I have read only about half of the paper. It is written in a very compelling style, though I get the impression that the authors have an axe to grind. However,

I have read only about half of the paper. It is written in a very compelling style, though I get the impression that the authors have an axe to grind. However, to play the devil's advocate for a bit, standardized tests such as PISA and TIMSS are taken as uncontested measure for the quality of an education system. If you believe in the _social constructionist_ view (as presented in the paper), then obviously you would reject such tests as a valid measure just as you reject them when used in education. Clearly, an education system that is _not_ focused - and excuse the simplification - on making students learn a defined, common set of facts, is never going to do well on tests. You could argue that this is by design, because the real goal of education is to (?) make students question the "social construct"(?)[0] The question at this point would then be whether Swedish students are doing well on other dimensions - are they competitive on the labor market, do they live happy lives? To make it clear where I am standing: I believe that in order to question anything intelligently, you need a strong and broad base of facts to base your criticism on. I do not think there is a way around memorizing at least for part of the subjects. I benefit at this point of my life of basic knowledge in many areas that I _had_ to study during my education and had no interest or inclination for - I would never have chosen for example to study the basics of civil or contract law, which was a mandatory part of my somewhat quantitative BSc course, but the concepts I learned were very helpful in practice when dealing with employers, landlords, banks, etc. I think to ask children to find their own interests and "question things critically" - which I guess boils down to expressing individual likes and dislikes if arguing based on facts is not part of it - at that young age deprives them of learning about the structure and rules of society, and about the choices you have available. How do you know you are interested in biology if you have not seen it somewhat in depth? [0] Making this up; it is not clear to me if the social constructivist' take on education makes even the basic promise of preparing students for life, whereas in traditional fact-based education the promise is clear: learn facts that will help you at work and in life.