K ~~\ ”V ‘ ‘lml 1 l M!" II I I H «N r I —' ‘ 3:8: I 030001 A SURVEY OF SPEECH DEVECTEVES IN THE PUBLlC SCHOOLS OF ENGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN "Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE ChristOpher C. Lane. 1943 4 ”.er in . '5‘; ‘. ‘- 4’}. . ‘ ‘ 0.. «623 I: ~ 313:!» ‘§ 3“.-. ‘LPg *. *9 K Y '- ‘ ‘ .1: ‘ ', t$i€~{t 5 ' '. f- 11"» . 1’ 3r ‘. .‘k} I‘ $.15 . \L ‘ Ia‘e d K\' ..-1‘ \I r.‘ I333? “"w‘ u. I: II“, k “F I 0' dffiv V ». .~ I ‘ O ‘I ' .‘JI—tv 7-. 1' If» v.) 'ésé. . ‘. h , '. . . '1 ‘ I y I 5&3": . ‘ .. .113, >/“' I:‘; .5 .'.‘ » :r Z'I‘Jizfi‘fifiii 1'; f M J . a ' “fl ‘ w?- .. fa “33";‘1‘ 3“} I“”‘_ “#1“ ‘ I: Iv-I“IJ‘_ 1‘ ‘ ."~I' ;~I_"r. 3": '91,! £ ,' I.-‘ ‘ ~‘ , _. . I , a ' . _. _ _. ' "tI-‘I~R'§T'I-Ié.‘i-I $va I: “a"; ‘ ”I‘ *wafi‘w ”4“- a. ~ m‘ ,9. , . ‘ ( -I.L n I H. *1]. |< ‘1... .9. - ',.u.\'ij . II I V ‘r-"LL-h I . .' ' a - .V \,-v"v ! a I. III Il"{" 2-‘ .. n ' s. _ .. t\‘lev’rIII;I.&IIfi jII I I‘ I IIIJ‘. I' I , I‘I. 1 0 _ I. : -'I ,qI" V I I—I . Z' ‘ 5 ~ - » I V - J", “VI 15" , A" ‘_":‘I '.\‘ ‘ v. l} ’u ,~.' - (H- I II'I'; : , ‘q-Ic "I ufil-I' --’:‘:‘M.:._‘"J,{r ». «7.3.. ,1?- . ,.. 10‘ ‘0 “L" - I.’D.r '. "y ; In‘.‘ . , . 7. ‘ '3‘.“ I o'I- .3 ,3, - ‘l : "r. - ' c'f‘l‘ , .‘flr- " "/ *wv'“. 1‘1? 'n ‘3‘ .m‘tfia}. . a ‘ J‘Jim (‘3’ l '-r x . I ,’ N ‘ Ffi’kfisf‘,‘ .' 3.?» 92:1,. , , , .. , ‘ A 3“ Of ‘ 0 ff; 5 ._. 3‘”! ‘~ .‘jfi ,. I (V‘IIA I \I .f 454 II" AIS-5”“ 1 ("4” F’ 33:: 7' 5-: I.v‘ I\ | '.ll A SURVEY of SPEECH DEEECTIVES in tne PUBLIC SCHOOLS of INGRAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN. by CHRISTOPHER 0. LANE A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech and Dramatics 1943 / \ 4+4 3~33 TABLE OF CONTENTS fl Acknowledgements ----------------------------------- ii List of Charts ------------------------------------ 111 -m. \ Statement\of'?roblems --------------- ‘K --------------- 1 ep\ \\' \ ntreduc ‘on-- f:\ -------------- :---q -------------- 2 \‘p‘ / \ I‘\\‘ K , __,__ p ‘7 ‘x . Methoo 0- ‘roceduffié/-{;:3‘<:;:----%f-f ------------- 4 Reeu ts offggéetiéInair: ---Jx§>\;-4e-L ----------- 22 //’—— :I I I T\‘\: II \II\ I‘"\_ \‘ I Rea ; '8 cf Trai -q" . se‘g‘ver \Surve‘xf “ d\ ompariso: wi aire - C5 ........... 43 / x p rieone of t ‘ 71th Que:tiu 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his gratitude to Lucia Morgan Nesom for her valuable suggestions and supervision in the planning and carrying out of this research problem, and to Mr. Paul D. Bagwell. acting head of the Department of Speech and Dramatics at Michigan State College for his assistance in editing the finished study. He is also grateful to Dr. C. R, Barrett, Health Commissioner for Ingham County whose assistance was invaluable, to Mr. F. E. Searl and Mr. A. J. Stroud, Commissioners of Schools, and to Mr. Donald O'Hara and.Drz J. W. Sexton, Superintendents at East Lansing and Lansing respectively, and to their offices as well as to the principals and teachers in the schools in which this survey was made. Without their assistance the study would have been impossible. iii LIST OF CHARTS I Percentile distribution of speech defects in proportion of total number of defectives. II Percentile distribution by grade and sex of speech defects in proportion to total number of defects. III Percentile distribution of types of speech defects by sex in pr0portion to total number of each type. IV Percentile distribution of speech defects: (1) by grade in proportion to total number of defects, (2) boys by grade in prOportion to total number of male defectives. (3) girls by grade in prOportion to total number of female defectives. V a & b Percentile distribution of types of speech defects by grade in proportion to total number of each defect. VI a,& b Percentile distribution by grade and type of speech defectives in.pr0portion to total defectives in each grade, and percentile distri- bution by grade of speech defectives in prOportion to total number of speech defectives. VII Percentile distribution by type of speech defectives in pro- portion to total public school enrollment. Percentile distribution by school divisions of speech defec- tives in proportion to total public school enrollment in those divisions. iv VIII Percentage of speech defectives in each grade in pr0portion to total number of pupils enrolled in that grade. II Percentile distribution of speech defectives in.pr0portion to total number checked by trained observers and percentile distribution of the most common types of speech defects in prOportion to total number checked by trained observer. 1 Comparison of questionnaire and trained observer findings of percentile distribution by type in proportion to entire school pOpu- lation. \ II a. b 6 c Comparison of percentile distribution of speech defects in Ingham County by grade and type with The White House Report of the same defects in schools having a definite program of speech correction. XII Percentile distribution of speech defects by grade in pro- portion to total number of speech defects in the public schools of Ingham County compared with the White House Reports in cities having a definite program of speech correction. LIST OF TABLES I Summary by grade, sex and type of speech defectives as reported on Questionnaires. II Summary by grade and type of speech defectives as reported on Questionnaire in prOportion to total public school enrollment. STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS 1. To make a survey of speech defectives of Ingham County. 2. To compare the percentage of defectives reported by the ques- tionnaire and the percentage of defectives reported in a sampling taken by trained observers. 3. To compare the percentages established by the questionnaire to those of the White House Conference Report. 4. To determine the need for a program of speech correction in the public schools of Ingham County. INTRODUCTION There are two accepted methods of making a survey of speech defec- tives of a given area: the Trained Observer Method and the Questionnaire Method. .A trained observer is a person whose education and experience has fitted him particularly for the work at hand. He approaches each case, each unit of his survey, from a scientific perspective,Iand checks each detail carefully in the light of his education and experience. In making a survey of speech defectives, the trained observer, then, would be a person trained in Speech Pathology, familiar both with all types of disorders and defects and with their etiologies. In both education and experience he would be familiar with all norms, for all defects and dis- orders are simply deviations from the norm. Such an observer would of necessity be able to recognize not only normalcy of speech organisms, but of acoustic and results for each separate age group. He would recognize the fact that under normal conditions all speech sounds are not neces- sarily acquired until the seventh or eighth year, and that pitch normalcy in the second grade is something that cannot be rated by acoustic and results, and that pitch normalcy is frequently disrupted in adolescence. Thus with the trained observer, each unit of the survey is a sepa- rate and involved study, and each