{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019174041297935103, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0058997050147492625, 'mean_word_length': 5.204268292682927, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
PRE-WAR TREATMENT OF CHILDREN WITH INTELELCTUAL DISABILITIES IN JUVENILE HOMES FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING BASED ON THE 1940 GOVERNMENT SURVEY AND RECORDS IN JAPA

This paper is part of a study to clarify the treatment of children with intellectual disabilities in the Homes for Juvenile Training and Education. Befor World War II, there were no legal criteria such as intelligence quotient to enter a juvenile training and education in Japan. In the National Survey by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1940 which was used as the subject of analysis the following two issues were given priority: First, the criteria for admission to the Homes and the treatment of children with intellectual disabilities who were refused admission and second, to clarify in detail the class organization and treatment of those children in the Homes. The results were as follows: in facilities that had criteria for admission, the intelligence quotient (IQ) was used as the admission criterion (the standard was generally 70- 50). However, the actual number of children admitted to the facilities included those who did not meet the criteria for admission. When children with intellectual disabilities were denied admission, mental hospitals and facilities for children with disabilities were judged to be appropriate places for them. However, there were only a few such facilities. The formation of classes in juvenile training schools did not rely on the chronological age of the children, but was done comprehensively based on intelligence quotient, academic ability, and school attendance. In addition, the five facilities that had “special classes” for children with intellectual disabilities and others had, in relative terms, more children and more staff. Special education and treatment for those children included reducing the time for academic study and lengthening the recess time, assigning only farm work, and one-on-one teaching at the children’s speed: all of which were based on the characteristics of mentally handicapped children.