The article points to two main issues:
* The new system isn't new, it's at least as old as Rousseau, and it's been tried before, over and over, and it always fails for the majority of students. (I said that here and a bit more here.)
* We keep doing it because it tells us what we want to hear - that we have untapped creativity and brilliance if only our school system didn't destroy our creativity. (My version of the argument is here - near the end, and a bit here, .)
I'll have to read the book now to see if I can better back-up my claims that are still a minority view (unless it's a fearful majority).