Abstract
Sue Wheatcroft’s book surveys the experiences of disabled children, both those evacuated and those not evacuated, and the impact of war conditions on special education more generally. She argues that while wartime was a positive experience for many children, this was heavily dependent on the attitudes and quality of staff.
Following an Introduction which outlines the main research questions, Chapter 1 explores pre-war developments, noting the influence of eugenics, and covering planning for evacuation. Making good use of material from the National Archives, Wheatcroft argues that evacuation itself was successful for disabled children, partly because they were accommodated en masse. Chapter 2 then turns to residential special schools, and to themes that include their location, conditions, staff, disruption, and children’s experiences. Many officials held negative views of mentally defective children; civil servant Cecil Maudslay questioned whether such children were indeed ‘worth saving’. Wheatcroft draws imaginatively on His Majesty’s Inspector (HMI) reports, particularly those written by James Lumsden, teachers, and former evacuees. Conditions clearly varied greatly between institutions: Besford Court, for instance, was very poor, whereas the Lancasterian School was better.
Chapter 3 looks at special day schools, hospital schools, and the role of charities. These included the Lord Mayor Treloar Cripples Hospital School, the Birmingham Catholic Cripples Care Society, and the Invalid Children’s Aid Association. There was a lack of facilities for severely physically disabled children in particular, at such institutions as Hinwick Hall, and employment prospects for such children were non-existent. Government officials still had ambiguous attitudes towards disabled people including children, and the state relied heavily on charities. Chapter 4 explores hostels and institutions for those children deemed ‘ineducable’, and ‘emotionally disturbed’ or ‘maladjusted’. Locating developments within the wider context of the Wood Report (1929), attitudes towards epileptics, the emergence of child guidance, and debate over such issues as bedwetting, Wheatcroft finds that staff in hostels like Brambling House knew more about children’s emotional needs.
Chapter 5 then turns to post-war change, noting the reorganization of the school system through the 1944 Education Act, and changing attitudes towards disabled people – the ‘defective’ became the ‘disabled’. Despite the emphasis on employment and rehabilitation symbolized by the establishment of Remploy, post-war expansion and reconstruction was slow. Charities such as the Family Welfare Association, the Invalid Children’s Aid Association, and the National Association for Mental Health worked alongside the National Health Service. Moreover the Warnock Report and 1981 Education Act marked the culmination of debates over separation versus segregation. Change came therefore, but slowly. In her Conclusion, Wheatcroft argues that children’s education and safety in wartime depended on their category of disability. The Second World War certainly was a turning point. Nevertheless disability and evacuation still tend to be treated separately by historians.
This is a slightly old-fashioned administrative and legalistic history, conventional in its approach which betrays its origins as a PhD thesis. Some of the material on special schools is rather anecdotal, and some judgements might have been more critical. What does it mean that children were ‘happy’ and ‘safe’ (p. 70), or that many special schools were able to operate ‘adequately’ (p. 72)? Elsewhere Wheatcroft concludes that authorities ‘did all they could’ (p. 42) or that ‘as much as was reasonably possible was done’ (p. 90). The focus for the book is at times narrowly drawn. Psychiatry and psychology are deemed beyond the scope of the study (p. 134), while the changing role of voluntary organizations is thought too complex (p. 158). Moreover some statements – that the Wood Report was ‘progressive’ (p. 134) or that hostels were a ‘success’ (p. 135) – seem dubious. The blend of primary and secondary sources is not quite right, frequently weighted too much towards the former. As the author notes, there are no personal reminiscences for many schools, and the absence of first-hand accounts has forced her to rely on government reports. There are too many abbreviations.
I think it unlikely the book will appeal much to readers of Critical Social Policy; despite the topic, the focus on empirical detail will restrict its main readership to historians. Against that, this is a thorough and at times moving history, at its strongest in its use of archival material, particularly HMI reports, but also testimonies from teachers and former evacuees. It shows the variety of conditions in wartime institutions, and its main arguments are well supported with evidence.