A SURVEY OF CASE DISMISSALS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SPEECH CORRECTION- PR-OGRAMS OF MICHIGAN Thesis for'the Degree of” M. A. . MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Chester Arlington Richard, Jr.- 1954 " mg. THE-3:5 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Survey of Case Dismissals in the Public School Speech Correction Programs of.Michigan presented by Chester A. Richard Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for H.A. Speech degree in Nfajor ‘Jrofessor 3/2; r7 ,1? 4/ 0-169 A SURVEY OF CASE DISMISSALS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SPEECH CORRECTION PROGRAMS OF MICHIGAN Chester Arlington_3%ghard Jr. AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1954 WESIS I. THE PROBLEM Statement of the problem. The purpose of this study is to survey the speech correction programs within the state of Michigan (1) to determine what percentage of the 1952-55 case loads were considered corrected and adjusted to speech normal- cy, and consequently dismissed; and (2) to recognize the dis- position and quantity of cases that are released before they are considered ready for dismissal. II. PROCEDURE Methods. Investigation of literature revealed an almost complete lack of information concerning the dismissal of cases from speech reeducation programs. A list of all areas having speech correction programs was obtained from the Division of Special Education, Michigan State Department of Public In- struction. A list of all public school speech correctionists was compiled from the State Department "Directory of Programs and Teachers of Physically Handicapped," and the"Directory of the Michigan Speech Correction Association.“ A questionnaire, with an accompanying letter explaining the writers intent, were sent to the individual speech correctionists of all the representative types of programs; those under the Jurisdiction of county, township, and municipal administration, situated 3 {VT-315 in various geographical locations of the state. Only full time public school programs were considered._ Incomplete ques- tionnaire returns were not included in the final analysis. III. RESULTS The average pupil pOpulation serviced by speech correct- ionists was 5,687. The percent of speech defectives in the total pupil population was 5.1. The average number of cases carried, through a complete program, by all Speech correct— ionists was 175.2. The total number of cases dismissed as corrected, per :program, was 52.1. Twenty-eight and four tenths percent of 770 stutterers were dismissed as adjusted to speech normalcy. Forty-six of the forty-eight programs carried cases that had defective hearing and defective Speech caused by impaired hearing. The total number of cases that drOpped out of all pro- grams was 788. The total percent of drOp-out was 8.4. The outstanding reason for drOp-out was moving, that is, the transfer of students from one school system to another. IV. CONCLUSIONS These conclusions are based on the findings of this survey study of 29% of the full-time Speech correction programs in the public schools~of Michigan during the 1958- 55 school year, and are applicable only to this study. I. Case Dismissals A. According to this study approximately one-third may be considered the expected average number of cases dismissed as corrected from a state- wide program. 1. The results of this study show that stutter- ing can be alleviated to the extent that the stutterer is considered adjusted socially, and‘his speech typical of accept- ed speech patterns. 2. On the basis of this study results, public school students handicapped by impaired hearing appear to be aided by speech correct- ion programs. II. Drop-out Cases A. The number of drop-out cases denotes a need for the continuing education of both parents and public school students concerning the necessity for, and advantages of, reeducation of the Speech handicapped child. A SURVEY OF CASE DISMISSALS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SPEECH CORRECTION PROGRAMS OF MICHIGAN Chester Arlington Richard, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1954 AC KN OWLE DGE MEN T S The author would like to express grateful acknowledge- ment to Dr. Max Nelson whose continual guidance was invalu- able; to Miss Elsie Edwards and Dr. Charles Pedrey Whose helpful comments and constructive criticism contributed greatly to this work; to Miss Mary Blair for her sincere in- terest and suggestions; and to the many superintendents and speech correctionists who were so c00perative and prompt in response to the author's requests. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM.AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED The problem . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the problem . . . . . Importance of the study . . . . . . . Definition of terms used . . . . . . . II. PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources of data . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation of data . . . . . . . . . . Types of defective speech . . . . . . The incidence of cases . . . . . . . Sex count . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grade level . . . . . . . . . . . . Pupil pepulation . . . . . . . . . Treatment of the findings . . . . . . . Questionnaire findings . . . . . . . Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General information abOut each program Case dismissals . . . . . . . . . . . . Relation to the type of defect . . . Comparative dismissal results . . . . PAGE (0034deth E3 Id P‘ b4 P' hi Id h' r4 a) .4 -a «a (n 01 en re 24 24 28 CHAPTER PAGE Total percent of dismissal relative to the type of defect . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Cases drOpped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Relative to the type of defect . . . . . 52 Reasons for drOp-out . . . . . . . . . 53 Comparative drop-out results . . . . . . 79 IV. SUMMARY'AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 TABLE I. II. III. IV. V. LIST OF TABLES General Information About Each Program . . Corrected Dismissals in Each Type of Defect for the Individual Programs . . . . . . . Comparative Percent of Dismissal for the Individual Programs . . . . . . . . . Total Dismissal for Each Type of Defect . . Drop-out According to Type of Defect . . . Number of DrOp-outs from the Individual Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 21 25 29 51 53 80 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED It is important to recognize the contribution that all factors make to a total speech correction program. The spe- cific phase of the program considered in this paper is the final stage of dismissal wherein the oorrectionist considered speech cases completely corrected or adjusted to the extent that remedial carry-over indicated these cases were no longer reliant on speech therapy. Closely akin to cases dismissed as corrected are those cases that drOp out before their in- dividual programs are completed. Information concerning those cases is also presented. The etiology of a case is a recognized.prime requisite of case study. Members of the field of speech correction are constantly studying, appraising, and.praoticing advoca- ted theories of remedial treatment. Many authoritative re- search papers are found in professional publications concern- ing the effectiveness of specific methods and techniques practiced in this field. Standards set up by the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction guide the Operation and organization of Michigan's speech correction program. The School Code pertaining to the education of the physically handicapped is explicit in regard to the (1) eligibility of pupils, (2) certification of teachers, (3) instruct- ional programs, (4) auxiliary services, (5) housing and equipment, (6) reports, and (7) the minimum case load (reimbursement).1 Tet -- to date there has been no account taken of the case dismissal results realized in Michigan's speech correct- ion program. Claude E. Kantner has expressed the basic aim of the profession in this manner--'. . . the sharp cutting edge of our field is the actual correction of someone's de- fective speech."2 It is also not known how many cases drOp out each year because of emotional involvement, parental objection, and the many other reasons given for discontin- uance of remedial speech aid. Total program practices may be improved and refined, as the profession grows, by the continuing publication of facts obtained by observers. familiarity with the facts and figures of each local situa- tion as well as the state-wide program provides a basis for recommendations and future study in this field. No attempt has been made, in this study, to evaluate the state program nor qualify any of the findings in this study. The object is to present, through facts and figures, a picture of that 1 "State Plan for Education of Physically Handicapped Children,‘ Bulletin No. 1025 (Lansing, Michigan: Depart- ment of Public Instruction, I954), pp. 1-7. 