Seems like a linguistic and formalism issue is related to it. Are dwarf planets - planets. They might be, but children in school and planetariums would certainly prefer to study 7 planets than 109 or thousands of exoplanets. We might as well call the current 8 planets (including Earth) - major planets (or formally, as it is now and clearly stated in the IAU resolution - planets), but Pluto should not be with those in light of discovery of greater objects than Pluto, which are not considered planets - then we would really have a problem as I see it. Thus I can sympathize with the 2006 IAU decision.
Well, the IAU crowd has no sympathy for astrology, that's for sure. I doubt that you and the IAU would have much in common.
And no, it's not linguistic or formalistic. It's science.
I don't know which school children you mean. Some school children grow up to become astronomers. Some school children gaze at the night sky on camping trips and are awed by its vastness.
Space is full of what the late Carl Sagan called "billions and billions" of heavenly bodies. This is a source of wonder, not of complication on a multiple choice test.
What do you mean by "greater objects than Pluto, which are not considered planets"? Stars? Black holes? Wormholes in space?
You might enjoy this book by trans-Neptunian astronomer Mike Brown, How I killed Pluto and Why it Had It Coming:
And also this essay on his blog, "I [heart] astrologers" http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/01/i-heart-astrologers.html
I just don't feel threatened by new astronomical discoveries.