I don't know about you, but I'm so tired of "producing scholars." I think it's a terribly trite phrase, and I don't think it's what we ought to strive to "produce" in schools.
Mind you, I happen to be a scholar of medieval religious theater in (what are today) France and Germany, specifically during the 15th century, and even more specifically in plays that deal with soteriology and the notion of the devil's rights. That's what being a scholar is about: undertaking studies in a special field. It has another meaning, related closely to the original Latin, that is the equivalent to the word "pupil." Clearly, then, any child in our schools qualifies as a "scholar." He or she is a pupil, plain and simple.
Are schools places that are supposed to produce scholars? Really?! Experts in late-medieval religious theater with a soteriological bent? I use that as an example, but consider it this way: is it our goal to produce university-level subject specialists that revel in esoterica, even if the esoterica do advance human knowledge? Unlikely. Some learners are called to be scholars, but that's just one career choice (or 'way of life') among many.
For my part, I would hope that we strive to graduate students who are considered creative intellectuals, i.e. informed, well-rounded citizens who are able to use their intellects in creative ways to tackle and solve issues, with an eye to moral and ethical impact of decision-making.
But please, no more emphasis on the singular goal of producing scholars...