There is not that uniformity of policy pur sued in the several American States in rela tion to the education of these types of children that is pursued in relation to the education of normal children. There are two fundamental questions which have not been definitely settled in America in relation to the education of these physically handicapped children. These questions are: 1. What is the legal and moral obligation of the State in providing educational facilities for these types of children? Is the education of these children to be looked upon as a matter of charity or a matter of State obligation? 2. Are the facilities which shall be provided for these types of children to be institutional or as nearly like those provided for normal children as may be possible? The schools first organized for these types of children were established largely through the efforts of men and women interested in such children either from the charitable or philan thropic standpoint. Men and women interested in the subject, persons of means with the philanthropic spirit, civic organizations desir ing to promote social welfare and religious organizations were the first promoters of tutions for the education of children of these types. In 1907 the State of Oklahoma incor porated into its constitution the following pro vision: CThe legislature shall establish and maintain a system of free schools wherein all the children of the State may be educated? (Section 1, article 13).
The constitution of nearly every State in the Union contains a provision similar to that of the State of Oklahoma. This mandatory pro vision of the fundamental law of each State makes no discrimination between types of children. The provision is that these schools shall be maintained for the purpose of educat ing all the children and not simply the normal children. There should be therefore a settled policy on the part of every State in the Union to make suitable provision at State or com munity expense for the education of these children. Children who are so unfortunate as to be afflicted as these children are should be relieved to the same extent that normal chil dren are relieved of the stigma of receiving their education as a matter of charity. The administration of public schools for normal children in every State in the Union is upon the basis that such schools are institutions of the State and must be supported and main tained by public taxation. The same principle should be applied in the maintenance of institu tions in which children of these types are edu cated. The institutions which are maintained for the education of these children should be regarded in every way as educational institu tions and they should not be classified nor grouped with charitable, reformatory, cor rectional or other institutions of this character which are maintained by the State.
The purpose in educating these children is to make them self-respecting, self-supporting and law-abiding citizens of the State. They are to be trained to assume their positions in or ganized society as other children are trained for that purpose. If this is the conception of
the State in authorizing the maintenance of institutions for the purpose of educating these children then it is the obligation of the State to divest from such institutions every element which signifies that such institutions are a part of the charitable system of the State and that the persons educated therein are therefore objects of charity. To instill into their char acters the element of independence essential to success in life the State must avoid the main tenance of institutions for their education which compel those who are trained therein to feel and believe that they are dependents.
There are many reasons why these types of children should be afforded edu cational facilities in the public schools of the city or district in which they reside when ever it is possible to do so. This is the modern trend in connection with the education of these children. Of course, this was not possible in the early history of the development of institu tions for the education of these children, when such children were so sparsely distributed throughout the country. In large numbers of the cities of the country, there are now a suf ficient number of children of each of these types to warrant provision for special classes in the regular public schools. It is not possible to provide for the establishment of such classes in the States which do not have large cities or in the territory of many of the States outside of their large cities. It will be neces sary therefore to maintain institutions for the education of such of these children as live in these remote or more sparsely settled parts of the country. In about one-third of the States however there are public day-schools for chil dren of these types. They have the advantage therefore of association with normal children and the personal consciousness that they are being educated for citizenship under the identi cal plan provided for the education of other children. The thought that these children are different from other children is thus largely avoided. An argument of great weight in favor of this mode of educating these chil dren is that they are afforded the opportunity of remaining at home and therefore of having the influences and pleasures which home life pro vides. The feeling generally is somewhat re pugnant to the idea of taking children at these tender ages, who possess such afflictions, from their relatives and homes and placing them among strangers in an institution. Such action must be avoided whenever it may be. It will also be more economical to provide for the education of these children in the regular pub lic day-school than to pay for their education in institutions especially maintained therefor. The whole trend in modern school organization is in favor of this idea. The introduction into the schools of industrial education makes it possible to provide the facilities for the edu cation of children of these types which are afforded in the special institutions.