Is this a bureaucratic tendency where being politically smooth is the attribute most required at the top?

If this is so only a full on (Not Insurgency) wartime military or an organization (IBM under Gerstner) in total crisis can tolerate having Grant and Sherman etc as the generals.

I feel sad as if I am right there is no room for real reform

Here’s a few things I noticed in my career – yes I was always considered somewhat of a rebel and iconoclast.
- Perpetuating one’s career becomes job 1
- Not making waves is how one gets promoted. Merit is of little importance beyond mid-grade officer ranks.
- Most of the creative people leave the military after one hitch.
- Military people are seldom innovative, but they are fiercely loyal.
- Senior people are less ethical than their juniors. Perhaps they see more ambiguity later in life, just as we all do.

Again, good article.
Tom Desrosier
Commander, US Navy, Retired.

hehe .. nice typo, Rob .. and perhaps the seed of an answer ?

I don’t doubt that some of the core reasons literacy rates were higher 100 years ago were the absence of other competing media (in the face of the ever-present need to enetrtain onelsef or occupy one’s mind when not involved in tasks), as well as (much) smaller class sizes.

C’mon Dennis, I know you’ve read the thing, pause and consider it with somewhat of an open mind. Geez.

Here is an old post of mine that I hope will show you that I am on the same page
http://smartpei.typepad.com/our_kids_their_future/2003/10/what_to_do_abou.html

The issue for parents is the same. Top down users of power – authoritarian parents – tend to shut their kids down. Very permissive parents make their kids feel unsafe.

The ideal – authoritative – have boundaries but also encourage “conversation” they do not use power except when they have to.

My point about social software is that it is a way of changing culture – it opens up a more level power playing field and that encourages learning.

While most of the damage is down before a child arrives in school, the culture of schools and their response to the 30% who arrive in trouble means that the main object of the school is control.

On PEI about 30% arrive in Grade I already lost for the reasons that you and I know about and that I deal with in the other post.

Around Grade 7, we start to lose most of the others because of the culture of the school – top down and mass market one size fits all – by the end 80% of kids leave school largely ill equipped for life.

So I agree, the real work happens before school and there are many things that can be done at school other than social software – the use of Magic Numbers etc. I do not offer this as a silver bullet but as a useful set of tools among many.

My larger point is this – the more open a system – the more healthy it is

Chimeras have nothing to do with what you’re talking about but are a biological phenomena that can’t possibly be connected to the myth of zombie-ism.

In making the case for social software, you are making a BIG assumption. That is the deterioration in literacy levels can be solved by a magic bullet without reference to the roots causes of illiteracy. What about the problems of race, class, social cohesion and poverty? Social software, by its very nature is only available to a certain slice of society.

What about reading in the family – a well documented and related factor to generational literacy? What about environmental factors? Some will argue the TV generation works against literacy and yet at least one part of social software assumes use of TV and TV substitutes?

What about those who have learning disabilities? How does social software address their issues?

What about political agendas that dictate policies which in some cases have had adverse effects? How does social software impact that element?

My point is that literacy is not a one dimensional problem and that while faulty systems may have a part to play, they are not seen as a leading factor in any of the research I’ve seen. Therefore, to ascribe cause and effect to systemic power issues is erroneous.

One issue that turns up time and again is the extent to which children were encouraged to learn before they ever went to school. How does social software address that in your system of learning?

Ascribing a control theory alone and arguing the ‘wisdom of crowds’ as a way out to illiteracy is not proven. Some would argue that empirical evidence suggests quite the opposite in learning environments.

Sorry Rob. Make a different case and I might agree but grasping at social software as a cure all *because* literacy is something that can be cured through systems application is dangerous. IMO.