It is interesting how this essentially fascist idea got support from assorted liberals and lefties. What did the trick, imho, is cleaver marketing this teaching philosophy as anti-intellectual populism. "Down with the authoritarian experts, and their knowledge - let them be accountable to the people and make them do only what the people want them to do." This approach reverberates in virtually unchanged form in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China and curiously, the United States. The faux populism was the trick that sold this fascist idea to the left in this country - just like the faux "tough" look sells SUSv to suburban safe-seeking sheep.
==========
Surely one of the most fascinating things about listserv discussions is how difficult it often is to build a complex, multi-part argument that drives your main point home without creating new islands of contention.
So Wojtek, although I understand (I think) the idea you're presenting, I predict that your intended audience will focus with laser-esque precision on the mind killing words "Nazi", 'Stalinist" and "fascist" and pretty much ignore the rest because these words draw attention like a gravitational singularity drinks in light.
Which is a pity because there's definitely something worth fleshing out here.
The real question is whether or not the "new technologies" Matthew lightly mentioned last week -- techniques appropriate for kids who're accustomed to what marketers used to call the 'wired life' (net use, video games, etc), are really required to effectively teach today -- to make things, as you say Wojtek, "entertaining" or whether your description of student non-participation in the process is closer to the mark.
To rephrase a bit...
Is it the case that teachers aren't 'modern' enough in their methods? Or is it that students are coming from a culture that barely supports the sort of hard work required to master difficult subjects?
.d.