You've tantalized me make what seems an irrelevant detour from the substance of your paper to put a little bit of pressure on the idea of national boundaries. While I agree with you that the idea of nations will have a degree of importance in the foreseeable future, I think that in the United States and other postindustrial countries, national boundaries as they effect educational goals are already on the decline. It strikes me that the "old" education had as a central purpose the socialization of young people into a national culture (particularly in the United States, which has had to collectively forge a culture and create a sort of Bildungsroman of the state). However, with the waning of the nation as the unit of economic production and the rise of a transnational corporate economy, our educational discourse is slowly shifting from national cultural knowledge and skills to information and communication skills to use in the "knowledge economy," to borrow Bill Clinton"s language. Stakeholders, as you say, are effected by these changes. While families and communities may continue to have social and psychic investments in such concepts as "nation," "culture," and "community," government agencies and business and industry will have less need of (national) culture for economic production and increasing pragmatic investments in students' "information skills." Although these stakeholders may achieve some consensus around issues of students* employability, I wonder if there will not also be points of conflict among stakeholders. -S.T.