‘Subnormal’: time the educational psychology profession apologised?

Last week we read that Black people, who were labelled 'backward' as children, now seek justice for the lifelong trauma they have experienced as a result (Guardian, 21st February). This led us to reflect on the role the profession has in supporting those affected.

The Guardian article reminded us that the stories of those seeking justice were central to the 2021 documentary 'Subnormal: a British scandal'. Many of our colleagues have watched this documentary and expressed shock, confusion and dismay. The documentary told "how, from 1945, children thought to have limited intellectual ability were described by a new term, 'educationally subnormal' (ESN)... applied disproportionately to black children, often based on IQ tests that were biased."

The practice of administering IQ tests to determine the 'educability' of children is what drew our attention. Anne-Marie Simpson, quoted in the article, tells specifically of an assessment by a psychologist as a factor contributing to a placement in a school where "there was no proper curriculum".

The classification of educational subnormality could easily be put aside as an unwitting evil of a different time, a concept that we can't envision today. This might make it easy to separate from us and how we practise as EPs now. Perhaps it makes it hard to humanise. One of my (Adrianne's) own family members was categorised as 'educationally delinquent' and, though they committed no crime, spent many of their formative years in the borstal system. They went on to attend university and have a career, but this time contributed to challenges later in life, and the trauma and scars of their treatment are evident in the fact that they never spoke of it.

The central role of educational psychologists

We don't think it's controversial to say that educational psychologists played a central role in assessing and determining who might be considered 'educationally subnormal'. This is demonstrated by how Members of Parliament discussed the importance and expertise of EPs at the time, in determining the educability of children identified as subnormal. 

In March 1948 MPs were discussing the practicalities of completing the appropriate form regarding the educability of 'the child examined'. One MP draws attention to a section of the form titled 'Intelligence testing for Statutory Ascertainment and Reporting':

"the most essential sections of the form which include the giving of advice on how the child should be educated or on its educability, is filled in, after examination, by an educational psychologist"

"...there is the educational psychologist to be considered. They are people who have to undergo years of training, who have training in educational work as well as in their psychological work, and who are, therefore, highly qualified to do this work"

In response, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Education assures the house:

"We have no intention of ignoring [Educational Psychologists] help in dealing with the educationally sub-normal child. We have no intention of brushing to one side the expert knowledge which they can bring to bear upon this problem. On the contrary, we are sure that they have an increasingly important part to play…"

The EP was seen, certainly in these upper echelons of government power, to be the key person to examine, deal with, diagnose, and prescribe the treatment for these educationally subnormal children.

The section of the form that prompted this parliamentary discussion, 'Intelligence testing for Statutory Ascertainment and Reporting', is important to consider because it is the act of 'Reporting' a child as unsuitable for education, ascertained by an IQ score of 50 or lower, that would ultimately lead to decisions about education and placement that would have profound negative impacts for a range of children and young people, including those whose stories we now know about from the BBC 'Subnormal' documentary.

A further Commons debate in 1961 shows that, at that time, some 35,347 children were classified as educationally subnormal and receiving special educational treatment in 'non ordinary schools'.

Why an apology is important

First and foremost we believe an apology is important because that's what those wrongly classified as 'educationally subnormal' want and a current Parliament petition highlights this. Secondly, because the EP profession had a significant role to play in the practices and contexts described above and in the BBC documentary.

Dissatisfaction with the testing and classification of black children as educationally subnormal and their placement in ESN schools is not a new professional concern. Waveney Bushell, who worked as the first black educational psychologist from 1965, recalls in an oral history interview with Dr Mel Meheux:

…from the moment I was exposed to tests, I realised our children wouldn't be able to cope with this… I was disappointed that nobody, for example the school's psychological service, seemed to be interested in the fact these tests meant our children didn't do as well as they could."

Such concerns, historical and contemporary, have also been raised by groups like the EP Race and Culture Forum.

We considered the dilemma of apologies and came across an article in The Harvard Business Review that worded it better than we could have:

…we are psychologically predisposed to find reasons (or excuses) to delay or avoid saying we're sorry. Apologizing feels uncomfortable and risky. There's a loss of power or face involved – it rearranges the status hierarchy and makes us beholden, at least temporarily, to the other party. That doesn't feel good.

It doesn't feel good… but we believe it is essential, for all those affected and as a sign of a shared commitment to change.

There have been positive signs that the profession is willing to change. For example in 2021 after the original Subnormal documentary aired on the BBC, the British Psychological Society's Division of Educational and Child Psychology – of which I (Dan) was co-chair at the time – issued a response articulating a recognition of our role in misclassifying children and using tools and tests that have ultimately contributed to structural and systemic inequalities. The statement even highlighted a number of actions being taken and so demonstrated a commitment to change.

What was missing, in our opinion, were the words 'We're sorry'.

Beyond an apology

Beyond apologising, we know that there is more that we have to do as a profession. We have a number of questions that we discussed as we wrote this, and we want to share these to spark discussion, debate, professional confidence and ultimately, action.

1. Do we need to make amends in acknowledging our role in racism, historical or the patterns that we still see in schools and society?
2. Do we still use culturally biased tools and theory? Some of the tools and theories open to us to use are built on a foundation of racist beliefs. Do we renounce them or not? Are we clear about why?
3. How do we respond with respect and integrity when systems and organisations can still make decisions about provision on the basis of a score?
4. Has anything changed? It was acceptable to classify children as educationally subnormal. It's not anymore. There are other words and phrases that we use that can feel more palatable but, are the meaning and intentions broadly the same?
5. Do we disproportionately fear little Black kids? What is our role in a system where disproportionate numbers are sent to PRUs and APs or excluded?
6. What is the generational impact of our practice?
7. How can we centre the experiences of parents who experienced classification as 'educationally subnormal' and can we hold an openness about how they might interact with the school and education system?
8. How does the profession actually address discrimination? Do we have the hard conversations or avoid them? Do we challenge when it's hard, or just speak on virtues when it's easy?