"In my vision for the future, publicly supported learning-and-recreation centers would provide resources that enable everyone, regardless of family income, to educate themselves well in a community of others"
To me, this sounds like you are proposing an unstructured approach for the K-12 age group. How many young people do you think would flounder in an unstructured environment? I suspect that the number is large. Directionally, you are probably right that moving toward *less* structure would be better for many young people. But structured environments have been around for many decades in many countries, and it seems likely that they benefit at least *some* young people.
I think a lot of students flounder without structure because current school system are so heavily structured, meaning students become reliant from a young age on structure that supports them. This could be different if students were in less structured environments from the beginning of their education and given the opportunity to develop the skills needed to guide themselves.
Gray's recommendations only indicate the benefit of a relatively less structured learning environment, not a wholly unstructured one. In particular, in my opinion linking learning skills to one-year ranked tiers for children age 5-9 is terribly determinist, and introduces harm with no additional benefit for the students at all. Mixed-age classes with attention given to peer mentoring by the children who catch on first would be much more effective.
Computer-aided instruction also has promise, particularly for math instruction. There are times when the human factor can be detrimental to learning--like when a teacher gets exasperated over a child not understanding a math operation, for example. Computers don't get exasperated, they don't express negative judgements with their tone, they identify learning obstacles and allow children to keep trying without losing their patience.
I single out math skills, because numbers are entirely denotative and straightforward. Computers are ideal as a teaching aid for that skill.
Verbal language partakes of a lot of arbitrary irrationality--particularly English. Computers can't adequately explain why alphabetic spelling is so often at variance with the logic of phonetics, or the subtleties of context than influence the use of terms. Computer logic can't adequately explain the significance of the fact that the words 'vary' and 'very' have two different meanings, for example. A lot of the ability to read written English is dependent on familiarity, and learning to not be defeated by its inherent irrationality quotient. A human teacher present in the moment helps out a lot with that process. Programs like Duolingo can be valuable for learning a second language, but it's my impression that they require some baseline skills competence with ones first language.
My own vision involves choice. Having been home edding for a year (my eldest and I've just added my youngest), it's obvious that some kids benefit more from structure than others.
However, there needs to be reform. About 67% of UK home educators run 'semi-structured' and that's also what I've drifted into (and what Alpha School in the US is also piloting using teaching apps). Semi-structured involves about two hours maximum of formal teaching of 'the basics', e.g. reading, writing, maths, with everything else delivered in a play-based form.
Today, UK schools, certainly, seem to think it's reasonable to have six hours of structured adult-led teaching of very young kids. Having taught elementary-age kids as a parent, it's simply not developmentally appropriate. My kids, developmentally speaking, just want to play all the time - this seems to be a natural behaviour for them - and they seem to be set up to learn through play.
Free kids thrive! Not always the way you want them to thrive, and they may need a healthy environment to grow. All that matters is that they develop faster and with joy!
Your vision is spot on and a conversation I have regularly with my husband, family, friends, and colleagues regarding public education. We started homeschooling several years ago, both of our children. One still remains homeschooled, the other has returned to public. One of my children is thriving in all ways possible. My other child who “loves” being back in public, loves the social aspect and is floundering in almost all the other aspects of it. I continue to say, public education will implode on itself…someway or somehow. It is not changing like our ever changing world continues to do. Thank you for this piece, Peter Gray. I respect all of your work and continuously recommend your book “Free to Learn”. It was life-changing for me during our transition to homeschool. I’ve also enjoyed your sessions on the Raised Good Summit online. Cheers to you and your vision! Let’s hope this becomes a reality sooner than later…for the sake of children and their childhood.
I very much appreciate your work, Peter, and I do hope that much of what you've discussed here comes to pass. But I still think there is a core question of "why school?" that still needs to be asked.
What is the purpose of education in a time of increasing complexity and challenge? We can no longer NOT layer a lens of climate change, growing disconnection from one another and nature, receding democracies, advancing conflicts, shocking losses in biodiversity, etc. onto any conversations around what it means to be educated. If the core goal of education remains to be to prepare children to get good jobs so as to feed a capitalist economic system that is pushing us to the brink, then we are surely complicit in what's happening right now.
I've written a lot more on this topic recently in a "manifesto" titled "Confronting Education in a Time of Complexity, Chaos, and Collapse" that might be of interest. https://futureserious.school/manifestoedu
I just read your manifesto and agree 100% Check out my blog. I also focus on the issues you mention in your manifesto, including the excerpt above. Our "transformative activities" are written to support children in changing their worldview from one of separation to one of interdependence. We also focus on learning the skills and concepts they'll need to face collapse, including forming deep mutualistic relationships with themselves, each other, and the beyond-human world and otherwise being able to thrive off the high-tech cruise ship.
Hey Will, I couldn't agree more! I'd love to talk with you more. See my comment here as well. You might be interested in the monthly Zoom meetings I host for Collapse Aware Educators via the Deep Adaptation Forum
Peter - As always, I enjoy your passionate newsletters and your progressive view of what schools can and should be. I must admit, though, that article #61 has shown me that I have a more nuanced view of the changes needed so our education system serves everyone well.
