ‘ defective’ and which merely dull. So imperative is the 
need for an objective standard here that it must be satisfied at any price, with 
the result that the decision is being more and more left to the doctors instead 
of to the teachers. The cause is not difficult to find. Physiology has already an 
objective standard, and the doctors are evidently expected to get their results 
by physical examination. No other explanation is admissible, since they are 
not only not superior to teachers in their knowledge of the mental reactions of 
the child, but obviously inferior. At present the argument moves backwards 
and forwards. Some say: Give the teachers a tincture of physiological know- 
ledge, and then they will manifestly be the best persons to determine the defec- 
tive stage. Others reply : Give the medical men some little experience of school 
conditions and the working of the immature mind, and they cannot but be the — 
proper authorities on all questions of intelligence. The important point in this 
competition for power between the two professions is the implied recognition of 
the need for an objective standard, and the admission that, at present, such a 
standard does not exist. Much investigation, experimenting, and verification 
are necessary before the truth on this particular subject can be reached. But 
the recognition of the existence of the problem is in itself an indication of pro- 
gress, and the need for scientific method in working it out is being more fully 
recognised. From our standpoint it is important to note that we are here dealing 
with a problem that is distinctly educational, and the bringing in of men from 
another profession does not make it less so. If the doctor acquires the power 
of dealing with delicate questions of intelligence, it is because he has learnt to be 
an educationist if not an educator. Medical men who specialised in this matter 
would no doubt very soon attain to high skill, since their previous training gives 
them a very suitable preparation to begin the study of Education. Doctors are 
consulted regarding ‘defectives’ mainly for two reasons. First, these defective 
children are naturally classed in the popular mind with the mentally deranged, 
and these have always been regarded as peculiarly suitable subjects for the doctor. 
Further, there exists, without doubt, the implicit feeling in the public mind that 
the doctor has definite standards while the teacher has only general impressions. 
But it has to be noted that this invasion of the field of Education by men from 
another realm of study does not in any way affect the claims of Education to 
rank as a nascent science with needs and methods of its own. If the doctors can 
supply Education with an objective standard, Education should be very grateful, 
