This is a great question!
I think the fundamental reason is that the old-style teacher led chalk-and-blackboard method is simply the most effective one. When you teach the basics of anything, you have to start from the basics. You cannot expect beginners to be able to apply their skills in too complex ways or to be efficient at discovering things on their own. This is especially true when you're talking about young children whose cognitive and self-regulatory skills or attention span are undeveloped.
A beginner's mind is basically a tabula rasa when it comes to the subject matter. There is very little to nothing in their minds to build on. You have no choice but to feed them a few facts to learn by heart and a few concrete skills. Intelligent well-educated adults may be able to transfer some of their existing skills to new areas and build from there but to expect that of children is completely futile.
It is questionable to expect even older children and youth to be independent and self-directed in their learning or at least all of them in every subject. That just doesn't work and will increase differences in outcomes depending on the educational attainment of the parents of the children and youth in question. Immature people need guidance in their learning and they need it the more badly the more immature they are.
Education is one of those fields, unfortunately, where idealism often trumps realism and empiricism. I think it's because education attracts idealists. Unfortunately, naive idealism is most likely to survive in the higher echelons of education management. Teachers in the trenches facing the every day challenges of their profession often tend to have much more balanced views.
1. The university system is designed to attractis chalk/market and board so bad.....
For me the problem lies in higher education and not so much with th primary education. I won't so that the primary education or even the secondary education is not without problems. The school system has its set of problems but I have noticed that more to do with interpersonal policies and less with the education itself.
It is actually the higher education or the university education that is the problem that needs to be immediately dealt with. Perhaps the rules of triage applies here too. We need to first deal with the most critical problem.
The fact is that university education is multi billion dollar industry that is rotten to its bones. Most of the students never ever work in the field that they study in nor the courses they taught hold relevance to their future profession.
The inertia and this resistance to change emerges from many places. Here are a few of them:
1. The university system is designed to attract with a promise of future. Delivering on the promise of education is secondary
2. The university management is made up of old academicians that are uot of touch of the modern context of education.
3. The scientific community is more worried about accolades than true education
4. While a school teacher stands for his the whole day and teaches class after class, the university professor get one or maybe two lectures a day and teaches for only two or three days a week.
A system that is run my lazy men and women is very difficult to change
Perhaps simply because it's the most effective way of teaching!
In life, we should always try new things and new methods, teaching included, but we should never implement change for change sake.
If a system ain't broke. It don't need fixing! but never stop trying to stay on a course of continual improvement.
The key point in education is the teacher and how they get across their message to their pupils. The teacher is the key to learning anything in life and all they really need are their mind, personality and voice to get a message across.
Sometimes, simple is best!
Interesting question, thank you :-)