I think we are on the page in regards to ‘lighting the fire’, but my argument is that this approach should not be universally applicable to the same degree across the educational continuum. I would even go so far as to suggest that Page should be arguing is that lighting the fire is really important at all times (after all, this is ultimately the best way to fill the bucket), but as educators we have a really important obligation emphasize even more so at certain development stages when neural pathways are being developed. I also think we shouldn’t rule out the important of, at times, filling the bucket. Mark my words, if we go too far along the lighting the fire path there will be inevitable backwards pendulum swing at some point. The key, at least in my mind, is balance in a way that address development differences in children. Great thought provoking comment. Thanks.

I think that helping students develop their “cerebral muscles” outside of the years you mention will not, therefore, involve filling the bucket with content knowledge. The higher level thinking skills will involve creating, evaluating, collaborating, and reflecting more than anything else. The content is the easy part, and these days it can be found anywhere.