Early Educational Exclusion: “Idiotic” and “Imbecilic” Children, Their Families, and the Toronto Public School System, 1914–50
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article uses pupil records and patient files from Toronto, along with other sources, to examine the interconnected rise of special education classes and the complete exclusion from public schools of children labelled with a form of mental deficiency referred to as “idiocy” or “imbecility” or later represented by an intelligence quotient below fifty. It was the first provincial special education laws that also enabled schools to legally exclude some children not just from the new special classes but also from public schooling altogether. Drawing on eugenics and the ideas of mental deficiency experts, school officials justified exclusion by claiming that some types of disabled children were “ineducable” – they could not learn or their presence in schools would harm others' learning. The article looks at student experiences to show how exclusion curtailed their schooling. It also examines how families responded to the exclusion. Families were historical actors, despite the limitations imposed on them by their circumstances, by the policies and prevailing attitudes about class, gender, and single mothers, and by the nature of their family member's disability. The article contributes to “the new disability history,” a growing subfield.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".