separate conclusion is a composite result of his education and experience. I The Questionnaire Method, on the other hand, is accomplished largely through the use of people without special training in the field to be observed. A questionnaire is prepared by a specialist, and so simplified that in most cases, each defective will fit into his prOper classification. Definitions understandable to the layman are prepared and simple classi- fications are arranged. In brief, the education and experience of the trained observer are condensed and utilized by lay observers who proceed as though the training were their own. The weaknesses of this method are obvious. Too much depends upon acoustic end result and upon the ability to distinguish between the nor- mal and its deviations. For instance, lay observers who themselves allow vowels to migrate, might accept [1'] for [Q , as in $3ng for ggy'éefl, or because of a hearing loss classify a child as inarticulate when the fault lies at the acoustic end. Lack of familiarity with organic etiology might cause a cleft palate defective to be classified simply as a case of inarticulation. The conclusion, then, is that the Trained Observer Method is superior for accuracy. However, in the present case it was necessary to make a compromise. With 25,840 to be tested it was obviously impossible to use the better method with the time and the personnel available. In accepting the Questionnaire Method it was felt that part of its disadvantage was eliminated by the fact that the questionnaires were to be answered by teachers,who were familiar with their pupils after many months' associa- tion. It was also felt that there was the advantage of the teacher's natural concern over the welfare of her pupils. It was decided that pos- sible error could be estimated by a sampling of students observed by a trained personnel. The method selected, then, is a compromise. It is primarily the Questionnaire Method, but a sampling was taken by a trained observer to establish a percentile margin of error. METHOD OF PROCEDURE The method of procedure, as first formulated, provided that a letter of explanation, a sheet of definitions, and a questionnaire be sent, to— gether with a stamped self-addressed enve10pe, to each teacher in the county. As Dr. C. E. Barrett had previously shown great interest in speech correction, it was to him that the writer went first. Through him was secured the aid and coOperation of the School Commissioner. Also with his aid were formulated the definitions that were finally used. These definitions were tested in his office and among the School Nurses of the county. In final revision they read: LISP . . . . . . . . . . . . The defective utterance of CE] and [z] , usually by the sub- stitution of EEEI . STUTTERING . . . . . . . . . Characterized by spasmodic inter- ruptions of the rhythm of speech. CLEFT PALATE . . . . . . . . The presence of an opening in the roof of the mouth allowing sound to escape through the nose. Speech.becomes muffled and in- distinct. CLRFT LIP . . . . . . . . . Commonly known as "hare lip.I ARTICULATION . . . . . . . . The use of the tongue, Jaw, lips, and palate in the production of correct speech sounds, singly and in connected discourse, unhurried and distinct. PITCH . . . . . . . . . . . Voice sound that is not too high or too low to be pleasant to the ear or to call attention to itself. NASALITY . . . . . . . . . . The only sounds that should find egress through the nose are Eh] , [IQ , and [fig]. If other sounds escape through the nose, posi- tive nasality is present and resembles cleft palate speech. If no sounds escape through the nose, not evenfipj, C11] , or Chg] , but if instead the speaker sub- stitutes [E] for [m], [3] for [h], or [E] for ling], then nega- tive nasality is said to exist. VOLUME . . . . . . . . . . . Habitual voice that in loudness effects the ears of hearers, or in softness causes the listener to strain to hear. VOCALIZATION UN- PLEASANT TO WATCH . . . . . The process of vocalization that causes discomfort to observer, or calls attention to itself. (Excessive flow of saliva, COD! tortions of facial muscles, etc.) ACCENT . . . . . . . . . . . Foreignp-speech that follows syntax and emphasis that are un- English, or unquerican. Sectional-—speech that follows vowel pattern of the Southern, Eastern, or Western speech. (Broad Southern, nasal Western, or ”hillbilly”.) The letter to be sent was more important and somewhat more diffi- cult to compose. It was necessary both to impress the teacher with the importance of the survey so that c00peration could be obtained, and to explain clearly enough so that instructions could be followed. ,At the same time it was desirable that the letter should not be too involved and pedantic. Three versions of the same letter were written. One version went to rural school teachers directly under the Commissioner's supervision, one went to city or consolidated grade school teachers, and the third went to High School English teachers. A copy of each is herewith ap- pended. The questionnaire was most important. Most important source material was THE BASES OF SPEECH.1 Beginning with the contention that good speech is easy to understand and pleasant to watch and hear, four main defects and disorders evolved. No attempt was made to separate defects and dis- orders into separate classifications of their own, but they were included in the other general headings. Defects (or disorders) were divided into four main categories: (1) those that resulted in speech hard to under— stand, (2) those that resulted in speech unpleasant to hear, (8) those that resulted in speech unpleasant to watch, and (4) those that resulted from the inability to make all sounds. The work from there on was comparatively simple. The main causes of speech that is hard to understand were listed under the first heading. These causes include the lisp, the stutter, and such obvious disorders as cleft palate and cleft lip. "Other Disorders" was included in order to give the untrained observer a place for the overflow or for questionable cases. Inarticulation was also listed as speech hard to understand, as were accents, foreign and sectional. The second grouping, ”Defects that result in voices unpleasant to hear" was divided into two classifications, nasality and pitch. Each of the other classifications was allowed to stand by itself. It was then necessary to leave space at the top of the question- naire for other necessary statistics: school, teacher, grade, and number of pupils. It was necessary to print two types of questionnaire. One was for rural schools, with provision made for the different grades, and 1. Gray and Wise. Th3 Bases 3: Speech, Harper and Company, N. Y., 1934 the other was for teachers who had under their supervision only children of one grade level. Finally space was provided on the questionnaire for statistics on each defective. No provision was made for school pOpulation by sex. Information was obtained from the Commissioner's Office. Also, no consideration was taken of the numerous teachers who teach split grades. Statistics from these teachers were obtained by other means. After the