The three articles this week demonstrated medicines progressive involvement in education and how it impacted the value of teachers, the power of education, and parental involvement in order to determine a child’s health. Education became more than letters and numbers; it evolved into an institution that taught the desired behaviours which would conform to relevant fears and issues within society.
Thomas Gerald focuses on the importance of uniformity in 20th century education and the control doctors began to have over this concept. The articles tone is degrading by use of adjectives such as “subnormal, intellectually inferior, feeble-minded,”[1] and referencing the subjected children as a “disease to the normal children around them.”[2] This article was difficult to read because today’s society no longer holds the belief that children’s with learning disabilities are inferior, but eye opening to see how the advisories of medical practitioners, which endorse normality, have not changed over time. The repetitive usage of the word “control”[3] make it seem as though Dauphinee’s intentions behind her movement are not to benefit education, but rather gain uniformity.[4] Despite differing descriptions of these children, today’s doctors still persuade parents to medicalize disabled persons because mental mediocrity is a goal for the not ‘right minded.’
Cynthia Comacchio’s article introduces the important role teachers had in the education of children on topics that were socially controversial: such as sex and good morals. She recognizes the “power of education”[5] and the important role teachers played in creating the foundation of a child’s learning and how parents relied on them to stabilize youth. This article was intriguing because it showed the progression of medical intelligence from Gerald’s article and how after the 1920’s medical experts recognized that “environmental reform would be crucial to overall improvement of Canadian health, not eugenics.”[6] Although the article was long and covered an ambiguous amount of time, it relayed important information that thoroughly described the change of education from an institution to conform to a source of pragmatic information which would prepare pupils for the natural world: “[foster] the adolescent’s capacity to take responsibility for himself or herself.” This shows a movement from authoritative control to personal control, as well as the need for teachers because parents lacked confidence over evolving rebellion and issues.
Mona Gleason’s article ties the three article together by presenting how medical experts and teachers had authority within the education system, but presented how parents held ultimate control because they decide whether they adhere to advice. Her thesis statement is broad: “School medical inspection and construction of “healthy” children in B.C over the turn of the 20th Century;”[7] and didn’t seem to follow it by focusing mostly on white-middle class fear of immigrating diseases. The length of her article and broad focus made the article difficult to follow, but did include some eye opening information, such as the history of vaccinations.[8]
The relationship between doctor and parent does not seem to have changed because parents must comply with the diagnosis and treatment of their children, and often times “parent apathy and ignorance… [result in] students receiving insufficient attention,”[9] which is still seen in the 21st century. When ranked by importance in society teachers and doctors hold a well respected position, but their power is not worth anything to a child if the parent does not comply; therefore showing that parents do not always oblige to societal norms, but depend on them to keep order.
This weeks articles were very interesting and open the reader’s eyes to important figures not always recognized in the progression of education. They showed the use of power in the creation of education and how authority did not always fulfill stability. The articles formed a story which taught the reader the convoluted history of today’s public education system.
[1] Thomson, Gerald. “‘Through no fault of their own’: Josephine Dauphinee and the ‘Subnormal’ Pupils of the Vancouver School System, 1911-1941.” Historical Studies in Education 18, no.1 (Spring 2006): 51-73.
[2] Gerald, “‘Through no fault of their own’: Josephine Dauphinee and the ‘Subnormal’ Pupils of the Vancouver School System, 1911-1941,” P. 64.
[3] Gerald. “‘Through no fault of their own’: Josephine Dauphinee and the ‘Subnormal’ Pupils of the Vancouver School System, 1911-1941:” 69.
[4] Dauphinee describers her work as “a vocation for which [feeble-minded children’s] mental equipment shows the greatest chance of [their] success,” but contradicts this claim by mentioning her intentions to “control” and “change” them.
Gerald, “‘Through no fault of their own’: Josephine Dauphinee and the ‘Subnormal’ Pupils of the Vancouver School System, 1911-1941,” P.66.
[5] Comacchio, Cynthia. “‘The Rising Generation’: Laying Claims to the Health of Adolescents in English Canada, 1920-70.” Canadian Bulletin of Medical History 19, no.1 (2002): 144.
[6] Comacchio, “‘The Rising Generation’: Laying Claims to the Health of Adolescents in English Canada, 1920-70,” 141.
[7] Gleason, Mona, “Race, Class, Health: School Medical Inspection and ‘Healthy’ Children in British Columbia, 1890-1930,” Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, 19, 1 (2002): 96.
[8] Ibid. 106.
[9] Ibid. 105.
