Educational reform tends to follow a cycle that is familiar to many:
First, an initiative (supported with little or dubious evidence from the learning sciences) is introduced and implemented (with little or dubious support and rationale).
Second, problems with the initiative appear. These can originate from poor or incomplete implementation or support, discrepancies between the practices and human nature, or other difficulties.
Third, the initiative is recognized as failing, but remains in place (or is replaced with previously used methods under the vocabulary of the initiative).
Fourth, a new initiative replaced the old and the cycle repeats. Frequently the choice of next initiative and the time devoted to any initiative depends on the availability of grants to support the work.
Following this model of reform, educators can appear to be working to improve curriculum and instruction while avoiding implementing any new practices. This also allows educators to abandon any initiatives that force them to resolve any challenges to their existing practice.
@garyackerman
Hey its is more 'fun' than that. (AKA even more cyclical)
Consider 3 educational institutions, it is entirely plausible (has been observed to occur)
That 'A' is using program 'a', B is using program 'b' and C is using program 'c'
all of these are >>accurately<< observed to be ... failing
They all swap to new 'better' programs...
A is now using program 'b', B is now using program 'c' and C is using program 'a'
and all are again >>accurately<< observed to now be much better than before.
Education is an interpersonal process (not bucket chemistry). How a new and exciting the program is (feels) for the humans implementing the program has substantial effect on how well the program works. And it might be tempting to want to "fix" that but the people implementing the programs are indeed people, and how enthusiastic they are, is TBMK the actual most important factor in how well the programs work.
If they continue to cycle through programs a,b,c for all eternity and it continues to produce "improvements" (followed by inevitable decay/boredom) then there isn't actually a problem with that.