questionnaires had been sent, method of procedure for the Trained Observer Sampling was devised. From West's DISORDERS 0F SPEECH AND VOICE1 an articulation test was borrowed and adapted. It was shortened by dropping one question from each sound group and by drOpping certain sound groups altogether. [3"] or Q] as well as B] were drOpped because the hard Eff] is so definitely a part of our Mid-Western speech. This method of testing articulation was used so that the same test would serve all grades regardless of reading ability. Check sheets were printed for each child to be tested, with the answers desired and a space for checking each sound. At the end of the check sheet were spaces for other defects and disorders, dividing stuttering into stuttering and rhythm defects, and including with nasality, breathiness, harshness, and thin- nese. In the Trained Observer Method, ten minutes was allowed for each child who answered the questions and read a short passage from his reader. Three hundred children were tested, chosen at random from six different schools. The closing of the schools for the summer prohibited further testing. 1. West, Robert. Disorders'gf Speech and Voice, Madison, 1933. The following tables and charts were drawn either from one testing group or from the other, and were never mixed or confused. TO THE RURAL TEACHER: The White Hpuse Conference gp_ghild Health and Protection1 reports, IThere are in America 1,000,000 school children between the ages of five and eighteen so defective in speech as to require remedial treatment and training. This number does not include those who stOpped their schooling before reaching eighteen years.” Even the least of these defects may in its time cause social embar- rassment, psychological repression, or serious curtailment of normal social living. The child who recognizes in himself a deviation from the norm will almost inevitably find a carry-over from that deviation into many other phases of his life, whether such a carry-over exists or not. Eisenson2 says: “A.disorder in the use of speech of any type or degree reveals a disorder in personality.” Inasmuch as personality is the re— lationship between the individual and society, the indication is that that relationship is off kilter, and that the individual must suffer. The deviation may not be serious in itself, yet in the mind of most any adolescent it places him on a spot toward which all eyes are focused. Some defects are more serious and more obvious. A stutterer or a cleft palate defective finds difficulty in the communication of his needs and desires and finds himself unable to cope with a society where each individual is more or less dependent upon his ability to make his demands in no uncertain terms. All of these people need help, and Michigan State College is pre- pared and anxious to give its help toward fitting these defectives into a normal place in society. A survey is being made by ChristOpher Lane, graduate assistant in the Department of Speech and Dramatics, of all the speech defectives in Ingham County. Your help would be greatly appreciated. It is understood that most teachers have not had special training in Speech Correction, but a careful observation of the children in your room on the basis of the enclosed questionnaire will, it is hOped, give an estimation whose correlation may be figured from a sampling taken by trained observers. Two men, important in the educational system of Ingham County, have expressed approval of the Survey, as well as hOpe for its results. Mr. F. E. Searl, Commissioner of Schools for the County, has given sanction, aid, and of his time, and Dr. C. Rt Barrett, Health Commissioner, has been so kind as to treat the matter almost as part of his own work. He says, "I believe this survey is to the interest of the Ingham County Schools. It should furnish us data which will facilitate our prOgram of Speech Correc- tion for the coming year.“ Will you please fill in the accompanying questionnaire and return it. Please note that although one defective may fit two or more of the cate— gories, it is necessary to list him only once in the frame of the question- naire. l. Specigl Education, Report of the Committee on Special Classes, D. Appletoanentury Company, Inc., N. Y., 1931. See the chapter of “The Child Defective in Speech.“ 2. Eisenson, Jon. Psychology 2; Speech, F. S. Crofts & 00., N. Y., 1938. 10 TO THE URBAN GRADE SCHOOL TEACHER: The Whitg gouge Qogferencelgp Child Health apd Protection} reports, "There are in America 1,000,000 school children between the ages of five and eighteen so defective in speech as to require remedial treatment and training. This number does not include those who stOpped their schooling before reaching eighteen years." Even the least of these defects may in its time cause social embar- rassment, psychological repression, or serious curtailment of normal social living. The child who reCOgnizes in himself a deviation from the norm will almost inevitably find a carry-over from that deviation into many other phases of his life, whether such a carry-over exists or not. Eisenson says,2 ”A disorder in the use of speech of any type or degree reveals a disorder in personality.“ Inasmuch as personality is the re- lationship between the individual and society, the indication is that that relationship is off kilter, and that the individual must suffer. The deviation may not be serious in itself, yet in the mind of almost any adolescent it places him on a spot toward which all eyes are focused. Some defects are more serious and more obvious. A stutterer or a cleft palate defective finds difficulty in the communication of his needs and desires and finds himself unable to cope with a society where each individual is more or less dependent upon his ability to make his demands in no uncertain terms. All of these peOple need help, and Michigan State College is pre- pared and anxious to give its help toward fitting these defectives into a normal place in society. A survey is being made by ChristOpher Lane, graduate assistant in the Department of Speech and Dramatics, of all the speech defectives in Ingham County. It is understood that most teachers have not had special training in Speech Correction, but a careful observa- tion of the children in your room on the basis of the enclosed question~ naire will, it is hOped, give an estimation whose correlation may be figured from a sampling taken.by trained observers. Will you please fill in the enclosed questionnaire to the best of your ability, remembering that each defective may fall into two or more of the listed categories, but that he need be listed only once in the frames below. A list of simple definitions may be had at the Principal's Office. Your c00peration is most necessary to the success of the survey and it will be greatly appreciated. 1. Special Education, Report of the Committee on Special Classes, 0. Appletoanentury Company, Inc., N. Y., 1931. See the chapter on ”The Child Defective in Speech.” 