3 Charles van Riper editor Speech There A Book of Readings (New York: Prentice-Hall, mails—I155 , 5171'? . which existed at the time of survey. This information may be employed as a point of departure for future research and investigation of speech correction in Michigan. The author found one published paper that is directly related to this problem. The Irwin3 study reported, in part, case dismissal results of the speech correction pro- grams in the state of Ohio. During the two year period 1946 through 1943, 2,456 or 55% of the total number of chil- dren treated were considered, by the speech correctionist, corrected. Some speech correctionists are requested to submit year- ly reports to their school administrators. Mrs. Gladys E. Simpson, speech correctionist for the public schools of Iron- wood, wakefield, and Ironwood Township, Michigan, takes a survey of the preceding years work. Her 1952-55 report, (see Appendix), sixth year of survey, is a good example of this kind of report and one in which she treated the dismissal of cases. '. . . the number of incoming cases from kindergarten each year approximately equals the cases corrected each year, and that the overall correction rate is around fifty percent '. . . the correctionist ventures the guess that she is accumulating over the years the data for a good the- sis on a doctorate. Not many such statistical records are available for a study in speech correction litera- twe O O O O 3 Beokey Irwin, “Speech and Hearing Therapy in the Public Schools of Ohio," Journal g£_§psech and Hearing Qisorders, Vol. 14, 1949, pp. 65-68. I. The Problem Statement of thepproblem. The purpose of this study is to survey the speech correction programs within the state of Michigan (1) to determine what percentage of the 1952-55 case loads were considered corrected and adjusted to speech normalcy and consequently dismissed; and (2) to recognize the disposition and quantity of cases that are released be- fore they are considered ready for dismissal. Importance of the study. This study and its findings are deemed important in that the information is factual, fairly recent, and presents for the first time the quanti- tative case dismissal results of Michigan's speech reeduca- tion program. The information derived from this study may be employed as an aid for further study. This information is fairly current and.involves many of the peOple now work- .ing in and interested in this field. The author feels that 'there may be resultant value in stimulating professional in- terest and awareness. Knowledge of the incidence of various types of speech disorders present in a given school pepula- tion may also be of value and interest. II. Definitions of Terms Used Qgpg. In this study a case is interpreted as meaning any student enrolled in one of Michigan's public school speech correction programs; certified as an eligible pupil member of this program and exhibiting any of the syndromes of atypical speech i.e., speech that “deviates so far from the speech of other peOple that it calls attention to it- self, interferes with communication or causes its possessor to be maladjusted."4 Dismissal. Dismissal is interpreted as meaning the final act of releasing any public school speech correction case from a remedial class when the speech correctionist considers the atypical speech of this case corrected or im- proved to such an extent that adjustment to normalcy in speech has taken place. Proggam. Throughout the report of this study the term program is interpreted as meaning the organized plan of ac- tion established for “retraining those whose speech habits 4 Charles van Riper, Speech Correction Principles and Methods (second edition; New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1947), p. 15 are defective; (and for) devising ways and means of offsetting the effects of various maladies that disturb speech or prevent its deve10pment."5 Drop-out. DrOp-out is interpreted as meaning the loss of any public school speech correction case from a remedial class before that case has completed a speech reeducation program. 5 Robert West, Lou Kennedy, and Anna Carr, The Rehabili- tation of 8 each (revised edition, New York: Harper and Bro- ?"""‘"hera, 1'9'47 , p. 5. I). CHAPTER II PROCEDURE This chapter is devoted to an explanation of the origin of this study and the subsequent continuity of investigation. The different phases of the problem are covered in the same order in which they appeared in the questionnaire. The rea- sons for selection, the classificatiOn, and treatment of sub- ject matter are presented under three main headings. The main t0pics are; the sources of data, eXplanation of data, and treatment of the findings. I. Sources of Data During the preliminary planning of this project the author requested the counsel of Miss Mary Blair, Consultant for the Division of Special Education, State Department of Public In- struction. Miss Blair suggested that the findings of a case dismissal study could be interesting and of value. Investiga- tion of literature revealed an almost complete lack of infor- mation concerning the dismissal of cases from speech reeduca- tion programs. An informal interview of thirty speech correct- ionists resulted in an unanimous expression of interest andai fairly wide range of presupposed results; ten to thirty per- cent. A list of all areas having speech correction programs was obtained from the Division of Special Education, Michigan State Department of Public Instruction. A list of all public school speech correctionists was compiled from the State De- partment “Directory of Programs and Teachers of Physically Handicapped,’ and the I'Directory of the Michigan Speech Correc- tion Association.“ A.more current change of teacher personnel was determined through informal personal contact. A letter and a capy of the questionnaire, (see Appendix), explaining the writer's intent were sent to the superintendents, special education coordinators, and supervisors of all public school systems having speech correction.programs. Questionnaires were then sent to the individual speech correctionists. The returned information came from all representative types of programs; those under the jurisdiction of county, township, and municipal administration, situated in various geographical locations of the state. All information reported in the ques- tionnaires, returned from full-time public school programs, has been utilized in this study. Incomplete questionnaire re- turns were not included. II. Explanation of Data Speech disorders arise from many sources, are variant in kind and in degree, and effect many syndromes. Each speech case is an individual person experiencing basically singular .PPOblems. It is essential that the scape and depth of a speech problem be determined. .A correctionist needs to know whether the problem is of a physiological nature, psycholo- gical, or both. If the case is a problem of perseveration or imitation the therapy must be a program of relearning and in other cases, such as cerebral palsy, one of initial learn- ing. The variant causes and effects of atypical speech neo- essitate variant therapy and are indicative of the complexity of not only establishing criteria for case dismissal but also determining when the criteria is adequately met. The kinds of speech disorder considered in this study are a general classification of the type of cases serviced in the speech correction programs of Michigan. Apticulatory. The sounds s-z 1 r and. 3-9'. These four sound units are treated apart from other articu- latory cases because they are so frequently defective among school children and are assumed to be the most prevalent in this classification. '. . . four sound units (8-2), (1), (r), (f-J) have been selected for detailed discussion because they are fre- quently defective among both children, and adults, and because remedial procedures for their correction are more involved than those required for other defective sound units . . . .