I make the argument that compelling 25-35 children to sit still in cramped desks in an 800 sq. ft room and forcing children to participate in non-consensual selected response assessments psychologically structured through radical behaviorism borders on the criminal. After a hundred years of empirical research in cognitive science, it should be quite obvious to any and all education policy makers that learning experience and cultures of learning will affect or negate intellectual growth based on the genetic endowment of an individual. This question must be considered and education policymakers who ignore human genetics must be held accountable as they are responsible for the development of children's mental development via educational experiences they have created by mandating compulsory standardized high stakes tests.
Apparently Arne Duncan doesn't understand metaphor. I took much delight in reading this article yesterday. Apparently I am whacky because I have been using robots as a metaphor to explain a state mandated educational process, radical behaviorism, that is off the wall. Radical behaviorism is a mechanized event that views learning as a simple process as inputs = outputs. Proponents of radical behaviorism view the mind as a blank slate. Radical behaviorism is so pervasive in American schools it has become our de-facto national pedagogy. Radical behaviorism is an educational process used to train and control animals. One uses operant conditioning techniques to shape behavior. Rewards or punishments are used to motivate learners. So if you are a student who can't pass the test, you get a bad score, and you might have to repeat a grade or worse yet, not graduate.
What is the real reason behind the incessant amounts of radical behaviorism in our public schools?