2. Eisenson, Jon. Psychology g§_Speech, F. W. Crofts & Co., N. Y., 1938 11 TO THE ENGLISH TEACHER: mpg White figuse anference pp Child fleglth gpd Brgtectiopl reports, FThere are in America 1,000,000 school children between the ages of five and eighteen so defective in speech as to require remedial treatment and training. This number does not include those who stOpped their schooling before reaching eighteen years." Even the least of these defects may in its time cause social embar- rassment, psychological repression, or serious curtailment of normal social living. The child who recognizes in himself a deviation from the norm will almost inevitably find a carry-over from that deviation into many other phases of his life, whether such a carry-over exists or not. Eisenson says: "A disorder in the use of speech of any type or degree reveals a disorder in personality." Inasmuch as personality is the re- lationship between the individual and society, the indication is that that relationship is off kilter, and that the individual must suffer. The deviation may not be serious in itself, yet in the mind of most any adolescent it places him on a spot toward which all eyes are focused. Some defects are more serious and more obvious. A stutterer or a cleft palate defective finds difficulty in the communication of his needs and desires and finds himself unable to cope with a society where each individual is more or less dependent upon his ability to make his demands in no uncertain terms. All of these peOple need help, and Michigan State College is pre- pared and anxious to give its help toward fitting these defectives into a normal place in society. ChristOpher Lane, a Graduate Assistant in the Department of Speech and Dramatics, is making a survey of all speech defectives in Ingham County, and your help would be appreciated. The prOper person to make a survey of this kind is naturally a speech Correc- tionist. Yet inasmuch as a defect may be defined as the ”Acoustic End Result"3 any but the finest deviation from normal speech can be recog- nized by an attentive listener. Especially should these defects be recognized by persons trained in the language field. Accompanying this letter is a blank questionnaire for each of your sections in English. Will you please fill in the blanks upon that basis, keeping the sections clear and distinct. The questionnaires are then to be returned to Mr. Cooke's Office. Also accompanying this letter is a series of simple definitions which it is hoped may be of help. Your cooperation is appreciated. 1. Special Education, Report of the Committee on Special Classes, D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., N. Y., 1931. 2. Eisenson, Jon. PsychOIOgy pf Speech, F. S. Crofts & Co., N. Y., 1938. 3. West, Robert. Rehabilitation 2: Speech, Harper & Co., N. Y., 1937 l2 QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET School Teacher Number of pupils in grade 1/ g] 3/ 4/ 5/ 6L 7/ 81 I How many pupils have speech that is hard to understand? A. Because of a lisp? B. Because of a stutter? C. Because of obvious disorders such as: l. Cleft palate 2. Cleft lip 3. Other disorders__ D. Because of articulation difficulties? E. Because of accent? 1. Foreign 2. Local II How many pupils have voices that are unpleasant because of: A. Nasality? B. Pitch? III How many pupils (if grade is above third) are unable to make all sounds? IV How many pupils are possessed of a vocalization process un- pleasant to watch? ‘ Defect or 1 Previous Treatment Name and ‘ Age I1 Children Dlfiglifir ._Qrsdsl l in rspiiy f ,5 l a”... 4...“- A g l f , '. A A -. .- 1)--- as 4, fi-_-Jr.—.—-- 1}" he.” .. -JL- _,.. n.4,- 13 QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET School Grade Number of Pupils Teacher I How many pupils have speech that is hard to understand? an Because of a lisp? b. Because of a stutter? c. Because of obvious disorders such as: l. Cleft palate 2. Cleft lip 3. Other disorders d. Because of articulation difficulties? e. Because of accent? 1. Foreignpp 2. Local II How many pupils have voices that are unpleasant because of: a. Nasality b. Pitch III How many pupils (if grade is above third) are unable to make all sounds? IV How many pupils are possessed of a vocalization process unpleasant to watch? Name I Age I Children in I Defect or I Previous 7 Family afiisorder Treatmgnp 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. l. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. ARTICULATION TEST L13 What makes honey? What is this? (cheek) What do you unlock a door with? Count to four. (three) L13 What is a little cat called? What does a baby sleep in? What does he wear around his neck when he eats? What number comes after five? E33 What do you sleep on at night? What do you eat with butter on it? What is this? (head) What does a hen lay? 5E] What do you wear on.your head? What does a train run on? Where do you wear gloves? What is a little sheep called? EL] What tells time? What else? What do you wear on your feet inside your shoes? What is the top part of a shirt called? CD] What do you write on the blackboard with? How would you get from here to the door? What are skirts made of? What do boys bat that is round? 14 1. 2. 3. 4. l. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. IpCfiNH o l. 2. 3. 4. l. 2. 3. 4. 1213 How do you prepare meals? What does twelve inches equal? With what is coffee sweetened? .Are you a bad boy? (or girl) What then? [117 Count up to three. What do you wear on.your foot? What do you sweep with? What does a dentist pull out? [20 What bird can swim on water? What gives us light in daytime? What do we wear on our hands? What do we do with a knife? ENE! What is your nose on? Is this nighttime? What then? What number comes after seven? What month comes after April? C62) With what do you smell? What do we ride in on water? What is on the end of your foot? With what do we shoot an arrow? EST] With what do people see? With what do we cut? How many fingers do you have on one hand? What does a man wear around his neck? El] What gives milk? What do you live in? What does the cat like to catch? What is the Opposite of north? 15 l. 2. 3. 4. a-oauara 0 $0350?” ¢>oapar4 PUMP o o 0 @123 What happens to water when it gets hot? What does Santa bring little children? Who goes to school besides girls? What does J-o—y spell? L70] What is this? (paper) What do you write with? With what do you wash your hands? What does the little boy wear on his head? 52.7 What is this? (elbow) What is this? (back) In what does mother wash her clothes? What keeps shirts fastened? Er] On what do you dry your face? What do you wear on your head? What do you eat on bread? With what do you talk? [2!] What do you go through in entering a house? What do you open to let fresh air into a house? Where are your brains? What do you do in an automobile? L7<_7 What catches rats? What is the joint immediately above the foot? What is this? (Cheek) What is this? (back) B] What grows on the lawn? What is this? (finger) What does the hen lay? What likes to chase cats? 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. l. 2. 3. 4. l. 2. 3. 4. l. 2. 3. 4. l. 2. 3. 