The reason? In science education there are strong internal and external mechanisms at work against among innovators, and a fascination on the part of funders for whatever is "new," even at the expense of previous initiatives that demonstrably work.
The reform process itself is not altogether free of blame. Particularly in science education, reformers tend to simplify extremely complex issues by framing them in terms of problems and solutions. Thus, built into the process from the outset is a tilt toward theoretical, universal solutions over more modest, incremental change. Rarely are recommendations couched in terms of options, each bearing its own benefit-cost calculation; rarer still are proposals directed to the short term. What's missing, as one educator I interviewed expressed it, is attention to "what we can do tomorrow."
Reformers seem to prefer grand-scale innovations and to disregard the political grunt work involved in long-or even short-term change, as if ...
