Stone sides with critics of American public schools which are perceived as offering a watered down curriculum and low expectationsS (para. 3) that prevent students from meeting high standards (para. 3). The culprit is the educational doctrine of developmentalism which once served as a basis for rejecting harsh and inhuman teaching methodsS (para.1). Its continued influence in such methods as developmentally appropriate practice and constructivism impedes efforts to hold school accountable for student academic achievement (para.1) and more broadly on teacher and parent efforts to influence the developing child (para. 14).

A sample of teaching methods texts used by schools of education shows that they give little weight to methods based on experimentally demonstrated and field tested teaching methods. Citing two examples, Stone claims that methods texts seem to wear the mantle of science but oddly neglect its substance and purpose( para. 9). The reason for such unscientific behavior is a form of romantic naturalism that inspires teacher discomfort with any practice that is deemed incompatible with natural developmental processes ( Binder and Watkins, 1989, in para. 14). This form of naturalism is what Stone defines as developmentalism. The history of developmentalism is traced from the eighteenth century, in the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, through the writings of John Dewey and Jean Piaget. Writers such as William James, Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, and others are described as influential proponents of developmentalism.

Stone criticizes developmentalism because the measurable impacts of its implementation have been so little studied in proportion to its revered status by educators. Another criticism lies in the resultant fear that arises in teachers and parents whose belief in the natural ability of a child to learn prevents them from expecting children to struggle through the confusing and uncomfortable learning process. In order to help a child learn naturally and without harm, a teacher or parent must have an accurate estimation of a child's developmental status as a prerequisite to action, yet developmentalism offers no workable means of ascertaining that status (para. 56). In spite of these flaws, a variety of experimentally vindicated teaching methods have been developed and disseminated only to be ignored or discarded in favor of less well tested practices that better fit developmental thinking (para. 73).

This article highlights the perceived weaknesses of developmentally sensitive curriculum. It also shows how easily the principles of constructivism can be misunderstood. Challenges to constructivism, the most current form of developmentally sensitive curriculum, are based on a belief in hard, Newtonian scientific facts. Constructivists must shore up their position through research based on experiments and field tests or develop stronger arguments for the validity of contextualized, participatory research perhaps based on a synthesis of systems theories and ethnography.