4. What What What What With What With What What What With What What What What What With With What Cm: is this? (mouth) does a woman wear on her finger when she sews? do we sweep with? do we do with our hair in the morning? En] what do we smell? is this? (hand) what do we eat soup? is this? (chin) [27] is this? (finger) do peeple sometimes wear on a finger? what do we talk? (tongue) is the joint immediately above the foot? [2] does the cow give to drink? grows on trees? do we lay our heads on at night? do we drive with a hammer? 8‘] what do we cut? what do we eat? is a young cow called? Count your fingers on one hand. What CV] number comes after four? In what does your teacher put flowers? With What what does a man dig? do we wear on our hands? [9] Count to four. What What With is this? (mouth) does a woman wear on her finger when she sews? what do you bite? 1? l. 2. 3. 4. l. 2. 3. 4. l. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. l. 2. 3. 4. [3] What relation is your dad to you? What relation is your mom to you? What do you do with.your lungs? Pronounce t-h-i-s. [5] With what do you eat soup? Can you talk? What does a girl wear instead of trousers? What kind of a watch do we wear on the arm? 12:) What animal is like a horse except that it is striped? What do we have five of on each foot? Name the days of the week. What do we smell with? ER] What is the color of the U. S. flag? Count to four. What shape is a ball? What do autos travel on? L5] What do we wear on our feet? What swims down under the water? How do we clean our hands? What is food put in on the table? [3] Where does your dad keep his car at night? How do we find how tall we are? What do big girls put on their faces? What is it that pirates always bury? F57 What is this? (chin) Where do people go on Sundays? If a man has a lot of money we say he is what? What do we use to light a fire? 18 IPCIJNH o msoanara O O O l. 2. 3. 4. @NNH o so @127 When do we shoot off fire crackers? Who was the first president of the U. 5.? What do we go over a river on? What month comes Just before July? 13] Are you a boy? (girl?) Name a color that rimes with bellow. Is a baby old? What then? What does three feet equal? 8] Pronounce h—upm-a-n. Pronounce h-use. Pronounce H-u-g—o. Pronounce h-upg-e. CW] Count up to three. What animal runs up a tree and eats nuts. What blows your hat off? What time of year is it cold? 2410.333 What color is the U. 8. flag? What do we hold an auto by to steer it? What am I doing? (whistle) What do you do when you talk real low? 0?] Where is your brain located? What do you wear on your head? What is this? (hand) What do horses eat? 19 2O CHECK SHEET Name School Grade Age Articulation 5—7 1:20 Cr] 5"] l. bees l. duck l. towel l. knife 2. cheek 2. sun 2. hat m 2. fork 3. key 3. gloves 3. butter 3. calf 4. three 4. cut 4. tongue 4. four [I] C8117 L5 v 1. kitten 1. face 1. door '7 1. five C] 2. crib 2. day 2. window 2. vase 3. bib 3. eight 3. head 3. shovel 4. six 4. May 4. ride 4. gloves € 9 1. bed ['7 1. nose EN] 1. cat L2] 1. three [:7 2. bread 2. boat 2. ankle 2. mouth 3. head 3. toe 3. cheek 3. thimble 4. egg 4. bow = 4. back 4. teeth 1. hat [9a 1. eyes [151:] l. grass £53] 1. father DE] 2. track 2. knife 2. finger 2. mother 3. hands 3. five 3. egg 3. breath 4. lamb 4. tie 4. doL 4. this E“. u l. clock 3 l. cow [3-] l. mouth Ga] 1. spoon 8—7 2. watch 2. house 2. thimble 2. yes 3. socks 3. mouse 3. broom 3. skirt 4. collar 4. south 4. comb 4. wrist l. chalij l. boilsEJlj l. nose C573 1. zebra C2] 2. walk 2. toys 2. hand 2. toes 3. cloth 3. boys 3. spoon 3. Tuesday 4. ball 4. Joys 4. chin 4. nose U U 1. cook C] 1. paper [b] 1. finger :7 1. red [,2] 2. foot ' 2. pen 2. ring 2. three 3. sugar 3. soap 3. tongue 3. round 4- gOOd 4. cap # 4. ankle 4. roads b i 1. two [20 l. elbow [j 1. milk ['7 1. shoes [3.] 2. shoe 2. back 2. leaves 2. fish 3. broom 3. tub 3. pillow 3. wash 4. tooth 4. button 4. nails 4. dish .5] 537 l. gar 1. July 2. measure 2. George 3. rouge 3. bridge 4. treasure 4. June [737 [J] l. chin 1. yes 2. church 2. yellow 3. rich 3. young 4. match 4. yard Pitch__ Volume Quality Defects Nasality Breathiness Harshness Thinness Rhythm Lisp Others Stutter Cleft Palate Cleft Lip Accent Nasality mommy? E] human hue Hugo huge one EM squirrel wind winter 1. 2. 3. 4. 21 florflvfl white wheel whistle whisper [R] head hat hand hay RESULTS or QUESTIONNAIRE 22 CHART I There are in Ingham County, 25,840 public school children. Of this number, 1,592 children are so defective in speech as to be recOgnized as defective by their teachers who have had no special training in speech. These 1,592 children constitute 6.16% of the total school population. Divided into twelve categories, the largest number of them are listed as articulation defectives. Five hundred sixty-eight, or 35.68% fell into this category. See Chart No. 1, on page for complete listing of de— fects by type. “Other Disorders" include cases of spastic speech, as well as other types of nervous defection, maloclussions, and two cases of tongue-tie. 23 1 24 grass... . . . A. ~92 4‘00... . . .. W>>KUNKWQ VXNQK & bum .935 we. M330) ...... «mucmoflo mwlko Q: humio 2 Laud x and .LouqSo . s «(202. on.» 94.3.6 H... «633 Nx FKNJU 0.000 RIWK.° W33d°> .2... auto 0‘ a R (NEWS “us...“ use: a: Largo KRYN “Mm.(u NM L232. mailed kuflu Zaire... mumtu Nu stunts as _ as .w zopfimmwuwb: cut: «his. «35 on MM .2533. Zoswtek (Matthew--. . «3.6 as . «sod nmmmubhim >545ch . nmm.Q>\ QQKDK at. \(CC Q0QCV\Q >3 DKUNQQQ an. \U, I _ #2“..le MO KNJ QZv. answer... »Q zoskhbskxwxo muskkhokuwl H LQGJU CHART III Chart III presents the percentile distribution of types of defects by sex, showing the predominance of male defectives in every category except Accent - both Foreign and Sectional. The greatest discrepancy between the percentages for boys and girls lie in stuttering. Seventy- seven and seventy-seven hundredths per cent of the cases of stuttering are boys. The second largest discrepancy shows in Vocalization unpleas- ant to watch. The percentage here is 75% male to 25% female. Nasality shows the least discrepancy with the boys claiming 54.5% of the cases reported. 27’ 3,349, .5 k 3o as Human 0G,: kZSie 1920. FUMKWQ K0 NQ>F IUGxW k0 (mmifiz 4(FOK. 0k \(karmKOlomnx )2 KM” x0 WkUMka IUNWQW k0 ”NQXK. l0 ZOPBDQ‘kath wiFZuUQUK FQQ 29 CHART IV Chart IV is a summary of boy and girl defectives by grade in graphic comparison to total defectives by grade.‘ The graphic outline of totals and of boys are identical except in the second and in the seventh grades where the difference is slight. Girls show a definitely lessened per- centage in the second grade but an increase in the seventh grade. 