[quoting Foshay, 3 Mar 97.b] I don't think teachers within the current system will be the source of change, nor do I think it's likely that the current system will actually change much. An equally plausible scenario is that alternative systems will grow up in parallel with the present dominant model. The growth could be either inside or outside the public school establishment, depending on politics. But, eventually, these alternatives will look so credible and attractive that people will vote with their feet, wallets, and taxation votes, and starve the current system down to one of many alternatives--probably not even the main one.
In principle, I hope that you are right. But at times it seems that there is an adversarial position between the proponents of technology and teachers in regular classrooms. Perhaps focusing on establishing alternative schools is not the correct tactic to take in this case.
I believe that classroom teachers would invest more in technology if they felt they could incorporate it into an existing system. What is needed is a "transitional technology" that proves its worth to the masses, i.e., the regular classroom teachers. To most it seems too risky to make a large investment of time and money for what they perceive to be little gain. To most teachers, its simply a glitzier truck to deliver the groceries, doing little to improve the quality of nutrition, to use Clark's analogy. (Not my position, I assure you.)
I also question whether such an alternative rich education could sustain itself. It seems that a lot of different alternatives would simply diversify the existing market for courseware enough to make it uneconomical for developers to produce any kind of software. No, I think we need "safety in numbers."
In my humble opinion, selling technology to the public school system in a way they can accept is our only hope... (or was that Obi-Wan-Konobi?)