Behaviour modification in education has come a long way since the early 1960's when workers such as Zimmerman and Zimmerman (1962) and Ferster (1967) took learning theory out of the animal laboratory and into the classroom. Today the problem is not to locate books, articles and pamphlets on behaviour modification but to select the most useful material from an extensive and expanding range. This has not been achieved without a backlash no less vitriolic for not always being well informed (Burden, 1976; Quicke 1976). Nevertheless, some of the criticisms should be taken seriously. Graham (1974) has complained of the rigidity of some behaviour modifiers, and the hargon-laden style of many articles is admirably calculated to deter teachers and parents (not to mention psychologists and psychiatrists); it is only quite recently, for example, that a majority of authors have discovered that calling children by their names–instead of “S”—is not inconsistent with clarity or accuracy.

The prevalence of reading difficulties varies according to the definition of the problem used and the region in which the survey takes place. The methodologically sound epidemiological studies on the Isle of Wight (Rutter et al 1970) and in an Inner London Borough (Berger et al 1975), which investigated the presence of reading backwardness and specific reading retardation in 10 year olds, indicate the extent of reading problems in this country. Reading backwardness was defined as a level of reading attainment 28 months behind chronological age on the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (Neale 1958). Specific reading retardation refers to level of attainment 28 months below that expected taking IQ as well as chronological age into account. On the Isle of Wight 8.3% and 3.9% of 10 year olds were reading backward and reading retarded respectively. The corresponding figures for the Inner London Borough were 19.0% and 9.9%.

School phobia has been the subject of more concern, interest and study than any other childhood phobia. Perhaps this is not surprising in view of the suffering and upset that the condition has caused to children, parents and teachers.

The Hungerford Centre has for three years been providing a support service to schools based solely on the application of experimentally validated treatment techniques. (Behaviour modification).

Intervention based on social learning principles is, of course, not new to the treatment of delinquency. A variety of behaviour modification techniques, and in particular token economy schemes have been tried out in the U.S.A. and Canada. Most have been extensively evaluated and found to be far more effective than alternative schemes (Braukmann and Fixsen 1975). Of course, the judicial and welfare context in which Braukmann and Fixsen compare the relative merits of various approaches to delinquency prevention programmes is very different from that operating in the United Kingdom. There are, however, a number of points common to both contexts–there has been very little emphasis on, or funds given to, systematic programme evaluations and those that have been conducted (for example, see reviews by Logan 1972 and Slaikeu 1973) have tended to fall far short of meeting basic research design requirements. Secondly, in both settings perhaps too much emphasis has been placed upon preventing recidivism as a goal of treatment. Braukmann and Fixsen point out that re-conviction as an index of treatment progress does not allow differential qualitative feedback to the adolescent to be closely geared to his progress, and that, in the main, behavioural approaches have tended to fare much better in carrying out scientifically respectable evaluation of their progress in addition to demonstrating a much higher success rate both in terms of recidivism and in terms of more microscopic measures of behavioural improvement. The goal of any behavioural treatment for youngsters in trouble may be simply to extend his choice of behaviour rather than simply prevent recidivism.