The tyranny of humanism: A response to Ryan

With humanistic sanctimony, Ryan (see this issue) proclaims that the general use of behavioral procedures "in an ordinary classroom with normal children might be seen as a mark of professional inadequacy" (p. 132). While acknowledging that "behavioral approaches have proved extremely helpful in dealing with some severe psychological problems" (p. 131), he argues for the elimination of behavioral procedures from the ordinary classroom and condemns educators who would use behavioral procedures on the basis of four concerns. First, he cites "the possible deleterious effects powerful reinforcement contingencies might have on the range of behaviors in which children engage" (p. 133). Second, he asserts that "overjustification" strongly suggests that "under some circumstances material rewards that are extrinsic or exogenous to a given task may, in fact, undermine a child's inclination to engage in that task especially if s/he has a high interest in i t" (p. 134). Third, he claims, "the use of this technology can encourage some teachers to remain in the profession when they might be better suited for other work" (p. 134). And fourth, he believes that "'some uses of behavioral procedures. . . (are often) unnecessary" (p. 135). Ryan concludes with a sweeping appraisal that the use of "behavioral procedures as a general approach to classroom management is all too likely to reduce unnecessarily the variety of ways children can learn what they need to learn," that "teachers responsible for the instruction of normal children in ordinary classrooms should be dissuaded from relying on any major reinforcement system," and that the "problems being solved in such conditions are more likely to be those of the teacher rather than the pupils" (p. 135). As behavioral scientists in education, school psychologists welcome scholarly analyses of theories and practices in order to advance the art and science of psychoeducational services. Thus, Ryan's views deserve critique. In the early 1960s, behavioral procedures had a strong initial impact on school psychology (Woody, 1966). At that point, behaviorists were justifying their existence by efficacy studies. Behaviorists would point toward relatively few recipients of insight-oriented treatments eliminating distressing problems, whereas a high percentage of recipients of behavioral treatments gained relief from the same kinds of problems, usually in short order. What they were overlooking, of course, was that the treatment objectives of the various treatment approaches were quite different, and to impose the objectives of behavioral interventions onto the outcomes of insight-oriented interventions (or vice versa) was illogical. It is, obviously, necessary to base any methodological appraisal on objectives compatible with the underlying theory. Ryan fails to take this basic principle into account; he does not, at any point, delineate objectives according to the type of intervention, nor does he acknowledge that the array of psychoeducational objectives in the classroom (ordinary or otherwise) will require a differential selection of interventions. That is, there is no one theory or procedure that has universal applicability in a classroom. Further, the diversity of