Behavioral Education

I strongly disagree with, and frankly resent the notion that parents need a Ph.D. to understand and comment on what's in the best interests of their children. I also reject the premise that there are only two choices in education – progressive or behavioral. The mere fact that behaviorists are opposed to progressivism does not require that we accept another bad method as the only alternative. Redefining classical education methods by claiming that they incorporate Skinnerian methods is dishonest and ignores the difference between a humanist and Christian world view.

History has proven that we can produce educated statesmen and citizens who can read, calculate, reason, and contribute to society without the use of a stopwatch, rapid and timed responses, and operant conditioning. In fact, education was much more effective prior to when the federal government seized public education and the behaviorists began infusing "scientific research" into education pedagogy. Compare any Founding Father educated by classical education methods to the mindless idiots being turned out by 55 years of behavioral analysis in the classrooms. For that matter, compare any average farmer educated prior to Dewey's time to kids today, and see who was better able to read and understand the Federalist Papers or any of the founding documents. The difference should be quite obvious! Infusing scientific research into education pedagogy has not produced the results it claims, and kids are less educated now than ever before.

Anyone, regardless of their level of "education", can understand the difference between traditional or classical teaching methods and "operant" animal training. Classical education pedagogy does not view children as animals or equate their learning potential and capacity to act with the same. Simply because you CAN train a child using the same methods you use to train a whale at Sea World or a soldier at boot camp, doesn't mean you SHOULD. If using a stop watch, timed responses, and rapid-paced scripting for both teacher and student – with immediate reinforcers, incentives, and disincentives – does not demand "irresistible responses to one's surroundings," I don't know what does. Success For All scripts everything from teacher to student performance, with no room for deviation whatsoever. This is not learning in the classical, intellectually-transferable sense, it is "coerced performance."

The FACT is that operant conditioning has failed to produce the results it claims. Any longitudinal studies covering 10-20 years that prove positive and sustained results of mastery learning, beyond the initial gains of the first year or two, would be of great interest. Preferably, 10-20 year longitudinal studies limited to average or above-average students, and not including special education students (for reasons explained below). Considering that the government has been scientifically researching and experimenting with DI/mastery Learning since 1965, I would expect that there would be some indicator of long-term gains among average and above-average students by now.

I'm aware of data which suggests that DI may assist students with low achievement to move closer to the current mean or average. There remains a concern, however, that a highly structured system of instruction applied to everyone may, in fact, impede the progress of those students achieving at a level above the current mean or average. Low achievers may move closer to the mean, but high achievers may well do likewise. This concern could also apply to the operation of schools. If 'effective' schooling practices are too narrow and a rigid system results, variance among districts will be reduced, but the limiting of creativity and the limiting of schools in their ability to adapt to local circumstances will cause reduction in variance from both above and below the mean or average.

I reject the suggestion that we simply bifurcate discussion of the utility of the method from the underlying ethics and humanist world view upon which it is based, though the convenience is obvious. It would be easy to merely dismiss the religious views of opponents and compartmentalize discussion around the "science" of behavior analysis, while limiting debate to only those who possess the acceptable degree of "skill certification." Science would naturally prefer to confine discussion and examination to the "physical" man alone, while dismissing the spiritual nature of man as irrelevant.

Behaviorism, as articulated by John Watson and B. F. Skinner, sees man as an object that is only capable of responding to external stimuli. It claims that man acquired sense organs through evolution, not Divine design, and these sensory organs receive and transfer the environmental stimuli which then act upon the human "object", causing a response. Thus, choice and action are determined by the process of controlling and manipulating stimuli, which can be reduced to a science in a laboratory.

In his book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, B. F. Skinner dismisses the belief in the free will or agency of man, claiming instead that "man does not act upon the world, the world acts upon him." He said:

Freedom and dignity...are the possessions of the autonomous man of traditional theory, and they are essential to practices in which a person is held responsible for his conduct and given credit for his achievements. A scientific analysis [behaviorism] shifts both the responsibility and the achievement to the environment. (emphasis added)

It is upon this humanist moral foundation that behavioral methods using operant conditioning are based (regardless of the latest illegitimate attempts to marry it with a Christian world view).

There appears to be a big difference in how we define the capacity and nature of man: whether he is a moral agent accountable to a higher, divine law, or a nonredemptive organism to be manipulated, controlled, shaped, and used by an external environment. Each view is governed by opposing values and uses a different set of standards to measure human choice and action.

The physical sciences have reduced the nature of man from the wholistic view of spiritual and physical combined to a biological and ultimately psychological science. Western educational theory has turned away from religion to science as the standard by which the nature of man is defined, and has become preoccupied with measurable, quantifiable, observable, and replicable behavior, effectively divorcing the physical man from the spiritual man. Skinner himself admitted that behavioral science could not tolerate such an uncontrollable variable as the 'spiritual man', because such a perspective would destroy his concept of science. He said, "There is no place in the scientific position for a self as a true originator of initiator of action." That statement alone admits the relevance of spiritual man, not the opposite. Judeo-Christian thought claims, on the other hand, that man is a moral agent with the capacity to initiate action, discern between good and evil, right and wrong, and to choose between them.

Before considering specific methods or pedagogy, we must first be willing to confront and identify the principles that determine our view of the nature of man and his capacity to determine the moral outcome of his existence. Once that has been accomplished, we must then determine what constitutes the nature and purpose of education based upon that underlying assumption. Only then can we truly examine specific methods in the proper context by focusing on the whole individual, rather than the physical man alone.

It is a tired and intellectually dishonest assertion that those who oppose the use of Skinnerian techniques in a compulsory education setting are somehow aiding and abetting the progressivists. It ignores the fact that one can be opposed to both extremes, and that there is, indeed, another alternative to both methods. When this tactic fails, the fallback position appears to be to redefine ALL education pedagogy as incorporating some degree of operant conditioning. The final glancing blow seems to be the suggestion that the end justifies the means, and that the intention of the user overrides the ethics of the tool itself: "OBE is okay if used by good guys, and operant conditioning is okay if used for a 'good' outcome." None of the above arguments are consistent with truth.

Frankly, this discussion has illustrated in great measure the many obstacles parents face in attempting to make decisions regarding their children's education. No one knows my children or loves them more than their father and mother, and no one is better qualified to decide what's best for them than we. No amount of scientific research or college education can replace the wisdom and discernment of parents who petition the Lord for the care, nurturing, and education of their children.

The time is not too far distant when science may also attempt to taxonomize parenting (and religious) behaviors into small, sequential steps to drive a whole new set of reforms in parenting. And with it will surely come legislation mandating a variety of parental behaviors in the form of parenting contracts, school compacts, certification in parenting skills, and a host of other incentives and disincentives, or "reinforcers". Maybe they'll find a new gene or brain function that decides what constitutes a good parent or a bad one, a good educator or a bad one.

God help us!

Rebecca Bocchino

© February 2000

╪