3O Suitcase. batsman. Kc Inmate). aw; Roma. Q. wise). to Km 33? n onMQkQ .INQbe? «the.» .0?» stkmxooxoko. >\\ 43.0 3k EQQTOOS o. \<\ 4.3x k 0k ZOPQOQOQQgS matte in. 353 mastic unwise. mesh: .8 MKUWKWQ \uxuwtflkm’ KO \(kabm\Qko\.Q mq\kZmuIm1 31 CHARTS V—a AND V-b Charts V-a and V-b show the percentile distribution of types of speech defects by grade in proportion to the total number of each defect. In the first grade are 14% of all articulation defectives. This percent- age lessens.as the grades advance, with slight disruptions in the sixth and seventh grades until in the twelfth are less than 3% of articulation defectives, showing a decrease in articulation defectives as the child matures and advances educationally. Pitch defectives show no such pro- nounced general trend. In all grades above the third the percentile variation is less then 3%. In the first and third grades it rises more than three degrees above any other percentile. Most lispers are found in the first, second, third, and seventh grades. In each of these grades are over 9% of all lispers. The twelfth grade contains only 3% of all lispers, although there is no definite de- scending pattern. With the exception of a sharp rise in the second and third grades, percentile distribution of nasality remains almost static until the sev- enth grade. Above the seventh grade there is a sharp increase reaching its peak in the eleventh grade which contains a little over 11% of all cases of nasality. Stuttering is most prevalent in beginners, and in pupils in the fifth, sixth, and seventh grades. The graphic picture shows a rise from about 9% of all stutterers in the third grade to a peak of 15% in the seventh to a low of approximately 2% each in the tenth and twelfth grades. 32 “Other Disorders,” including spastic speech and other nervous dis- orders, show most frequently in the second, fifth, and ninth grades. The percentile of distribution varies from nothing in the tenth and eleventh grades to about 13% each in the first, fourth and ninth grades. No obvious pattern is discernible. Foreign accent shows a general pattern of descent from the kinder- garten to the eighth grade. In the ninth, tenth, and twelfth grades, however, there is a sharp increase. The range is from 19% to 0%. Vocalization unpleasant to watch shows an even chart with a sharp rise above the 9% average to 18% in the eleventh grade, and a drop to 0% in the tenth grade. The greatest percentile of cleft palate defectives is in the third grade which contains 22% of all cases. Except in the second grade which . contains 15%, no grade rises above the 9% mark, with no cases showing in the ninth or twelfth grades. Three grades, the first, fifth, and eighth, show 9%. Five grades, including the kindergarten, the fourth, seventh, tenth, and eleventh, show 6%. Twenty-three per cent of all cleft lip defectives appear in the fourth grade. The first and fifth grades each contain about 17%. No cases were listed in the second, sixth, seventh, and tenth grades. In grades above the fourth the graphic outline is one of general decline. Thirty-three per cent of all volume defectives are listed in the first grade. With the exception of no listing in the second, fourth, ninth, eleventh, and twelfth grades the chart shows a decline to the sixth grade where it holds steady (with the exception of the grades with no listing) at about 9%. With no defectives listed in the first, seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh,and twelfth grades, Sectional Accent shows two levels. In each of the second, third and fourth grades are 18% of all defectives. In each of the beginning, fifth, sixth, and ninth grades are listed 9% of all sectional accents. 34 WKMQkOOsQ . «MILO. _ ,_ a 01W QWLLQkfi a l _ _ _ a n , l. _ W l . _ _ i , _ k , i _ l . _ . _ . _ xk . 4 Est .(o Fashuitt #94ka 201% Mo khmts? quick. 0.. ZORKOQOQQ 2. Bike an. ”LOW-RICO. tUWaWQW HO QNQXK .HO z0~.K3Qs0\.hm\Q WquleUWWQ QINM FQQ _, a . a _ _ i __ _ __ _ _ _ LOW 90:0 $12- _ _ ,__ . so) a: 40.20: Ohm .4 Lu. 75 .wktfiwl Lube ZOE a ledge) LZMOOQ >53! L).Q...Q.w.523 IL“4U)>L... Iku.u 3~2w>hq mm. ILQDOM 3.5sz Dial.“ nhUkanWQ \‘UQW MO Ihzsz . .. OZOUU Ihzesm a. thmvrxb? qtkok 0k \(otkolokl \<\ WMQQRQ am DBUWKWQ UOQZU LB“ 1...... \\ - . . amuse so anxL no zosksnsttna hattuuthq 252“) m m lvuathNQZ 2.32m 36 CHARTS VI-a AND VI-b These charts present the percentile distribution of each type of defective by grade plus each grade rating in percentile distribution of total defectives. In every grade except the eleventh articulation defectives form the largest group. In the eleventh grade nasality outnumbers articulation defectives by 4%. In each grade except the sixth, volume or sectional accent constitutes the smallest percentage. In the sixth are listed no cleft lips. The legend at the top of the page contains the general trend, with pitch defectives in eight grades listed as the second largest classification, lispers third, etc. In the fifth and sixth grades stut- ‘tering constitutes the second largest category. In the eighth and tenth axni twelfth grades nasality constitutes the second largest group. (In the eleventh grade it is largest.) wImZuI x \C 3.1 2 .1. nthlw‘ WW3 \LQWKWQ IUWWQQ k0 Immxbz ddxk 0k 0k. ZQPB QQQOU‘Q >2 WM>FUUKWQ IUWNQW K0 .flQv‘QQ \AQ zkabmstk 2Q qukZWUQWQ MQSKO IuTw 2x- Ww>tumka quQk Oh ZQPIQKOQQ 2x wm>CmumuQQ Iomwoa. k0 moors QZ< mQ<¢o am >5;mean wqizmuqmo. >\O\K db UTHQ d‘k DIP . W2340> nwstquKNQ $39906 K0 «3%sz «Vkok ch ZOE. $00630. >§ wu>akumka hunk}. k0 .0936 xm §0Rbm§~20 nuq‘kzuutul . NQYQw 101% \<\ hm>xk UMKNQ $350k 01b {kaWQQQQQ‘ \<\ wwsxkaKWQ .IUMWQO KO WQXK Q>>\ MQYQQ LQ 20\K3Q\QKW\Q MQEZWUQNQ 0 NH: EstU 6 'El "*1 Wk UNKNQ Iwmmlm. um. s: N 20 k QOOQQ MSfZZOC. wmbo NT 0.5 6 6 .3ka n 2‘ 3 NSDQQ> kkqu qTZOPnUMn 2 game qwlk 0 s tutu: 1h: xk IUk \Q ubUsLS wl>h .90? Wk umka tumwl m. 39 CHART VII Percentile distribution of defectives by type in proportion to total school enrollment, and percentile distribution by grade groups in proportion to total school enrollment are presented on Chart VII. In graphic form are presented the twelve categories in percentile diminution from articulation defects, which appear in 2.189% of all Ingham County Public School children to sectional accent defects which appear in .042% of the same public school pupils. The second part of the chart shows that in grades kindergarten through the sixth, 6.74% of’iflie children are speech defective. In grades seven through nine, 5.24% are defective. 'In grades ten through twelve, 5.353 are defective. 4O N mama soamamm «JOIZW 4(F0k Tm Es; W29\2>\Q NQOIK 2x RZNEI‘VQIEN VOQIQW UHVQBQ QTKQK 0k. szkTQQOQQ. >\\ WN>kaNkNQ IUNNQQ KO m..\\Q .VQOxxum; \AQ >\Q\RDQ\QK%\Q NiKZNUQNQ a \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ am“ Mug s \o MN MW o: 2‘ k 933 Iii‘L <\\\\\\\ km mmwm MWNQH NVO. swam m «was MOT N33 40) N04 fiNx . . . __ ._ MNN. mme n. L... .3_ >3 < «ha. QVmcH N mm: INKkka t6 sZNEEQQZm Solon 2.550. #Rsk mm. sfhs4\Q\K~\BD\QW\O\ >\\ WM>~RUNQMQ IUNNOG. Km. “(.01de \\ \\ Eifimii fiiixfixb 41 CHART VIII Chart VIII shows the percentage of speech defectives in each grade in prOportion to total number of pupils enrolled in that grade. Using 6.16%, the percentage of defectives in the total enrollment as an average, the percentage of defectives in the kindergarten and in the first, second, third, and fourth grades are above that average and the rest of the grades below. The grade with the largest number of speech defectives is the first, with 8.406% of the total enrollment defective. The third grade is second in percentage with 8.253% defective. The sixth grade reports the smallest percentage of its pOpulation defective with 4.242%. 42 IE- anw as: «was 02......) 