By Thomas Ultican 8/10/2025
Greg Toppo writes for ‘The 74’ which suggests he is a professional propagandist working for billionaires. In his July 24th article, “‘Cognitive Science,’ All the Rage in British Schools, Fails to Register in U.S”, he did not even attempt to be objective as he lionized a form of ‘Cognitive Science’ that is a euphemism for behaviorism. It is a corrupt approach that philosophically undermines a field of research exploring undeniably important ideas.
There are many definitions of cognitive science; this one is from Yale University:
“Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field devoted to exploring the nature of cognitive processes such as perception, reasoning, memory, attention, language, imagery, motor control, and problem-solving. The goal of cognitive science is to understand (1) the representations and processes in our minds that underwrite these capacities, (2) how they are acquired, and how they develop, and (3) how they are implemented in underlying hardware (biological or otherwise). Stated more simply, the goal of cognitive science is to understand how the mind works!”
A cognitive science subset, Cognitive load theory, was developed in mid-1980s by Australian education psychologist John Sweller. His theory pays attention to human cognitive architecture: characteristics and relations between long-term memory and short term memory, and how load on memory affects learning.
The basic premise of cognitive load theory is that short term memory or working memory is limited and can be overloaded. Therefore, Sweller postulates that explicit instruction is superior to discovery approaches for teaching new content and skills. He claims that to think critically we need to know a lot of stuff; therefore critical thinking can only be actualized through copious amounts of content knowledge. He and colleagues say it is not possible to teach critical thinking because it is not a transferable skill.
Selling Cognitive Load Theory
Toppo began his article by introducing his readers to Zack Groshell, a former Seattle-area fourth-grade teacher. His 2024 book, Just Tell Them, is a guide for delivering explicit instruction and adhering to the Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) premise of learning. Dewey, Vygotsky and Piaget would surely be saddened by this 21st century misunderstanding of student development.
The article also introduces Benjamin Riley, founder of Deans for Impact, a Texas-based group that has pushed to make cognitive science more central to U.S. teacher training programs. I find it instructive that his organization is financially supported by Besos, Gates, Dell, Schusterman, Zuckerberg and other billionaires.
Toppo cites the influence of E. D. Hirsch who wrote in his book, The Schools We Need, “Higher-level skills critically depend upon the automatic mastery of repeated lower-level activities.” He further called for tougher standards which prompted education writer, Alfie Kohn to note that Hirsch’s approach “reflects a particular model of learning—behaviorism.”
As Kohn stated, in the debate between behaviorism and “constuctivism”, Hirch comes down squarely on the side of behaviorism. Kohn went on to observe that, “E. D. Hirsch’s Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, might be called the ‘bunch o’ facts’ approach to education.” (Page 11)
Like other behaviorists, E. D. Hirsch is calling for education material to be atomized and drilled.
Most of Toppo’s article is concentrated on education in the United Kingdom which might explain why he brought up the very unpopular education leader under former Prime Minister David Cameron, Michael Gove. Gove attempted to reform English education through privatization and testing. Gove’s associate Nick Gibbs said he first encountered Hirsch’s book in 2006 and that it formed the basis for all of their education reforms.
In 2013, more than 150 leading educator wrote and signed a piece for the Times of London calling Gove’s reforms dangerous. They stated in part:
“Sir, We, the undersigned academics and children’s authors, are gravely concerned at the impact that current developments in state education in England are likely to have on our children and their futures.”
“These damaging developments must stop. If they go ahead there will be devastating consequences for children’s mental health, for future opportunities and, most importantly, for the quality of childhood itself.”
At about the same time, England’s national teachers union held a unanimous vote of no confidence in Gove. General Secretary of the teachers union, Christine Blower, said teachers were not the “enemies of promise” that Gove said they were. “We just have the temerity to assert that the secretary of state is wrong.”
Meaningless Data Quoted
Besides citing people like Gove and Hirsch to sell this new behaviorist approach to education, Toppo writes, “From 2011 to 2021, English students’ average scores in the PIRLS International Benchmarks of Reading Achievement, a key global comparison, rose six points, placing them fourth worldwide, while U.S. students’ dropped eight points, ranking the U.S. just below England.”
This was weak sauce.
Top 8 scoring Nations in the 2021 PIRLS
For several years, education in England has been trying to get rid of the Gove stench, and they appear to be on track. The six point gain in a decade on a more than 500 point scale is not much to brag about. In 2011, the US score was 556 England’s was 552 in 2021 the US score was 548 England’s was 556. Even if I believed in standardized testing, which I don’t, I still do not see any real difference. Remember, we were just starting to come out of the COVID nightmare in 2021.
In 2022, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), did its every three year assessment of 15 year olds one year late because of COVID. Of the 80 countries compared, the USA’s reading score of 504 was number 9 and the UK’s score of 494 was number 13. There is not a lot to brag about here either.
The testing data Toppo cites does not prove or even suggest that this new behaviorism is any kind of silver bullet.
Researchers and Educators Have Concerns
The lead sentence in the latest issue of UK’s Schools Week states, “Teachers need to be sceptical about applying popular but “untested” cognitive science theories to education, a panel of experts has warned.”
Noam Chomsky is the scientist-philosopher who more than any other contributor seriously undermined B.F. Skinner’s theories of behaviorism. A 2006 interview with Chomsky states, “Chomsky’s (1959) review of Verbal Behavior (Skinner, 1957) has been hailed as the most influential document in the history of psychology.”
Importantly, behaviorism undermines the important works of William James and John Dewey. Chomsky’s 1959 review of Skinner’s book went a long way toward reviving Dewey’s theories and shutting down behaviorist ideology.
In 2022, Australian researcher Peter Ellerton published, “On critical thinking and content knowledge: a critique of the assumptions of cognitive load theory [CLT].” After presenting evidence from several papers, Ellerton asserts:
“The absolute claim of CLT that “critical thinking is unteachable” is clearly refuted by these studies. As is the claim that it is not transferable. The softer claim that it is best done through a context of engagement with deep content knowledge is also challenged by these findings. Claiming critical thinking is not directly susceptible to pedagogical influence beyond content development stands in contrast to a significant body of research and pedagogical practice that does not seem to be engaged with or addressed by CLT.“
Why is CLT Promoted?
The application of CLT makes teaching children at digital screens more doable. Delivering on-line education is much easier if it is broken down into small chunks so the learner can work through menus of skills and assessments. It is bad education but the billionaires promoting it care more about profits than America. Besides, their children will attend pricey private schools that don’t employ behaviorism.
tultican 
Recent Comments