Wesch and the Old Revolution

What claim is Wesch making about 21st century learning and kids?  Do you buy it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Wesch claims that the educational revolutionaries of 2012 are pointing at the same ills and calling for the same changes as those of the early twentieth century.  This seems to imply that the nearly one hundred years of  successes enjoyed by American students have happened despite an unsupportive, lackluster, and critically vapid education system.  Sort of like driving to Lil' General to pick up some milk, turning the car off, reaching to put on the e-brake, and realizing that you'd never taken it off.  As to whether I buy what the author is selling, I must exercise my option to come down somewhere other than yes or no.  
     Mr. Wesch sort of makes my middle point with his closing remark, "And so we find ourselves exactly where any great learner would want to be, on a quest, asking question after question after question."  In other words, it is not a matter of establishing a monolithic "best" model, but rather constant refinement through analysis that keeps the ed. system directed toward real learning.  With this I can agree.  Looking for a unified theory of everything educational is a fool's errand, but the debate it creates among the vocation's most passionate voices is not to the detriment of learning.  In my short time doing this work, I have become convinced that those who shout the loudest are seeking the impossible - a solution.  That they don't know that which they seek is mythical does not seem to bother the policymakers who, given the correct set of persuasive and favorable circumstances, can be convinced to enact even the most stifling set of education reforms.      
     Despite being the author of the article, Mr. Wesch is not given to this kind of talking and would prefer to focus on his collaboratively nonlinear explorations into the digital realm.  It would seem that, with some exceptions, he is bypassing the book or written work as the most accessible method of elucidation and offering instead the future work his current students are doing as citations of his pedagogy.  If it helps tap on the glass or inspires others, so be it.  As in the video, the distinction between content and form has been muddled by the very tools used to convey both.  
     One thought that has been with me for some time is about access over ownership.  Having, owning, and storing are vestigial verbs of an earlier time when hard drive size was the engine volume of muscle-car, boat-anchor desktop machines.  These times instead privilege merely the ability to quickly access all the applications, games, and self-specific media users desire.  Not unlike the angst and reticence Dr. Bogad felt regarding her "analog" books, Web 2.0 users are conflicted about what to do with non-digital artifacts in the face of their seeming devaluation.  The new form and how it's accessed dictates the content and its relevance.