> the problem with this observation, as unshakably valid as it seems, is
> that there are very, very few people adopting the SVS model.
> if the model is superior in nearly every way to the model currently in
> general use, why is it that there is no widespread movement in its
> ostensibly the explanation is that changing our educational model, as
> changing any belief system, is scary. but does this fear really have
> the ability to persist for decades against the onslaught of scientific
> and observational data?
That is a facetious argument.
1) Schools all around the world are adopting the same, or similar, models.
We held a convention this summer of people involved with such schools, and
had well over 100 attendees.
2) Scientific data and observation back up SVS in every regard. For one,
if we apply occam's razor to the question, we see that _traditional_
school's are making the positive claim so proof is incumbent upon them
(and no such proof has come from them)... For another, correlational
studies show SVS alumni to be more sucessful by _any_ criterion (wealth,
self-reported happiness, etc) than students from traditional school's
matched for parental income and educational level.
3) Not every movement that is _correct_ and _effective_ has had widespread
support. Winston Churchil stood nearly alone in opposing concessions to
Hitler. Crop rotation only became widespread in the 13th Century -- that
doesn't mean that it wouldn't have worked in the 4th Century before
everyone knew how well it could work. For mellenia of Human History,
children have learned through observation rather than calculated
instruction -- what part of human nature changed in the late 19th
> it looks to me like there is something fishy going on..
> SwiftRain <email@example.com>
> the Order of Divine Love: http://www.elision.com/odl/