*Cynical overtone – with a strong dose of sarcasm*

#1 – There is no advantage to manufacturing less followers – One could imply that the best interests of the public are not the best interests of a government that wants an easy job governing the masses. If more people are leaders, who will follow? If everyone is worthy of a salary at the middle or upper end of the payscale, there will no longer be a payscale. Think traditionally, those who excel do so to the disadvantage of others. Those at this end of the scale are the decision makers, they are the primary force of influence in the equation. And these folks have nothing to gain by instantiating change that may threaten their position. While this is ‘out there’, there is palpable truth to this implication.

#2 – ‘I was made by the system, it can’t be that bad’ – One could also imply that protectionist behaviors stand in the way of educational change. What happens when I tear into this system? Do I lose credibility? Do I destroy my advantage? How can I criticize my own foundations?

#3 – ‘It’s good money.’ I’m an academic, I am active within the system of educational politics. I am part of a business cycle that provides mediocre experiences to anyone that flashes the cash (or trades soul for a loan), and business is good. The golden goat is truly made of gold. Sacred, yes – also profitable as hell. I am part of the administration that squanders tax dollars and shorts the classroom resources to do the job. I make a pretty penny. It works for me. Why would I change it?

#4 – ‘We give people too much credit and blame the system for individual deficiencies and variables that are beyond the control of the education system.’ I don’t believe there’s anything wrong at all. If there were, would we have ANY people that excel within the system? Frankly, there isn’t evidence that implied changes would make any difference at all. Maybe changes would create chaos. Changes to the education system won’t make a difference to the primary intervention anyway. If the children were born at school, our efforts might have a chance of the perfect outcome promised by system changes. The foundations of the child that we are charged to build upon are inconsistently built.

So, perhaps a study that was designed to expose the issues that stand in the way of change would be better than a study on what the change needs to be. We can’t, and won’t change, if we don’t know fully what we are up against. I have a strong feeling that the biggest barrier is the motivation NOT to change. I think there’s a bit of truth to each of these items. The system is tied in knots. In some cases it’s with good reason.

** BTW – I am none of these things:) I have acquired a hodge podge of education and dropped more classes than I finished (I’m bored easily and a scary judge of BS – I can learn more, faster, on my own.) I’m an autodidact, easily bored with the steady regurgitation of the established educational process and have nothing to gain by defending the system that grips the future of our children. If you need another revolutionary for the cause, I’m game.

I work for the government, I’m here to help:)

“The point is, the world’s changing, and yet we’re not equipping our kids with the necessary skills. We need a new pedagogy, problem-focused on things kids are interested in, as Harold suggests, and focusing on their information seeking and experimentation and evaluation and the self-learning skills, not on rote exercise of skills.”

Exactly! Metacognitive learning is the most effective way of learning and I don’t see why our schools aren’t actively incorporating this type of learning into the curriculum.