‘5 The sound unit 05-9) replaced (i-J) in this study because the 6 Ibid. p. 515. 10 author believes that this sound unit seems to prevail as much as, if not more than, the latter one. This belief results from the author's eXperience, and is based on the eXpression of different authorities. Articulatory. Those defects most Specifically related to the imperfect structure or inaccurate function and manipu- lation of the organs utilized for articulation are considered under this classification. It is in this type of defect that a majority of public school cases are found. These defects are exhibited as; sound omissions, substitution, addition, and distortion. Stuttering. There is no universally accepted definition of stuttering. Some definite statements can be made in the way of description. In a book prepared for the National Socie- ty for Crippled Children and Adults, by the American Speech.and Hearing Association a number of speech authorities expressed some mutually accepted observations about stuttering. '. . . Some stutterers hold their breaths or gaSp; others repeat sounds; some of them come to a dead halt, flush- ing with inner upheaval; others give forth a gutilated word or syllable over and over again . . . .' Later in the text it is stated that the secondary stutterer 7 Wendell Johnsan, editor, Stuttering (Chicago: The Nation- al Society for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc., 1948), p. 9. 11 expresses other forms of tense and anxious behaviour such as breathing disturbances and muscular tics. Cleft palate Speech. The physical deformation of cleft palate and cleft lip are defects that can scarcely be con- cealed even after surgical repair. McDonald and Baker8 con- cluded after a review of the literature dealing with cleft palate speech that most Speech correctionists recognize three major speech production problems: hypernasality, nasal emission, and misarticulation. Cerebral-palsy speech. Ainsworth9 states that slurring, omissions, and erratic substitutions are the primary articu- latory problems of a cerebral palsied Speech case. Voice problems are evidenced in excess nasality or nasal emission, muffled tones, harShness, and uncontrolled or monotonous pitch. '. . . loudness is affected by difficulties of breath control. Slowness of utterance should not be considered a defect, but jerkiness Should be corrected.’I West, Kennedy, and Carr state that sixty percent is a conservative estimate of the cerebral-palsied individuals having speech disorders. 3 Eugene T. McDonald, and Herbert Knapp Baker, 'Cleft Palate Speech: An Integration of Research and Clinical Obser— vation, I'gournal of Speech and Hearing_Disorders, Vol. 16, 1951, p. 9. 9 Stanley Ainsworth, Speech Correction Methods A;Manua1 2;,8peech Therapy and Public School grocedurep (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1949), p. 125. 12 “Half of all persons classed as cerebral-palsied cases have severely defective speech, in some cases quite limited or wholly incomprehensible."10 Voice defects. Voice defects are evidenced in atypical quality, pitch, inflection, modulation, and rhythm i.e., na- sal or strident quality, extreme depth or falsetto pitch, monotonous lack of inflection, extremes of modulation, or irregular cadence. Speech caused by impaired hearing. An individual must continually exercise a learned behavior so that he may retain command of this specific action. The fact that Speech, a learned behavior, is reliant on both the reception and per- ception of sound obligates the correctionist to render service to cases that are handicapped by a hearing loss. The speech correctionist may service two kinds of hearing cases: (1) those who have a hearing loss resulting in defective speech and (2) those who experience a hearing loss but have no speech defects. West, Kennedy, and Carr11 give three major classifi- cations of the latter case; these are: the 'word deaf' or sen- sory dysphasics are defective not in the reception of the physical sounds but in the perception of their meaning. 10 West, Kennedy, and Carr, pp. cit., p. 452. 11 Ibid., p. 241-42. 15 The ‘deaf' are doubly handicapped in that they fail to perceive the meanings usually attached to the sounds of Speech and the sounds themselves. The 'hard—of—hearing' are greatly in need of some tech- nique of language reception and may have ultimate need of help in perceiving what is Said to them. Dysphasia. Head12 defined four specific types of dys- phasia. His description of (l) verbal dySphasia is -- '. . . the inability to discover the exact form of words and phrases necessary for perfect external or internal Speech, together, with want of power to transform them into written charatters. . . .' (2) Syntactical dySphasia is ". . . a more or less gross dis- order of rhythm and syntax . . . .” (5) Nominal dysphasia is characterized by ". . . the want of power to discover appro- priate names, or to find categorical terms in which to express a situation." (4) Semantic dySphasia was defined as ". . . the lack of ability to recognize the full significance of words and phrases apart from their immediate verbal meaning." Cerebral-palsied Speech and dysphasic cases expend a great deal of energy concentrating on Speech during a remedial session. The period of time Spent in each session must be regulated.to prevent fatigue. Rehabilitation is likely to be slow in both types of speech. 12 Henry Head, Aphasia and Kindred Disorders of Speech volume 2. (Cambridge, England: Cambridge U. press, 1928): pp. x-xix. 14 Delgyed.§pe§gp, Van Riper15 states that delayed speech is characterized.by a narrow repertoire of consonants and unintelligibility, and that it often approximates the pattern of a very severe articulatory disorder. Examples are given, in his writing, pointing out that the degree of disorder is directly related to established norms and the situation. Drop-out cages. Throughout the year cases drOp out of remedial Speech classes for various reasons. A section of the questionnaire was devoted to determining the nature and extent of cases released. A report of the type of defect as well as the number of cases and the reasons for drOp-out were requested. To aid the correctionists seven of the prevalent causes of drOp-out; moved, religious objection, low mentality, parental objection, lack of interest, physical illness, and emotional disturbance, were listed and numbered. This helped facilitate response and-allowed time for necessary written eXplanation. Space was allowed for explanation of reasons other than those indicated. Investigation of different aspects of the incidence of defective speech cases has been made with the aim of offering information of interest and enlightenment. This will indicate 15 Charles Van Riper, Speech Cprrection Principles and Methods (third edition; New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954), p. 26-53. 15 the common characteristics of speech correction programs and the speech handicapped child, as well as variation and devia- tions from that which might be expected. pr counp. The number of male and female cases found in this study is compared to the expected make-up of a program as determined by authoritative sources. West, Kennedy, and Carr14 refer to "The White House Conference on Child Health and Protection of 1950" which contains a report concerning speech defectives found in the public school programs of forty- eight cities in the United States. On the basis of sex over 62% of 90,000 cases were male, the greatest differential was found in stuttering. Grade level. This White House Conference report material also-pointed out that the incidence of every type of defect is greatest during the first year of school life, except stutter- ing. Members of the field differ in Opinion as to the value of offering remedial Speech to kindergarten pupils. One school of thought suggests that in view of the fact that all chihdren of kindergarten age are not expected to have acquired all Speech sounds speech correction service isn't necessary in this grade level. West, Kennedy, and Carr15 set up a schedule of critical 14 West, Kennedy, and Carr, op. cit., p. 11-15. 15 West, Kennedy, and Carr, op. cit., p. 266. 