5?; 3a.... owes... 36.0 :3 33.33 no; \wox . _ tkwx xxkxxxxkox lam lam {kn 1km It” In» Qtn 933 0 33(35 {\9: #61 u we. CS R uMkWQ Sumo»... kc QMstz a (k c k N92 NQTQQ RTIF Z\ @12le KO QWQEDK QTKQK 0k \(OPNQOQOQQ \<\ WQVQG IU>FQWKWQ IUanxm. k0 MOVLZNUQWQ H kwfls‘u kzwquoqzw \CZboo Etta): >2 gzméjotzw Jootow 450x ovmwm. \zwxqqoqzm .NOQTGO URVQDQ .vaQk OK \(kamQQQQQ 2‘ mlmxkaMb‘MQ IUMNQW KO QNQ\<\V\< 4?.ka ._ .36 bfw . v. . . N .w wMfi We. on m.“ NK ed 0 N «33:33 . mh M. V % hh V m Fonzuutuk me. no. ON. 0 fiWT 0‘. 4. N- .VQ\. N. @aQ V\. m.\. 0 utNJhUO) kQ‘h‘Hdth. dTo. o o to. 0 36. Mo. V0. 3. 0 ma. 0 9. Q . NS§4Q> No. no. NQ. 0 m6. o\. O 0. of W m8. 0 2. so. ‘3 . klmflu .ldwx. \ . \w . . . . . . . n. 0. uh<4\ 15.: -m -moqotm >2 whituukwo :3an mo zoksmikflq mqtzmomtq _ ~ Q ~ 5.x: w zomwme \ W>~FUMKNQ \ . . A ,o 8 Iommmn \ Nu LNQIU 46 CHART X Chart X presents a comparison of Questionnaire and Trained Observer findings of percentile distribution of defects by type in proportion to total school pOpulation. The trained observer found 11% of the p0pu1a- tion defective in articulation as compared to the Questionnaire's 2.198%. Comparison is made in eight categories. The chart also presents com- parison by number. In articulation the trained observer found 2,843 children defective as against the Questionnaire's findings of 568. 7 okzwmblj oo 4 99999.3 >2 9(ka swath \mmd SE 9 «w: 55 on 3293 WNQ-Q dNVq utkok own ‘9. MN \ fix Hdwu‘txq . WQWQC QWIKO .\ m3... .3 in: Po , 3V s4. 363390 . . .mh mmu - MM. \ wwwmmwswamwi a wtmmmkkakwm? n n w .W M NM :33... WWW. V m N 0A.: mm. ~tflufl< @ ~11 IUK NO. \Ak\.~v.m.c\\< . H WVQN m oh ankwquolfix mm. o M U nqtk wifi . -QMnQO %%2§Q mqaizzgkhmvbko QWWMQwWNXK N0 «QMQWZ 2.9 k ZNSDVO 0.2% . in. 400100 US$30. MQRRN 0k. Zopqoloql lukimmm 2‘ main. 9% 29.3999 96. wE 2359 K0 n02\3\<\k qwxmman QN2\(QK «WWW 9<< m$99 33th exec are he. tsetse. undo: 92$: 1.9: no?» 95x Motto hm \CZsoo Ettoigs WKUWKNQ IUMWQW KO ZkabQkafixQ NSFZWUCNQ K0 zowst‘licu its. detain m .m ..... 33. .1. 39(22on “3 0 52 \ NF: Q\.m. Q WQWQQQmJQ (leQ .Saqooto. 3009...: 3 shommmq 9.5.6 tit ho .3333 wnhol milk, the: NSC. .3.on notwmmhzoo .939 he 0.90.“th t6 mmmcébz dikoh ch zeitoodoi when: at 3.: >2 mink 9<< massed. hm \Czboo £11,029 >9 93%ka work ok Iomwofi ho 29th39 9Q OE Zmocdi .46 Zowlmexo‘x‘ou wtxfitkot sub 0 >\Q\kUWQTQU IUWNQR. WRI<>KWQ T b>\\\:\\\ 4 _ Aflkio: Fl - b u a. . h Ni: 9.5m. m b w n _ _ a l .w. WW. Wiwllflc \\.0s.P®.W M a l a a _ + h Om; chllfil 9 I Y ‘5 .10 ‘h——+h~' _ __ _._n \\\ \\ \ \\ V6 kzMUUQ 409209.5de 02¢. 2m\\ ”#135an Xfl5¥00 W20} .ka)‘; Inks; Qlwywxxdesrvo ”#0018 Ufwmwxwdx \IszVOU EQA‘QKN >\\ .WXXK K9595 . k0 93%ka kc tweets? «nick 0k ZokaOQoQox >9 hulk Q11 WQHQKO new 9.0.0ka IUMWQW .40 \(oxkbmxkkms MQKZMUQNQ 0 NH. FQQIU 54 CHART XII Chart XII presents a comparison of the White House Report with the Ingham County Questionnaire findings of percentile distribution of speech defects by grade in proportion to total number of speech defects found by each. It is a summary of the totals of Charts XI-a, b, and c. It shows again that the White House Report found a decreasing percentage of defects as the grade advanced. The Ingham County Questionnaire showed a gradual decrease through the eighth grade, broken by a slight rise in the seventh, and a definite increase in the combined ninth and tenth, and in the combined eleventh and twelfth grades. The greatest differences are at the two ends of the scale with about a 10% discrepancy in the first and in the combined ninth and tenth grade groups, and with the closest approximation in the sixth grade where the difference is only one of about ZLCOMIIOO $3.305 k0 SEUSQQQ kaZCQQ «x wZSiI wNCC \S thoSn wheel H.912, mIL. 1.22. QmmX‘Zou xkzboo V5910): KO quOIum. OZQDQ MIL .>2 Wkumkmq IUMNQW k0 QNQEDZ .31ka 0k zokuOQotQ \S M390 am ad £th hummus k0 29.9.3939 9Q 3:23th .HNLEQ 55 CONCLUSIONS 1. Item III in the questionnaire proved to be confusing both to the teacher and to the tabulation of results. The same results could have been obtained had the classification been omitted. 2. The three hundred pupils tested by the trained observer were an inadequate number to furnish all the desired information. The number included no cleft palate or cleft lip defectives, no foreign accents, or vocalizations unpleasant to watch. 3. The average public school teacher is not prepared to recognize, much less to undertake correction of speech defectives. 4. The 1,592 speech defective children recognized by the untrained observers present a serious problem. 5. In the comparable categories, the 1,470 defectives found by teachers is appallingly low as campared to the 8,013 found by the trained observers. 6. Males present 63.5% of the problem. 7. Little or no attempt has been made at speech correction in the public schools of Ingham County as indicated by the fact that 5.3% of all high school pupils were reported defective as related to the fact that 6.7% of all elementary school pupils were reported.defective. 57 8. Slight decrease in the percentage of defectives in advancing grades might be indicated by withdrawal of defectives. Correction would show greater decrease. 9. Organized speech correction, aided by maturation and standard education, tends to eliminate speech defects, causing a rise in percent- age of normal pupils. 10. In Ingham County where there is no program of speech correction in the public schools, articulation is the only type of speech defect that tends to become eliminated as maturation and education advance. 11. After the third grade, by which time the pupils have become ac- climated to the more gregarious society of school, pitch and lisping show sustained percentile distribution, indicating lack of correction. 12. The White House Report shows that lisping is curable and can be practically eliminated. 13. Untrained observers fail to recognize nasality perhaps because in Ingham County it is such a common defect. 14. Nasality, by percentile distribution, increases sharply after the sixth grade, due perhaps to physical maturation and enlargement of sinus cavities at that period. 15. Stuttering is recognizable by untrained observers. Over one- half of oneper cent of all public school children in Ingham County stutter. 58 16. Stuttering appears to increase with the approach of adolescence, the largest percentiles of distribution being in the fifth and sixth and seventh grades. 17. When a planned program of speech correction has been instituted, stuttering is the only defect that does not decrease in Opposed ratio to educational advancement. 18. Of all defects, stuttering in Ingham County most closely follows the percentiles of distribution by grade as reported by the White House conference. 19. Sectional Accent is inadequately recognized as a defect by the public school teachers of Ingham County. 20. Foreign Accent shows a general decrease as maturation and edu— cation advance. 21. Imitation and education in the new language eliminate a great number of foreign language defects. 22. The fluctuations in the percentiles of distribution of cleft palates in Ingham County indicate the lack of a correction program. Frequency of cleft palate in distribution is probably due to accident of year of birth. 23. The leveling off at a fairly high point of the percentiles of distribution of cleft palate and cleft lip in upper grades of high school indicates a lack of correction because of which a large percentage of defective children dr0p out of school. 