Gardner points out that educational institutions tend to change slowly over long periods of time. He argues that "When it comes to educational instititions--which have come to bear a primary responsibility for the intellectual and moral health of the next generation--such conservatism is especially to be recommended. "

I disagree with Gardner that 1) this pace of change has always happened slowly and 2) that slow change is preferable.

I would argue that the transformation of the educational system in the 20th century is actually very fast. As Gardner points out, a century ago, "only a small percentage of the population received even this much (primary school) education before ...[they] returned to the farm or proceeded to the factory."

In the space of a few decades of the first half of the 1900s, the idea of obligatory 12 years of schooling became standard, with a curriculum based on the needs of a newly industrialized society. My understanding of our current educational system was that it was designed to create disciplined factory workers who could follow directions, complete work on schedule, etc.

I do agree with Gardner, however, that the fundamentals of the education curriculum, however, have remained largely unchanged. Those who have been educated under a certain system and have excelled and been rewarded by it, tend to perpetuate its assumptions and values about what is important to learn.

For me, it is not the pace of change that protects children, but the vision and goals behind the changes.