16 ages by which time certain consonant and semi-vowel sounds should be consistently used in meaningful combinations in actual words. According to this schedule command of the last set of sound units is expected at approximately seven and one-half years of age. During this period of adjustment for the kindergarten child he may correct his errors and deveIOp Speech ability, at his own rate, through socialization with. other children. This would allow the speech correctionists to Offer more time and service to those children having more profound and firmly established defective speech patterns. The Opposing school of thought contends that speech correc- tion should be offered when the child is acquiring his Speech so that any persevering errors may be corrected before they become firmly entrenched in the child's pattern of speech. The distribution and quantity of cases in kindergarten, elementary, and secondary grades will give information con- cerning the make-up of the program investigated, also the varying practices existing at the time of this study. Pupil pOpulation. The total public school pupil pOpula- tion within each speech correction.program area was asked for so that this figure can be compared to the number of speech defectives serviced. This comparison determines the percent of’pupils considered.as speech handicapped. 17 III. Treatment of the Findings Approximate number of active programs . . . . . . . . 165 Number of questionnaires returned . . . . . . . . . . 89 Number of questionnaires used in this study . . . . . 48 Portion of the state program studied . . . . . . . .29.0% The directory of the Michigan Speech Correction Associa- tion lists forty-eight Speech correctionists in the Detroit Public Schools. That school system is not included in this study because their statistical records are set up to comply with the requirements of their business manager. These records are not readily available to the individual correctionists after they are reported and filed. The questionnaire results were tabulated under the follow- ing subject headings. 1. General information about each program. 2. Corrected dismissals in each type of defect for the individual programs. 5. The comparative percent of dismissal for the individual programs. 4. Total dismissal for each type of defect. 5. DrOp-out according to the type of defect. 6. Number of drOp-outs from the individual programs. CHAPTER III RESULTS The basic data derived from questionnaire returns are tabulated in arithmetical form. Employing tables offers a means of comparing individual programs, by showing the var- iance of results, as well as presenting a view of the state- wide program. Table I gives information pertinent to each program. Tables II and III deal with case dismissals. l. Dismissals for each program in relation to the types of defect. 2. Comparative dismissals realized by each program. Table IV Shows the total percent of dismissal relative to the type of defect. - Tables V and VI deal with cases that drOpped out before the programs were completed. 1. The number of cases and the reason for drOp-out relative to the type of defect for each program. 2. The total number of cases that drOpped out from each program. Each location, listed in the following tables, represents one program in that area i.e., Battle Creek #1 and Battle Creed #2 are each serviced by different speech correctionists. 19 This does not necessarily mean that there were only two speech correctionists in the Battle Creek.public school system. This survey deals with information concerning 29.0% of the active, full-time speech correction programs Operating in Michigan during the 1952-55 school year. 20 General Information About Each Program Table I on the following page presents a graphic description of each program. Data Variation of range Total pupil pOpulation * 1,518 to 7,800 Total case load ** 94 to 242 Male cases 58 to 189 Female cases 26 to 100 In all but two programs the number of male cases ex- ceeded the number of female cases. Cases in kindergarten 0 to 55 Cases in grades 1-6 0 to 225 Cases in grades 7-12 0 to 128 Number dismissed as corrected 9 to 145 Percent dismissed as corrected 5.6% to 62.5% * The pupil pOpulations given are approximated because of the yearly fluctuation of public school enrollment. ** The case loads given do not include cases that drOpped out before the completion of the years program. 21 .mommo HOOBSSIOAQ ma a o.na mm as mas m an can was oem.m Ashen , a n a Mooehecnm>v aomxoch o.mm men as man, 0 .nm ans”, mam ooo.e aanmeeoa soosuoaH a .eacanoucs .eooecoau s.mm an n cos 0 as as non. sso.n. ... oaseuaaam m.ma no em an“ w an mma ems ooo.e seem Hosea a.ma on a co” m an we can” man.a ma museum scene «.mm we a men m am can and ooo.n an museum Scene a.en on 0 can m as can mam oom.m ma Senna m.aa am as man e an and new oom.eh.w4 Amannasav «a cease e.om me on was as me am sea mma.m he heads n.en an an and a we was and mem.m mm .pnaaa «.mn mm o mam 0 Or was man oas.a an .anaaa e.en an e man as me has mam oom.a masseuse e.sa an as and me we sun and can.» canneaoe eouweasnea m.mn me an and on me and amm mem.n essences m.mn we as and 0 an on and con.» oeaaaeao e.am mm 0 was as con man mam mna.m ma shone oaapem e.am an o and mm me sad mmm eme.m an shone maaaem m.ma on m own 0 we mod can own.» sense se< pecans commas coca .nom snap nude mate 01a nephew noneo memco omen Hausa maoosom Ocmohom thEdz @90th moddhfi Loucg Oddaoh OHdS Hdvoa ddfloa é AH ahmmv Edmwomm mo. S 0 so: u '5' sm ** g a ** m 0 es :1 5* a as hhh h 0 QRHO 0000 cuoamnfimggmd Q dth ***** m6 QOGHGOG G HHHFQH HQFQfiUUHm OQHQHEECGECG§§0H “HRBESHSSSSSSss‘SS immoonahhhhhmmcmm TABLE II CORRECTED DISMISSALS IN EACH TYPE OF DEFECT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS (Part II) m H O 0 .Cl 0 (D I Ironwood, Wakefield, 00000 00000 NOr-IOPI H HNmOH H H oomoo nonoe oomom Hnmmm HOHON HflHO¢ <‘OOHO deuce-etc d‘Nd‘tOlD <' H discounts LO <' DION-HO ,4 161 89 5 115 48 16 196 24 7 60 25 4 & Ironwood Township Jackson (Vandercook L.) 125 15 25 Jonesville Lansing # 1 Lansing # 2 Marshall, Homer OOOO HOOH HOHH BOONLO OOOO HHNN OOON NNd'd‘ d'HON beN OOHIQ omens NLDNCO H 100 19 0 & Tekonwha Melvindale Menominee Midland Milwood, Cakwood, 26 00000 HHOOO OOOON NLOI-IOCD ,..| 00000 Od‘ONI-I OOONO HWONfi" H NNHNH WWI-INC) OHOOO NNI’JHd' O'd‘KQHO H emcee:- N N 4 6 O O 5 115 52 21 85 64 71 150 22 5 109 48 52 150 45 4 & Parchment Monroe Muskegon Heights Muskegon County Portage TABLE II CORRECTED DISMISSALS IN EACH TYPE OF DEFECT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS (Part III) Typecofggpfect Schools 00000000000000 ONOOOHHNOOOHOO OOONOOHONOHHNO 0m00 menmnH 0o H ¢ EH HOOOOOOOOOOOHO HOHON@OHOOONHH OOOOOQOHHOOHHH nmnmmgnnmnnnma HONOH¢HHNNHHHH Hm¢¢n®m¢mbdndn OOOOOOOOOOOHHO ONHHHBHNO¢HHNH nmeaoo noaoeom an Hfi'NHlfld‘Nmel—l H NH H N d‘ 2 10 2 10 5 4 2 1 12 1 6 O 2 2 4 5 5 2 4 4 67 17 45 15 20 112 18 98 29 54 155 40 114 26 15 42 5 106 161 75 170 49 86 22 79 42 28 151 47 59 110 29 14 1 96 51 155 50 52 Charles Rochester & Avondale Saginaw #1 Port Huron Reed City Romulus Township Saginaw #2 Sandusky Sanilac County Southfield Township Tuscola County Union City Van Buren Township Wayne St. Whitehall, Montagne, 27 000 COO 0020 #25 OOO tepny PthQ 5 2 1 5 O 4 0 5 4 2 2 2 O 9 6 9 160 57 2O 16 11 0 9 156 81 115 76 & North Muskegon wyandotte wyoming Park 28 Comparative Percent of Dismissal for the Individual Programs Table III on the following page presents this data, listing the school programs in ascending order of the per- cent of dismissal. The total case load carried . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,516* Total number of cases dismissed as corrected . . . 2,501 Total percent of dismissal as corrected . . . . . . 50.0% Average number dismissed as corrected . . . . . . . 52.1 The Irwin study, page three, was conducted in the pub- lic schools of Ohio during the 1946 and 1947 school years. The figures below compare the results of this study to the Irwin study. Years Number dismissed Percent dismissed as corrected as corrected Irwin study 2 2,456 55.0% Present study 1 2,501 50.0% 7 The total case load carried does not include cases that drOpped out during the year. TABLE III COMPARATIVE PERCENT OF DISMISSAL FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS Schools Percent of dismissal as corrected 29 St. Charles Flint #4 (Kearsley Ag.) Ann Arbor Jackson.