59 24. The White House Report indicates that cleft palate and cleft lip speech is not incurable. 25. The average teacher is unable to estimate volume defection, per- haps because of too long familiarity with child as well as inadequate training. This is indicated by the twelve cases of volume defect dis- covered by the teacher as against the 948 cases established by trained observers. 6C) RECOMMENDATIONS After a year's work in the Speech Correction Clinic at Michigan State College, and after having gathered sufficient data to become famil- iar with the problems of the public school children of Ingham County for the preceeding survey, the author wishes to make certain recommendations. These recommendations are based upon his own eXperience and upon the re- sults of the survey. An obvious deficiency of knowledge of speech defects and defectives on the part of the average public school teacher suggests those recommendations dealing with teacher training, and a feeling of genuine need suggests the rest. Those recommendations dealing with the corrective procedure in the classroom are suggestions only. 1. All public school teachers should be required to have sufficient training in speech correction to enable them to ' recognize all types of defective speech and to enable them to assist in remedial training of the less serious cases. 2. Each division of the Ingham County School System should have its own speech correction unit with a trained personnel. In the cities and larger school systems-- Lansing, East Lansing, Everett, Mason, Williamston, Stock— bridge, etc.,--the unit should be organized under the super- intendent's office, and in the rural districts and in the villages it should.be organized under the direction of the County Commissioner of Schools. 3. Speech Correction should become a part of the regup lar school work. It should be regarded as necessary to educational development. Speech defects should receive the same degree of regard at least as reading errors receive and attempts at correction should be as energetic. 4. Minor defects should be treated in the regular class- room in the normal process of the day's work. Articulation and pitch defects, lisping, nasality, accents.and volume, where not springing from organic disorder, should be corrected in the individual as naturally as are corrected mispronuncia- tions in reading. Serious defects are individual problems for the specialist. 61 5. Until such units for correction can be established, the Michigan State College Speech Clinic should spread its services as far as possible throughout the county. Visiting clinics should be established at all the larger centers and provision made for every student in the county to have access to the clinic and its facilities. 6. A program should be set in motion by the Michigan State College Speech Clinic whereby informative literature would reach every teacher in the county, making her aware of the problem and helping her to meet it. 62 LIOGRAPHY H a B Eisenson, Jon. Psychology of Sneegn. F.S.Crofts & Co., N.X., 1957. Genelin, Elizabeth G. Prevalent Errors of Speegn Among the Children of Qgpop Rou e, Louisiana, gpg Means for Their Cor egLion. University Press, Baton Rouge, La.,,l932. Gray, G.W. & Wise, C.M. ngeg 9: Speegh. Harper & Company, Noyo’ 19j40 ‘ Minchew, E.R.. 5 Survey of Speegh Anomalies gmopg Teachers 2i bienville, Jagggop Egg Egg Riyer Parishes of Louisiana. University Press, baton Rouge, La., 1938. flatlonal Asso iation of Teachers oi Speegh Repgrp 93 Teaching of Speegh in Elementary Sohools. EXpression Company, Boston, 1943. Special Education, Report of the Commitpee op Spegial Classes. DoAppleton-Century Co., Inc., n.x., 1938. Varnado, Nellie Mae. g Surge! p; Speeoh Defects in phe Gggmmar Sohoolg g; Bapon Rouge, Loplgiana. University Press, Baton Rouge,,l937. West, Robert. Disorders Qfi Speegh and Vgige. University Press, Madison, 1933. West, Robert. Rehabiligatiog of Speech. Harper and Company, N.Y., 1957. White House Conferenge op Child Health and Propecpion. Sect, 111, Education and Training . The Century Company, N-Y-, 1931. Oct 31 ’9" 5‘5. 6‘; :v 7’ J" 21 '56! «a ’Ulk265 5 _ . t .‘ . ‘ ‘ ‘ . ‘ u I-“ | I. I” . 0w 0 [fl 7 N )5}..sz - . ‘5. ‘: 3' " v- I?) . '- Ith.;',‘-/fi s; fir I. ll ‘9'”)?t" {" (tux, Ig‘r¥7::{ fig' ", "‘I ‘ \"I' ).. ' ‘7’ ' s L\. .- ' V3 ‘7; ' . . x I... “’93-.{1 ”at, :3...” l.‘ '2’, _ . n ' l_‘- ‘_ ‘ I" ‘ ."" .. . I . I 1‘: _k-,_-~;"\l} '\‘U.}‘-£'n~ '12 -“‘~' 7' ‘ a, - . ‘5‘ [fir-1" ‘ '1 ‘I '4 2 ‘v..‘,~t’.’-k:)@". 1%"? {5’}? "Anggjfii ‘3’".1. ‘4': ' 2 [i It % 3:1." .2 _ -. .ux. ’: 7 . - ‘2 ‘\ "M *1": iv‘tLIQ-h 0 ¢ ‘ x u . ‘ 'dmv‘feeiwwfi If": ‘3. - ' .-, a" . v A ' \ Lr" . . . . x.a‘a .‘F."‘ V. '7 . - ‘ . ’ 4 ~ A .p. -. . .f ”'0 :5. .g , a 'i . '.. ' t: iinF,:2/3‘- “3's (V .x ; A . ik 0 . . ' . _ s .’ . Jr; . I: ”TI. . I, A . II ,I h, , ‘-‘ ,. LI ‘. . m . ' 2,. ”’22 M2” . ' . ‘ . .. I. .'. ,.. I“- ' :I 3" a; V I I h IIII \ . _ ' 2'1; ' | -' . '2 - 332' . ' “635“,}“32” ' - I. ‘ " ‘ - - " "if {“3242 ‘ '2' -‘ ’ .it'fir‘é? ' “- '7 4 7 . ; . ._ 2.52% “sits-2':- _ . II- I . _ .g . -‘~a _ . ' I. II '. 2‘ . - I 7'. , . .‘ I I2”. I“. 'l . . ‘ I":':.'I . H 0 r 7 ~II _ A I _ :u J'IIII d ‘u '0'. wee: ~2- 2's 62,22 . .. . ,. . . l ‘ " "~ ' ‘ ‘7' -- 5'" 7'4"" ‘ ‘-".'I::‘»- ”he. . .5, 22 '(-.. . ' . .2 . t v .k‘ I 3 Jig—4s“ J , I I N 2 I -. . v I. .‘{ ‘ ‘ 7~":'K " '.§.- . c‘ o ' 5"“ ' f‘ " I..‘; I '- - . I. h. . r. ‘i ._ I W, .4‘ -_.Q 5 .:»&..If , JI... : ,2 _, . \ —€I‘..cI 9-. ‘ A ' —¢‘ _‘ . ,, '- q 'I.. I ‘. ‘ '.2' I! .' " A e SW ’ ~ ‘ Ari." m~377h~-Tsts.‘21 ' \_ ' 2, \‘ ;‘-' '4'); '37. v ‘ ' ' ‘ b ‘ Q 5‘-]' ‘ A.. ( -o ~>.-fo ; ., ., “ .- .- .. " 1 -2‘~ ,.<"-".:-~.1‘4 you: "x ‘ 3,.VI-‘uc Y; ‘ NF; ‘. '; ‘ U1) '1': I 7‘?“ “”50 R".':_fi-L>'f';~§‘ . ‘; .3‘ ‘fii’f' - i ‘ H ' ' ." 'J r . ’N “.I‘, ‘ I ' "2 m ‘p'. J». .- r‘; .. 13"?3}. ~ "lg-:53; tease“)? {23.53325}; ;. 2,32; , . . S s )2; . J‘- C -- '~ 33-: x 'If 32' E. ”I a? ' Xi -' u ‘3‘ . -‘ l 7:4 r 5., u* “ x - .7," lg ‘ i. ”t a." ’7" ,R.‘ ' v:_ . ' l I «*II . f";¢*fi"¥n—- E "r. .1'."-"‘.‘. R31; .. . a? .2. 1.1.x ‘ «a: x. ‘1‘ ,2...‘ v C.‘ ‘\ ‘N f.) .,_ f‘ ‘1’?“ k a 7 I ' > V C. $ 4 . .I . . ' 7 .2 - . I p ’ . \‘7 . .I j . If.) I, . I a f a I I . I‘ ’ ‘ .‘n 0 Q... . .J I . 1"") .II' ' 4’ "'9 ' - _‘ L? “’.‘.".'3. ‘ K. (6 f ‘ . ' .l“: ‘3". ~92. ." “~' 2’ ' ‘" W. "V 117‘: quLLé-h. a ‘C' tifh‘iv; '.‘,‘ i , L955?» “EU-Mag. ‘3‘ o. ',. . ' v 7 . 6 7 - .- . x f L-&' uh. , .. I» .J ‘ ' . k “f ' .3... ' ' ~ J—é'a . 2:3,;sz ‘2. -..2. .. clips}. ’ " I ‘3', ‘f 2 . ‘I k '-""5"'0"9'--- «3% «Ezflkw 7- f.. (151?: r‘ I‘ ‘ -’I ‘ "-I_ 2 . ' .v I . . . , I . I 7. . 1‘ \- 2 ’ 4‘4. ,‘ . . - " _ ' _ ' ’.. I .- w- s .L. n “a, y). u, n \ .w P I \ WW V332,“; ' L ‘ A ' \cfi, . y' . ed“ ' '2 ”-0 If"? savmw' -, ' Wise ~ .. 3—. ‘&.,III . 2 ., . . .. ' 2 , \ , .2 i“ '° ‘9‘ -‘:.‘.’-'.."~,'-"~*2";"~ 'o "o. \1 3"} -’ .. -1. .- J: 'fihégrarw-‘giy’wsa3%,. I?“ tsp-“11.1.3231, {2 . . ..1.:’:.'2vgfi.n‘e;§ 7’ ' :LV" ,5 “L? 1“" {9” :2 i. . 3"}... ,I "2‘” t ' 2,. J an 3 1293 0 3015 5948 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES