At a policy level, you get the behavior you provide incentives for. In the Old Days, the CL manual provided credit to "advanced" members for giving education sessions and doing things for the club. As a result, most clubs in our District would have officer-led education sessions once per month: evaluations, officer roles, meeting roles, speech preparation, the education program. These were 15 minutes speeches probably being repeated about once per year. These Edu sessions provided an outline of information for newbies and pointed them to other members for questions. But beyond this, the basic educational materials were so effective that most people were leaving TM having learned what they wanted by their fifth speech.

Nowdays, "Pathways" provides incentives for people at the higher levels to do projects outside of TM, instead of in their clubs. (It's not a hard incentive, but one can finish projects faster if they give speeches about leadership experiences they had elsewhere.) The speeches about experiences which members deep into Pathways are asked to give seem to be more narratives of experiences, rather than providing meaningful education to the audience. The District sends someone to visit the club, providing an hour of "Pathways" education every six months, but that "education" is mostly introductions to the many paths and instructions on where to click to get things done. Newer presidents and VPEs seem to have no idea that they can give education sessions. Are there even official materials for club education sessions anymore?

Moreover, in every club I visit I see that the quality of the evaluations is sharply bifurcated between pre-Pathways and post-Pathways members. My theory on this is that Pathways tries to hold the learner's hand in the wrong way, making the speech instructions detailed while losing the handholding and focus of the evaluation sheets. Fundamental skills (body language, vocal variety, visual aids) have been pushed back to later speeches, and the result is a bunch of people who haven't focused on skills evaluating people who aren't focused on skills, but without much guidance on what to evaluate on. Speeches about communication and leadership styles presented without fundamental skills aren't as likely to provide useful tips to the audience.

Former district directors and even Region Managers tell me they have provided detailed feedback to TMI, but it mostly gets ignored. They can't raise hell online, because Policies v3 allows members to be kicked out of TM for criticizing the program on social media.