(Vandercook Lake) Lansing #1 Grand Rapids #2 Muskegon County Crystal Falls Reed City Melvindale wayne Parmington Township Hazel Park Flint #5 Romulus Township Tuscola County Monroe Grand Rapids #1 Port Huron van Buren Township Sandusky Battle Creek #1 Battle Creek #2 Southfield Township Hillsdale Saginaw #2 O C O O HHHHHHH mmmpumwm O mmwmommm O O O O O O NNNNNNNNNNN me-Q'QOIU'IUIUHFOI O QOPIPCDmUIIF-QO-Q TABLE III (continued) COMPARATIVE PERCENT OF DISMISSAL FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS WWW Schools Percent of Bismissal as Corrected Whitehall, Montague, and North Muskegon 29.2 Union City 50.5 Milwood, Oakwood and Parchment 50.5 Rochester and Avondale 50.9 Menominee 51.2 Dearborn 52.5 Ferndale 54.4 Flint #2 54.5 Lansing #2 55.1 Cadillac 55.8 Flint #5 57.7 Iyandotte 57.9 Flint #1 58.4 Marshall, Homer, and Tekonsha 58.6 Saginaw II 45.9 Sanilac County 46.0 Muskegon Heights 48.0 Jonesville 49.4 Midland 55.0 Portage 54.8 Ironwood, Wakefield, and Ironwood Township 59.0 WYoming,Park 62.5 TOTAL DISMISSAL FOR EACH TYPE OF DEFECT TABLE IV 51 Number Number dis- Percent dis- Defect carried missed as missed as corrected corrected (3), (1), (r), 60-37 5,764 1818 51.5 Other articulatory 909 514 54.5 Stuttering 770 219 28.4 Cleft palate 104 19 18.2 Voice disorder 164 70 42.6 Hearing 176 27 15.5 Cerebral palsy 110 4 5.6 Delayed speech 280 51 11.0 Dysphasia 15 0 0.0 Dialect and other cases not listed 14 Percent of the Total l(3)2 (1): (1‘), (9.3) Other articulatory Stuttering Voice disorder Delayed speech Hearing Cleft palate Cerebral palsy DySphasia 72.6 12.5 8.7 2.7 1.2 1.0 .7 .1 0.0 Dismissed as Corrected 52 Drop-out According to Type of Defect This subject matter is dealt with in Table V on the following page. The data from each program is tabulated separately because the reasons for drOp-out are so variable. Reasons Total drOp-out from Percent of all all programs drOp-out Moved 484 65.0 Other reasons“ 85 10.8 Low mentality . 50 6.5 Lack of interest 42 5.4 Parental objection 54' 4.4 Emotional up-set 18 2.5 Physical illness 17 2.2 Religious objection 2 .2 In one instance the speech correctionist did not give the reasons, numerically, for thirty-eight additional drOp- out cases. Some of the cases drOpped out for two of the listed reasons. The author listed these cases under the one reason that seemed to be the most influential to drOp-out. . Some of the other reasons given by the speech correctionists were; the students entered parochial or Special schools, quit school, graduated from school or graduated into a grade level that was not offered Speech correction, and transportation to the remedial center was impossible. 55 .Hoonom ca mac; and: no: can upcoawa on» new mass opampmo mea>aoooa was caano 020 #$ madauom .oaap was» as oaoammom no man mm 0200 o>mn con $513 0?: .pmficoapooaaoo noooam on» on 9.30.3034 a. Aouhviavisiaumv “mzomemm .850 ”5.66me mo 6831 mmmwsamzm :8QO @6230 $23 $36.80 #13 maimmm 628% 85> H H 833 £20 2:322 53.63552 .850 a m is .9 .5 5.3 Lama: mmoca 58.292: 838.36 5:358 558.36 .62 m. ansofim 33903 mo #23 ~352m 36A msowwzem 6262 Race 536-995 Sm someom Summon mo can. m0mm< 2.24 BOHhHQ ho mafia. 09 UZHQmOUO< webodomm > mum—«C. 54 mapwaohsoaaom * AanV.AaV.AHV.AuuuV "mnomwmm 8:50 ”8380 06 893. ammenamznw H 888% @9380 8:3 8.38.80 A wztmmm 80.88% 88> a 332 920 m1 22828 23335.8 .850 3 in ma 3.50 .3 .8 .35 88-92 8885: umoaflfi 26388.36 13:85:88 8588.36 .62 m. EcoSoEm Hommmam mo 48.3 Reagan Boa msomwzwm @262 1369 a 36.520 8m somemm 88.80 .8 883. MHHH Assumam auao :5 «one ocov H4 mmmmo maeaam Bomrmm—Q ho WEE. 09 UZHQmOOO< mEDOiOMHQ > mqm 833 5.810 a H m58£3m m m 12828.58 .850 f a «213 .3 .5 ca 985: .885: 58.855 838.36 5:388 858.36 62 h. Ezofiofim Hmommzam mo 83.. 85.88% 364 msowwmmm 882 889 56-8.5 .8.“ 288m 3392 .38 5 «93 8585 $08.80 8.81% 88.80 mo 33. Bowman m0 mm>9 0H. UZHQm000< mEDOHHOmQ .. > .385. 56 .oHonmoQEH GOpruaoamcwaa \ wzHamom .mmeo HwHooam 8H3» on use: on non: vo>Hoooa as :oHpcouua on» pause» non 0: wow .opwsuocw mm: noooam mHz pan» pHOh vHHno ## oumHaQ amoHo .mommuHo amHawoa wchmHs mcHHno op Uopoonno upcoamm # ACth.HaV.AHV.AuumV ”388$ .850 8880 00 883. 888:5sz H H 88% 8.880 zmfia 8.58.80 \H mfiammm H H 80.8me 88> ##H H 833 5.85 H a 85.1888 m N 2853838 .850 S m o 8.50 .3 .8 2.3 58A; 885: 58.855 838.36 32386 838.36 .62 h. fiazomaofim «88.03 no 08.84 388m 36H msomwmom 8.82 136% 56-8.5 8m 888m 88.89 mo 89$. 0¢H4H0¢o EOHEHQ m0 mm>9 09 072Qm00n;fl mBDOQOmQ > mqm it. 332 86 H H wfi8£3m *m w 33383.8 . . 8:50 m m 8.50 E 6 Asia 58-0: 885: 58853 858.36 @2388 «858.36 .62 h. ficosofim H8853 mo 8.3 Hfinmasm Bog muommmmm 882 889 556.880 8m 888m 8889 mo 25H. 312E HB 09 UZHQMOOOHH mBDOAHOmQ > mgmflh 58 ”288$ .830 38.80 we 883. 383%an 388% 8.0380 >33 838.80 93.383 88.838 88> 332 88 m H m 8:328 d 3 333838 .830 m ma 3 8.3 .3 .8 .33 3815 .883: 38.833 838.36 3:388 858.36 62 h. fiaofiofim Banana no 383 _38.8m Boa msorwzmm 8.62 2369 35-8.5 8m 888m zmommfimn 3880 we 8&9 Bowman ,mO mm>9 09 OZHQmOOU< mEDOd0mQ > m3m yon vexed ucocdum «t uovLOmfiv ooao> .Hoonom HaHSoonma a on pact unocsum * onwaan umoao .pmacoapooppoo semen» on» o» wnavpoooa Ho>oa noooau wopaoooa on a: pswnonp one: Gopcaano couhmwnoocfix Coopxdm and .Emhmopa :oapOOAQOo £3on 5 @3325 no: can we? 5:3: Hoonom Boon no.5 5 momma 25 .aoonom ~350qu a on use: Nam \ “antimizvénomv "283mm .855 58me mo 3.? . £923sz tl :8on @9339 mmfim 3.5980 wsfiwom ##H H 86.8va 88> 3 323 ago wasfiam E32353 .850 a N 4m 3m 3:: .3 .8 $3 ummé: $05: $835 20383“. .323qu «838.5% .o Z a. Ezompofim Bowmmnm mo v3.3 :35an Bed msomwzom @962 :33. “Bodega .Sm commom 83mm mo 05 mHmmZEOB zoecszm¢m Bowman ho mEVB 09 02252504 webodomm > mum—1:. o>onaefl gaze: Cmpvaaso on» pan» pawn hmna .hufipspae and: .mommmao nomoam Unouuw on mcfi>m£ hp conapmewfipm covaHno on» paw: p.ccac momma pcopoum«c 0:» mo museham #* UHSOB Convaano pawn momma pampomm«c 0:» mo mucopwm # weapoppspm .mpoomov zopw uso hAOpaHSOHupa ponpo "mnemmmm .850 «Examsz :8on @9339 zmfima RSSQU wnfimom 322% 88> 333 $20 ##w m : mamaofigm *m N 3033033 .Sfio H S «235 .3 .6 fié uomds @825 328.: 538.5% 32358 538on 6 Z h Baosofim Bommmam mo x25 “Savanna 33 msomwzmm @262 3.68 usodogn .8m 5925 8309 «c 2r? mq¢azmmm 90?me ho 9:3. 09 UZHDmOOO< weboiomm > mam—(nu. Summon mo wag 41 .Hoonou swan acacia. can“ :0 £3: 0:0 25 max. maapogaum .mdnwpmc: hho> one: can» upoaaumac cohoaoo CH opw maoonom one # Aonbv.apv.AHV.Auuuv "maomamm .850 “88.80 mo 8E. «mmmsmmmm 588% “.9380 883 83980 watmom 838% 88> 3&3 5.85 m £3 838838 b33358 .850 «mm mm Ag: .3 .6 A30 58?? 385: 88.855 858.98 $2.388 858.5% 62 b. Enosofim Rommham mo #23 ~388m Boa 56%:me .832 885 53-995 8m 838m 8880 .8 as “83»: hpao CH «9: 2.5V HM BzHBm Bowman .m0 mmwfi 0B UZHQm000< mBDORHOfiQ > mum 333 88 8:833 w «m macaw—85% .850 33 .3 .e .8 58...“: 885: 58.855 858.30 3:388 858?? 62 h. Enemaofim 83903 no 8884 85:88AM Boa msomwzom 882 ~33. 30-8.5 8m 888m “Empmhm huao ca 8898 nonpocE 0H. GZHQmOUO< wEDOdOmQ > mqmflh 3880 mo 8% 45 hamponp macaw o» ado: 09000 no: 0H0 omwo wcahwom .onwo voasnca Camps oco #* wcanouuaam .pcmcspm oaHuuupwn a ma: apanu a cam .Hoonom Swan no use voaaopv oco .vOpwavahw omwo one # AthV.ApV.AHV.ANumV .0opmznwpw oco “\ hmama Hapnopoo "mcommmm .850 ”000000 00 00>? 080:8an 800% 00380 mm mm 00 88 XX.” ~ _w:mHmmm 838% 88> 323 :20 H H H 33 002838 08003038 .850 . 3 £135 .3 .6 0-0 8?? 0085: 08805 00308.30 3:388 20508.30 .0 Z a. Raofiofim 80830 m0 804 808.80 304 mzomwzwm 0262 1309 000-0000 8m comawm 000.80 .8 883. Aaoumhm hpao :H wopm 90:00:40 w% aqum EOEEHQ m0 mmWE 09 02238004 mEDOdOmQ > mam 833 88 H H 8:338 3085858 8:5 HH HH $8 .3 .8 8-3 58-8 85: 58855 858.30 38588 85830 .0 Z x. 8852mm 808.3m 8 v8.3 858.me 30A msommzmm 882 800mL 80.8.5 88 828m 8880 .8 83. Aaopmhm huge CH moan pmnaoce 09 02H0m000< mEDONHOmQ > mumafl. 45 JH ”0 NFV I .2083: 2.5 05w no: v.8 ”0.5830938 Samoan 059 TV .830 a.“ 0080 0.5 ho.“ soon 25: p.82" \ novhonfio ooao> ”mcomnmm 8.50 "500.89 «8 00>? H 50min $005 588a: 8500.30 3:388 8500.30 38:85 H 8008 0083a 8:3 3.50.80 H @88me \m .808ch 88> 323 0020 n 083.5% m 805E858 8.50 a 35 .3 .3 0-3 .0 Z A E8508m Rommfia m0 804 1508.8 30.... msomwzmm 0082 888 80.8.5 8% 828m Asopmhm huflo :0 «ohm 0:00 H* m0~m mqufih 50309 .8 00.3. 46 rig-133.13; .Hmpfimmon accomoaa>coo m.copcaano a 2099 compwnomac who: :09 unaano on» omHo no .hwsm vo>os nonpao nOHHHEmh pzwwm fit hmawm Hapnmnoo Aapconmm was nwsopsu £903 on pmupon pa concuamcoo and acoaquLLOo Samoan one .momwo coapmazoappm newcaoh no mmwao ompma a CH mm: hohoppsum hhovCOOOm oco t wcanoupSum m uomd: mama—m ummgoufi 5583c 328:2: fizosoam Eammba mo x23 332mm Bod ”Bodega .8.“ acmmom ”mnemmmm .850 38me mo m5 Emmsmmhml. :8QO comflmm zmflwm 22830 wstmmm N m m H H 36.8me 88> *H t¢w 328 :20 2:83am 4.. : mucuflsomtw 3&0 N 35 .3 .3 .EV :oBooHo .o Z n. msoanwm 362 35. common «o as Asopmhm mafia ca mega ponuoz mamapoomov can Canvaano Laos» can» pow“ oz» umooow no: vazot momwo 0:» mo muconma one # AOJNV.ApV.AHV.Auan "mzomaom .850 ”8880 we 893. «82%an m m 888% @9380 mafia 83880 ##H watwom .8286 88> 3.33 9.85 mczwfiam \H N 882338 . 8&0 a o a AGE .3 5 gig 8min 98:5 8885 838.30 3:388 :oEuwBo .o Z .n. .1383o8m Eommznm no 850 Eusmawm Bog msomwzmm @262 3.89. 3.0-8.5 8m commom 88.80 .8 as Mm mam a H 333 88 8:888 m ##m 833858 8:80 am 2 2 A33 .3 .3 :30 88-9: 885: 8885 858.28 5:388 8583a .02 H Lwcofiofim 8883A: 8 v8.3 8888.: .33 288:8: 882 889 88-8.5 8m :88: 88.80 8 893. mq<0quHm 80...:th rm0 mE>E 0m. 0730:0004 m930d0mm > mam 88:8 58:0 m N 8:338 m N 838858 . . 8.50 m m 8.8 3 8 :30 58.9: 88:: 58.858 858.28 3:888 85838 .8 Z n. 88588“: 888893 8 :8: 8588: 88: 888:3: 882 889 88-8.5 8m :88: 8880 8 883. mHmmzaoe mooazomH new «nqumm883 «mooazomH 90":me m0 mafiwfi 0:. UZHQm000< mBDOKHOmQ > mamopQEa n.cmms vaano uanOSp vacuum oco #* :0 mafia was unonm vaaso page vonhouopm pcopwm one # mafiacpusum .xno: Hoonom 27.3 Anviiiuumv "mcomwmm .850 «5.93ka 58% vexflmm $23 3.3980 @25me .8385. 88> 32.3 $20 5: H @2355 58535325 .850 m «A H m o 3.23 $5 .5 .Auév 53-3. @852 338$ 558.2? 3:358 =o583o 6 Z Lb Eno5o8m Ramada mo x33 23:98AM Bog msomwzmm @962 Race 53-995 .85 commom onwq xooohoccmgv zomMo mAm 833 585 J : w£853m #853558 a a HQSGO m m 8.50 E 8 .55 8a-? 385: 88.855 858.58 5:388 858.30 .0 Z w. 8=o5o8m 8083A mo xowq «Sufism Boa msomwzmmlwgoz 8.89 53-8.5 .85 common maqH>mm20h 8880 no 255 9095—0 ho marry 09 UZHQm000< m9b0i0m0 > mqmag 52 .0» Gonna; 0: HH pH xaopn cHsoo uHHno on» pan» Una pHnmn a tho Sooomm uanOSu unohoa oco # HthV.ApV.AHV.AuumV 8:88me 8:5 ”88me mo 83H Emmgamzm :8QO 69$“va mafia 8.38.80 wztmmm 868ch 88> 333 :20 32338 2.895338 8.30 H m z a 835 .3 .e .83 8?? £85: 88.35 838.28 3:388 838.30 62 a. !_goEoEm Reagan mo :23 Ramayana Boa msomwzmm H882 Egon. 30-3th 8m commom 888D me 893. Asopnhm mafia :H «mam ocov Hm oszz«a Bowman ho mmwe OE UZHQmOOO< mabOdOfiQ > mHm \\m 888: 986 H 3 8:335 ##m $33858 . . 8&0 H H m *9 8.50 E a .Gé 8mg 82:: 8835 8383a Km58:85 8383c 6 Z .w. 88:85“: 8393: .8 :23 8u88m Boa msofim_mfiwo>o2 :Soh 39:80 .8: 888m Afiopmhm tho CH «098 manpocdv N% cszz mqm ”magnum 8:30 ”8889 .8 893. 8893sz H a 88% 88:5 88m 83880 wzfimmm .3 888ch 88> 3&3 820 H H 3:83an 383838 8:30 m H m H133 .3 .6 83 33-9: 82:: 38835 838.58 58388 838.30 62 R. 88325. 83m3m .8 v8.3 8388A Bed 3582va @962 885 33-8.5 8m 888m 898G mo 8&3. «mmzomme 28 482% :3;me Bowman ho mmwfi OE UZHQmOOO< mEDOdOflQ > mam—<9. 55 ucom mm: ponnocw can .thpra% oHummpu a made acct .oEon coHuCopov 0» 82835: 830 Honk; £3.30 :73 ”88.80 We 88? 38830 :8on 8880 88: 8.5880 chmmm 8:8me 88> 333 :20 H H m 9:83st 33383.8 830 w m *0 3.50 .3 .8 :30 82:: £85: 38833 8383c 3:388 8383c .oZ n. *8no3ofim 8883m mo 8.3 8385: Bed msomw:mm 8:62 888 30.8.5 83 :88: mAAm§ B0mEHQ m0 ESP: 0% 0225:0004 mfibodomn > mamafi. 3880 we 89S. 56 .mHon :H vapmomoch c.8080: 80390 on» no mucopwa on» «Hoonom HaHsoonmm on new: made 080 \ wchmem .UOpwsvmpw ammo oco opwHwn uhoHo .Hoonom HmHnoopwa a on coppoMmcupu 0:9 #¢ hAOpwHSoHpna nonpo .GoHuoopAoo Low Hoogom oHHQSQ on mpCOUSum nHonp UCOm on emoono no: 6H6 mHoonom 008:» on» we as» Una mHoonom Hanoonwa Scam cswncSuHB Empwopa COHuooppoo noooam .momuo uanm * Honwv.¢nv.AHv..numv “888m 830 3880 mo 33. 3888sz H H 88% 8880 889 8.3880 H \\m .8883 838:“. 88> H \m 823 820 88.88 H H m *3 833838 830 m H m 31.8.80 .3 .3 8.3 8th. Q88: 38838 838.38 3:388 8383c .o Z a. 883o8m 89885 no :23 :388m Boa 888:8: 8.32 88:. 38.8.5 8% 8.88: 3880 we 88¢. mmzHaozmz 909.:an ho HAVE OE 02H0m000< weboxmomn > mqmafi. 57 .mpcmhwa on» on mcHopoooa .803008 :0 ooH>vw so vommeoA came one fl$ wthcppSpm .msohw UHHno mm hHmmpH . pooppoo anos summam pHom mmmao NHm ho unnonwm * AOJRV.AQV.AHV.AnumV Hmzomwmm 8:30 5880 «o 893. 38:8an 88% 8380 38m 8.5880 H H 33.83: 88.83. 88> 323 86 ##H m m M88333 H H w : 33383.8 830 m .6 h mH £233 .3 .3 .33 38-8: 988: 38838 8383c 3:388 8383c .oZ N 88888": 80335 mo 88.: 8888A Boa 808:3: 8mg: 88:. 38-8.5 83 :8me 88.80 mo 25:. QZ mqmflh 58 .oacHHo .o.2.3 on pcom ammo *# ufinmnnmha .oanaao .o.z.; o» ncom one: momao 039 * weanoupnpm ”mnommom .Sfio 58me mo 3.3. #«A mmwmnmmzm 508% cmzflmm mafia 3.5200 wzmgmom 338% 83> 833 £20 am 9.233% msg#35053 8&0 o 0 A35 .3 .8 .33 find: 365: $883 558.30 333%.: 5583.. 62 [h EnoBoEm EommEm mo x23 fiuqmawm Bog msomwzmm @962 :33. 93-995 .Sm :omwom gamma mo 2S9 ezmzmom«m unajdnooam mam 323 88 8:338 m N 833838 .850 H S *3 353 .3 .8 .33 83:: 388: 8838 8383a 3:388 8583c 62 m. 88:88: 8333.: .8 88A c388: Boa 888:8: 882 :33. 89.8.5 .8: 838m @0582 88me mo 89? 90":th ho ":me 0:. 0225:0004 mfibodomm > mum—3H. 40058 £058 00» magmas 0.8: «8.6128 was» paw.“ woman .30.“ mo mpaonum a. “03.823.30.380 8898M 8&0 5880 go 883.. . Emmzmmzm J. 888% @9380 88m $3880 mzmgmmm .868va 88> 323 :20 8:338 8383838 8&0 3 m : oiwwfiv .3 .8 .fié 8nd: 885: ”—8895 8383a 3:388 8383c 62 h. Rzompofim 888.93 mo 8.3 ~388m Bog msomwzom 882 :33. 3.0.980 8m 8.88m 88.80 .8 89mm. M92000 200mMmDE 90mmma ho mmwe 09 0ZHQm000< mEDOdOmQ > mAm 823 n£20 8:23me 8883858 8&0 4 5 $3 .3 .5 .33 8:83.. .02 m. 3%:me 8.62 38. 88.80 no 893. B0mEHQ .m0 mm?& 09 02H0m000< $500-00»:— > mammm 9.:mw: poomoc mnemwSum pamh mucopwa one .uCoaHHu game: can m can once 0:0 # AthV.ApV.AHV.ANauV umcomwom 8&0 5880 .8 893. ammwsmmmm 888% @9380 889 8.5880 \H H 853% .868me 88> 33$ :20 ##H H wfi8£5m H H 83.3838 . . 8&0 .uH H 33 3 E .33 8?? $85: 8235 838.3%. 5:888 838.30 5 Z w. Lacoflofim 8333mm mo :23 H3855 Bog I msomwnom 882 889 30.920 8m 838m .8880 mo 33. modemom EOHhmm R0 mmwe 0E 02H0m000< mEDOdOMQ > mam H H 333 :8 m m 8:338 m N 83383.8 8&0 H H m NH 538 .3 .5 .33 38-8 885: 8885 838.30 33.38.: 83831o 62 N 883883 «smash 8 x83 8388m >84 £883me 882 889 "I E 38-830 8% 888m 3880 mo 83. MB Ho Qmmm 90mmm~0 .m0 @829 0a. 02H0m000< mBDOiOmQ > m3m 838 38 88388 883838 8&0 H H m 3.3 .3 .e .8 38.3: .885: 38833 838.38 3:385 838.38 62 n. *88308m ~833m 8 8.3 838.8m 39H msomwmom 882 889 38-830 8« 888m 88.80 .8 89$. WA¢QZC>¢ can mmammmo om 900.220 «H0 @928 09 0ZHQm000< mBDOAHOmHQ > mquc. "3880 8 88m. 65 .mapwowmcwecs omao on» uopoowmcoo umwcoauooppoo t opuaaa phoao "anomaom .850 38ng mo «93. ammmngmzn 58% "axiom H , H .323 33¢qu mstmwm 328% 83> .3 833 $20 A H mfiaofigm .Couflsomfim 3.30 m m 3.3 .3 .8 .fié 8?? $05: .5235 538.3% 3:3qu :oEooFo .oZ n. Rnofiofim Bommmnm mo x23 :35an Bed msomwzom 32.2 :33. 333nm .Sm :83m 88%— mo mg mHmmzaom. mbqezom EUmEHQ ho mam? 09 02232504 weboiomm > mum/C. 66 .Hoonom pasa once one ** hQOpmHSoHpnu mango 230:3 “:56 0880 one a. Aoshv .73 .AC.Auumv "msommwm .850 Seaman mo 89mm. Samanfizmb. 88% @9389 889 8.5880 wztmwm 898me 88> 388g ”.85 858338 a N .3: ahead—somfiw . 8&5 w H 3 A33 .3 € .33 88$: 32:: 8333 8383a 5:388 :oanEo .02 n. 3:285 3338 mo :23 38.88 E: 25%:me 8.62 38. 398.5 8m somaom 8889 8 893. mmqm¢mo . am Bomhmn ho WAVE OE OZHQmOOO< mEDodomn > mumoe omwo ponuocw no ha~£mh pan» concoEEoooA pouoom ## .memEoo thploohca am now vafioa GHHSO pmzp uaoh omwo one no unohwm one # AOJRV.AAV.AHV.ANIuV 888me 8:5 "888mm 8 88$. W 8828mm J 888% @9383 823 838.80 \m maisom .888va 88> 333 885 8:338 khan—£858 .850 «:3 «A m S 8.5 .3 .3 .33 88m: 885: 8880:: 858.58 3:385 85830 62 n. finofiofim Hommzam 8 x33 Ramayana Bog mzomwzmm 882 889 89.8.5 8m 888m 888Q 8 893. Aaoumhm hpao CH noun 0:03 H* g¢sz mamafl. 68 8888m .830 $8.8m 8 893. 883829 88% 888D 88g 8.58.80 N m 888$ .8888 88> 8&3 :8 8838 3832838 .830 H om 88-8 .3 .8 .33 38.3. .885: 38.835 8383c @3388 838.30 .0 Z h. 883o8m 388.93 8 x84 :388m .84 msommmmm 882 889 38-8.5 8m 88me 3889 8 883. AEoumhm 3330 CH «038 nonuoc mqm 333 85 H H qumfism macaw—35$ . . .835 H 0H H233 E 8 .33 amid: $25 @885 553.28 3:358 558.58 .02 h Hanofiofim Haommzam 8 :34 13:98am Boa msomwzmm 882 888 ”.2135 8% commom £5me 8 3.3. §mbnz mumxfir 7O ”m8m8m .830 £88sz 88% 888D 8.3 8.2880 M3383 .8888 88> 333 385 H H 8:888 m N 3083038 830 H H m N 3.8 .3 .8 8.3 38-3 885: 38.833 838.30 3:388 838.30 .0 Z n. 88308m 803.33 8 88A 838.8m 304 mzommzom 882 8309 80.8.5 8% 8.88m HRH/500 0 <3 Hch 3889 8 89mm. Bowman rmO Entry Om. UZHQmOOU< mfibodomm > mum—«C. 388m 8 88mm 71 .0:00:u0 H0H00Q0 0 00 .050 00am:H0. 0: 00: 0:0 .800: :« hHH:0000u0H000 0:08 u0fin00 0H300 0H«:0 paom 0000 0H:u mo :030000 0:0 :05002 \ w:a:0up:0m .xpot Hoonom £098 000 m:H00fiE 00k 0Ha£0 uaou 0000 0:0 00 :03002 0* .w:HH500:00 000H0 ou:H 0H0 0.:0H0 0000 :0nuo:0 0:0 .0HHSB 0 :00 £00000 hp» 00 000:0: 0:0 0:0000 :0EL00 00: 00000 ota # AOJhV.A:V.AHv.Auu0V , "0:0000m 00:00 500009 00 093. W Emmaamzml £00000 00.n0_0m .0003 3:00:00 0:200m 000.80% 0000:? 000:3 $05 m 03 05550 J 4 muouflsosg 00:00 H H 3H H. £20.03 .3 .8 .030 000.0: 000:5 0000003 5500.30 3:00:08 5300.30 .0 Z a. _0:0$0H:m _00m0.3m M0 #23 0300.23 30A 0=0E=0m 00.62 030mL 05000.5 00m 00000m 00005 00 0E $002000 Smamgom Bowman— ho mEVE OB GZHDmOOD< webcdomn > mgm 00080 0030 000330 0.8003058 845 m H 0 m 0H 8.05 .3 .8 .300 000-0: 000:5 000805 8500.30 00:00:05 8500.30 .0 Z a. 8:030:00 8000.30 mo 00004 038.80 33 0:000:30 0082 0309 00000.5 .80 :0000m 000000 00 00.3. M82000 30095. 0.00me 00 HEMP 09 0225000040. wBDOdOmQ > mum ”080002 .880 ”00080 8 00>? H H 000000000 80000 000080 0080 8.50.80 @8802 .3 80.8030 88> 328 020 0 0 08380 .n .n N 0888038 .850 m m 00.5 .8 .5 .00 0000: 000:0: 300.805 8300.30 0308388 8300.30 .02 N. 883080 808.30 8 0804 88080 30A 088:0m 0082 880L 80-0000 .80 800002 EHO ZOHZD 00080 8 00.3. B0th0 020 mmwe 0E 02202000< webodomm > mama‘h 74 .0«:oeao:0 Mo 0000 000:0 0:0 #0 300000 0000000 .00000 00:30 00000300 00 0000000080 00: 00 # Aonv.A:v.AHv.Auu0v ”080000 .830 ”000.80 8 000.0. 000030000 80000 000080 0.080 8.3080 0.5.802 80.8030 88> 808 020 083030 08008038 .830 m *0 8.8 .3 .8 .33 000-0: 000:0: 000.805 8300.30 N00808:: 8300.30 .02 h 8:030:00 8000.30 8 00000 80:08.0 .500 080.0000 0082 8000. HHHHHHN HHHHHHg 08-0000 .80 80000 00080 8 00.20. m Hmmzaom. 20000 z<> 0.00000 00 00.20. 00. 020000004 m9200000 > 000Suaoz 030 on 000080000 0000 000 \ £00000 0000.30 .0000 9030000 mcfipama> 0 ma cawno 0C0 ## weapoppzum .cofipoonnoo £00000 pcwppwk on swaoco 000>00 no: mat annon0 0.0H050 on» 00:» uaom 0000 0:0 00 00:00: # Aonbv.anv.hav.aunuv ”0000080 00:00 “000800 8 0000L 0000:0009 H m M 500000 00000009 \ 03.00 8.50000 9000.30 000.80% 88> 000000 0800 3: H 0 05.8030 m m . 0030000300 . . 00:00 m 0H 0 020.03 3 5 00-3 000.00 00052 000.8000 00300.30 00:00:08 0030030 .0 2 h 80050800 0000930 8 00004 00000000 .304 000030000 0082 00,80k 00000.5 .80 0000000 808C 8 0000. MEG; BOmEm—Q no 9th 00. 02090000040 mEDOdomn > mam 030000 385 0:20:30 3030000300 .0030 3 H 3.30 .3 .8 .300 300-0: 0005: 300.0035 00300.30 03:03:08 00300.30 .0 Z n. 80030800 0000030 8 00004 00300000 304 0:000:80 00.52 00.80. 3000.5 80 0000000 300800 8 0000. zowfixmbz memoz and HDO mumgfi. 77 ”0000000 0050 “00089 8 00.0.0. 00000000Q 000000 0000009 0200 00.30000 @5830 0000008 88> 323 000 0003030 0000030500 00000 H H 0 3 «10.00 .3 .8 00-3 000-00 00000: 00000000 00300.30 30000000 0050030 .0 Z n. *0000300000 00000.30 8 0000.0 00000000 304 000000000 00.62 00000. 000-0009 000 0000000 000009 8 0000. 00.0.0020; 0.000th 00 @000. O0. OZHQmOOO< mEDOAmomQ > mqm 800.0 020 0003030 #H a 000000000000 00:00 0 0 3.0.0 .3 .8 00-00 000-00 00000: 00000000 000000.30 50000000 000000.30 .0 Z .m. 00000000000 00000.30 8 0004 00000000 30A 000000000 0082 0300. 00000.5 000 0000000 000.00Q 8 0000. £500 GZHSOMB EOHRHQ r00 mmwfi O0. 0285:0000. mEDOdOMQ > mamafi. 79 Number of DrOp-outs from the Individual Programs The information in Table VI, on the following page is tabulated in ascending order of the percent of drOp-out. The total number of cases enrolled Total number of drop-outs . . . . Total percent of drOp-out . . . . Range of the number of drop-outs . Range of the percent of drOp-outs . Type of defect Total drOp-outs from all programs (8), E1). (r), 559 9-3‘) Other articulatory 66 Stuttering 66 Cleft palate 15 Voice disorder 12 Hearing 18 Cerebral palsy 11 Delayed speech 18 Dysphasia 2 Polio l O O O O 0 Percent of according t all articul 8.5 7.9 12.6 6.8 9.2 9.0 6.0 11.7 . . . 9,084 . . . 768 . . . 8.4 00 0-53 . O - 21.9 all cases o defect atory 80 TABLE VI NUMBER OF DROP-OUTS FROM THE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS Schools No. of DrOp-outs Percent of DrOp-out Port Huron 0 0.0 Flint #4 0 0.0 Whitehall, Montague, and North Muskegon l 0.8 Portage 4 1.8 Flint #2 5 3.0 Rochester and Avondale 5 3.1 Ironwood, Wakefield and Ironwood Township 10 3.9 Jackson (Vandercook Lake) 7 4.0 Ann Arbor 7 4.2 wyoming,Park 7 4.5 St. Charles 8 4.7 Milwood, Oakwood, and Parchment 9 5.0 Muskegon Heights 8 5.0 Saginaw # l 12 5.3 Muskegon County 10 5.6 Flint #5 13 5.6 Wyandotte 13 6.0 Romulus 11 6.4 Union City 11 6.6 Melvindale 11 6.9 Monroe 14 7.0 Hazel Park 14 7.0 Ferndale 18 7.1 TABLE VI (continued) NUMBER OF DROP-OUTS FROM THE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS W Schools No. of DrOp-outs 81 Percent of DrOp-out Sanilac County Wayne Jonesville Marshall, Homer, and Tekonsha Cadillac Tuscola County Southfield Township Sandusky Dearborn Van Buren Township Battle Creek #1 Lansing #1 Saginaw #2 Crystal Falls Flint #1 Grand Rapids #2 Hillsdale Lansing #2 Flint #3 Battle Creek #2 Reed City Midland Grand Rapids #1 Menominee Farmington Township 10 17 14 pp oococooooo qq-a O PHH .°.° mHHHOPHmm mam I-' O O 10.5 11.3 11.4 12.0 12.1 12.3 12.7 15.0 15.1 15.2 18. 18.8 21. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The total pupil pOpulation of the forty-eight programs investigated was 177,023. The range of pOpulation for all programs was from 818 to 7,800. The average pupil pupula- tion serviced by speech correctionists was 3,687. The per— cent of speech defectives in the total pupil pOpulation was 5.1 Sex Number Percent Averages of all programs Female cases 2,952 35.4 61.5 Male cases 5,364 64.6 111.7 Grade level Pre-school cases 16 .2 .3 Cases in kindergarten 512 6.1 10.6 Cases in grades 1-6 7,003 84.2 145.8 Cases in grades 7-12 785 9.4 16.3 Two programs carried pre-school cases. Thirty-two, or two-thirds of all prograns carried kindergarten cases. All but one program carried cases in grades one through six. The one exception was a correctionist assigned specifically 83 to high school grades. Over four-fifths or 38 programs car- ried cases in grades seven through twelve. During the 1952-53 school year certified speech correct- ionists were required, by the Department of Public Instruction, to carry a minimum of 125 cases. If there were two or more correctionists servicing the same school system each correct- ionist was required to carry a load of 175 cases. The results of this study show that the average number of cases carried, through a complete program, by all Speech correctionists was 173.2. The total number of cases dismissed as corrected was 2,502. The average number of cases dismissed as corrected, or adjusted, per program was 52.1. 9f the cases having de- fective (s-z), (l), (4), and ( - ) sounds, 31.5 percent were dismissed as corrected. Of the cases that had defective sounds other than these, 34.5 percent were dismissed as corrected. Of all cases, 69.3 percent were defective in one or more of these sound units. Out of 770 stutterers, 28.4 percent were dismissed as adjusted to Speech normalcy. Forty-six of the forty-eight programs carried cases that had defective hearing and defective speech caused by impaired hearing. While in the Speech correction program of the state of Ohio, only one-half of the correctionists taught lip reading during the 1946 and 1947 school year.‘ * Irwin study; page 3. 84 The total number of cases that drOpped out of all pro- grams was 768. The total percent of drOp-out was 8.4. The outstanding reason for drOp-out was moving, that is, the transfer of students from one school system to another. Six- ty-three percent, 484 students, of all drOp-outs were for this reason. The greatest percent of drop-out, according to the type of defect was 12.6 percent of all cleft palate cases. Eighteen programs lost ten percent or more of their initially enrolled cases. Seventy-six students or 9.8 percent of all cases that drOpped out of speech correction programs did so because of parental objection or a lack of interest. Many speech correctionists reported that they were unable to answer the questionnaire used in this study because they either did not keep case records from one year to the next, or the speech correctionist preceeding them did not leave any records. Speech is a part of any child of public school age; it is his main medium of expression. In educating children tea- chers must deal with the child's total behavior. A Speech handicapped child has a behavioral problem, and to help this child a teacher must first become acquainted with the problem. A cumulative Speech record would be of value to the classroom teacher and the parent. It is recommended that a cumulative record be kept of each case, giving; the name, age, grade level 85 description of the type of defect, and a brief account of the case's progress. This speech record card, or sheet, would become a part of the student's permanent cumulative record folder (CAr9, CA939). Conclusions These conclusions are based on the findings of this survey study of 29 percent of the full-time Speech correction programs in the public schools of Michigan during the 1952- 53 school year, and are applicable only to this study. I. CASE DISMISSALS A. According to this study approximately one-third may be considered the expected average number of cases dismissed as corrected from a state- wide program. 1. The results of this study indicate that defective (s-z), (l), (r), and ( - ) sounds are generally not as readily corb rected as other defective sound units. 2. The results of this study show that stutter- ing can be alleviated to the extent that the stutterer is considered adjusted social- ly, and.his speech typical of accepted speech patterns. 86 3. On the basis of study results, public school students handicapped by impaired hearing appear to be aided by speech correction programs. II. DROP-OUT CASES A. The study results of drOp-out cases denote a need for the continuing education of both parents and public school students concerning the need for, I and advantages of, reeducation of the speech handicapped child. III. RECOMMENDATION ‘A. The results of questionnaire returns and accompany- ing correspondence indicate a need for the keep- ing of accurate cumulative speech case records, throughout the state. BIBLIOGRAPHY 88 Ainsworth, Stanley, Speech Correction Methods A,Manual 91 Speech Therapy and Public School Procedures. New York: —w*—: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1949. 149 pp. Head, Henry, Aphasia and Kindred Disorders pg Speech, Vblume 2. Cambridge, England: Cambridge U. press, 1926. 430 pp. Johnson, Wendell, editor, Stuttering. Chicago: The National Society for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc., 1948. 60 pp. Van Riper, Charles, Speech Correction Principles and Methods. Second edition; New Ybrk: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1947. 470 pp. _ . §222£h,2h§§gpz, A Book p£_Readings. New Ybrk: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953. 319 pp. ______:p_ , Speech Correction Principlep_and.Methods. Third edition; New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954. 582 pp. West, Robert, Lou Kennedy, and Anna Carr, The Rehabilitation 2; Speech. Revised edition; New Ybrk: Harper and Bro- thers, 947. 474 pp. Irwin, Beckey, ''Speech and Hearing Therapy in the Public Schools of Ohio,“ Journal 2; Speech and Hearing Disorders, 14:63-68. March, 1949. McDonald, Eugene T., and Herbert Koepp Baker, "Cleft Palate Speech: An Integration of Research and Clinical Observa- tion,“ Journal p£,Speech and Hearing Disorders, 16:9, March, 1951. “State Plan for Education of Physically Handicapped Children,“ Bulletin No. 1025. Lansing, Michigan: Department of Public Instruction, 1954. 11 pp. APPENDIX The following information is a synOpsis of page two of Gladys E. Simpson's yearly survey report. 1952-1953 ANNUAL REPORT OF SPEECH CORRECTION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF IRONWOOD, WAKEFIELD, AND IRONWOOD TOWNSHIP As means of comparing the effectiveness of the corrective program for speech cases, a study of these figures is of in- terest. For year 1952-53 Ironwood Schools average clearance for 6 years 50.0%. 49.6% wakefield Schools average clearance for 6 years 49.6%. 49.5% Ironwood Township average clearance for 6 years 55.3%. 54.2% Over all average clearance for 6 years 51.6%. On the basis of this survey, it may be stated that the speech correction program holds the number of Speech defective children down to a 5% level, grades one through twelve whereas the national average is 10% or more, that the number of incom- ing cases from kindergarten each year approximately equals the_ cases corrected each year, and that the overall correction rate is around 50%. As an elementary school principal and a speech correctionist of past eXperience I maintain an active interest in special education. This interest prompted me to choose speech correction case dis- missal as the subject of my graduate study. In an effort to deter- mine the number of corrected and adjusted cases dismissed from Michigan’s remedial speech program in the past year, I am con- ducting a survey study. Miss Mary Blair , Consultant for the State Division of Special Education, has expressed an interest in this survey. A copy of the enclosed questionnaire is being sent to each speech correctionist in your school system. Any assistance you may offer will be sincerely appreciated. Sincerely yours, Chester A. Richard Dear Colleague: Has it ever occured to you that the proof of value in any reeducation program is the number of cases corrected or adjusted over a given length of time? Experience as an elementary principal and as a speech correctionist of the past has made me strongly aware of the importance of special education in our public schools. To satisfy my in- tellectual curiosity as well as to fulfil graduate study requirements I selected the study of case dismissals in Michigan’s speech correction program. Itwouldbe impossible for any one person to make such a study as this without the COOperation and help of the correctionists in the field. In an effort to secure complete coverage this ques- tionnaire is being sent to you and all other public school speech correctionists in the state. Miss Mary Blair, Consultant for the State Division of Special Education, has expressed an in- terest in this project. Will you please return this questionnaire as soon as possible. I will be required to compile the results in the very near future. May I thank you in advance for your assistance in this undertaking. Sincerely yours, Chester A. Richard 36663 Goddard Road Romulus, Michigan A survey of case dismissals in the public school speech correction programs of Michigan for the year 1952-53 I. Case Dismissal A. How many (3), (l), (r), and (th) sound defectives were there in the total case load? 1. How many were dismissed as being corrected? __ B. How many other articulatory defectives were there in the total case load? _ 1. How many were dismissed as being corrected? __ C. How many stutterers were there in the total case load? __ 1. How many were dismissed as being adjusted? .— D. How many cleft palate cases were there in the total case load? _ 1. How many were dismissed as being adjusted? _. E. How many voice disorder cases were there in the total case load? __ 1. How many were dismissed as being corrected? ._._— F. How many speech cases due to hearing defects were there in the total case load? 1. How many were dismissed as being adjusted? __ G. How many cerebral palsy Speech cases were there in the total case load? __ i 1. How many were dismissed as being corrected? __ H. How many delayed speech cases were there in the total case load? __ 1. How many were dismissed as being corrected? .— I. How many dysphasics were there in the total case load? __ 1. How many were dismissed as being corrected? __ Total Case Load " ___.. Total Number Dismissed __ ,___ 2. Cases Released for Other Reasons Please indicate the reason by referring to the followi ng number classification: 1.Moved 3.Low mentality 5.1.ack of interest 7.Emotional disturbance 2.Religious objection 4.Parental objection 6.Physical illness 6.0ther Example: Number Reasons Articulation __2_ 4 Explanations: P a r e nt felt that child would correct his 5 pee c h without help. considered class a waste of fig, (2) etc. P Number Reasons Articulation Explanationsz- (s,l,r, and th) Articulation __ __ Explanations: (other) ’ Stutters __ __ Explanations: Cleft Palate _.__ __ Explanations: Voice Disorder Explanations: Hearing __ __ Explanations: C. Palsy Explanations: Delayed Speech Explanations: Dysphasia 7 Explanations: !‘ 3. Supporting Data !_. A. Indicate number for each sex in the total case load (male _; female _) B. How many cases were in kindergarten_, elementary (grades 1-6 _, secondary . C. What was the total pupil population in your area? D. Do you f eel that a yearly survey of this kind would be of value to Speech correctionists and the state program? Please explain. - _____ If you wish to receive a copy of the questionnaire results, please check here Signature: School° REE} ESE. UNI“; “’53:! N‘ 19’55 ar\_ '4‘ I ' h (‘ {I I“! c "A .1. .. 7"“) r»- u. {firJl‘o ‘3 *4 W BM " “M g I" 'VL V f :2 IES ”ifiifiwiyiyiuiiiiwjiiijflxiii