In my 13 years of experience in global education philanthropy, I grew to appreciate that the US has a unique education ecosystem with a vast array of learning opportunities. This is especially true when you compare our post secondary pathways to almost any other country.
I don’t think we have a wholesale K-20 quality problem. Rather, we have an equity problem. Don’t get me wrong - we have opportunities for improvement everywhere. But there are some AMAZING learning opportunities in K-12 and post-secondary - just not everywhere and for everyone.
As for the Apprenticeship models that are gaining traction (finally) in the US, I think real-life hands-on experiences can be superb. But let’s also be honest with our students seeking a career: Skills are great - until they’re obsolete (from technology, outsourcing, etc…).
Just today (12/16/2024) NPR’s Market Place featured an interview with Matt Notowidigdo , a professor of economics and business at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. The topic was about manufacturing jobs. Of note:
“…when workers lose their job in manufacturing, as I said, a lot of them struggle to get back in finding another job, and if they really struggle to find another job, then they leave the labor force. They don’t work…”
“We’ve been trying job training for a really long time, and it’s really hard. It’s hard to come up with training programs that look effective when people are older.”
College as we know it is certainly imperfect, and people understandably question their return on investment. After all, the tuition increases over 20 years are unconscionable - but the value of the experience can be critically important.
Here’s an example: Coding boot camps can be a pivotal experience for some. But let’s be clear - what they teach is not equivalent to what you learn (and what you earn) from getting a computer science degree.
Colleges and universities offer another type of benefit that extends beyond the course syllabi: Social capital is real, learning to learn is essential for all the career twists and turns ahead, and learning about yourself may have the most value of all.
Yes, let’s reduce the unnecessary stress of education. Let’s expose our young adults to the real world and career possibilities. Let’s stop treating “hands-on” and “academics” as mutually exclusive. Let’s also help our students see the big picture and develop a love of learning that will serve them for a lifetime.
What a phenomenal, passionate read. I’d love to see educations systems designed the way you suggest. Even in my short years as a teacher, I’ve also wondered whether grading children by age is important and I love the idea of students guiding their learning through topics of their own choice. It’s a crime that we don’t see more of it.
In my view, it is important to get as many people as possible talking about the questions found at the end of this article. The more they are discussed, the more informed people will become, and then the more likely they will be to take action to transform education.
I agree with much of this. Because I work in an environmentally focused non-profit I regularly work with students that fall into what you describe as grades 10-16. We operationalize what you describe as Phase 2 or career exploration. Programmatically we provide opportunities for young people to explore horticulture, gardening, ecological research, land management, nature-based arts and a great deal more. We see this work as part of our mission, but it also takes a great deal of focused energy, planning, relationship building, specialized skills focused on supporting youth, and more. In other words, time and resources. If every student currently in high school/college were diverted to work environments for career exploration it would overwhelm those systems. Those young people do not appreciatively expand the capacity of an organization to get more work done. They take a great deal of time. I still agree with the Phase 2 approach, but I think we would need to rethink the types of people, and the needed resources, to be able to provide them with quality experiences. Organizations that take on young people engaged in Phase 2 would need outside support to help make that happen. Both in terms of people with the right skill sets, and in funding to make a career exploration journey fruitful. But that could be done. It may just mean diverting funding from the current model to a new model.
I just started our homeschool journey with our 5 year old this year. I don't know if families will be able to afford homeschooling. I was able to find a fully remote position that allows me to be home and still have an income. But if one parents needs to stop working to allow for the children to be home schooled, with this economy, I don't think families can survive with only one income, especially if they have multiple children.
I hope you don't mind the late reply: you were quoted in Dr. Grey's latest post and I wanted to chime in.
As a fellow homeschooling (and FT SAH) mom, I guarantee you that YOU can make homeschooling as affordable or as expensive as you want it to be as there's an infinite number of free resources to help you along on your journey--from curricula, to local activities, to worksheets (if they're your thing), the works. Here are just a handful: https://youtu.be/wkjVvMoy518?si=9TdaUtWc-Sv4Rw6I
For starters, reading aloud, the most important thing you can do with/to your child and which will most influence his/her future academic success, is free. A library card is free. Many cities even forego late fines for kids' books. Local events like reading challenges from said libraries let your kiddo earn free tickets (like to the zoo, museums, etc.), which further decreases those costs you mention.
Additionally, the fact that only the wealthy can afford homeschooling is false (I linked to the video discussing these below):
- Yearly costs are significantly lower (and even more so if they're $0) than the annual cost attributed to a kid in public school
- MOST homeschool families are at *or below* the median income level, w/65% of them earning <$75K/year
- More than HALF of homeschooling takes place w/only ONE parent in the labor force ==> This one's key because you allege otherwise, and the data doesn't support you.
ETA: Many states will give you back some-most of the money you're already paying through taxes for public schools, through dual-enrollment programs or actual scholarships. Our state awards up to $8K/year/child through a new scholarship, but it also makes available other programs that give families ~$1800/year/child.
Thanks for sharing Annie! There are sooo many myths surrounding home school - I hope people take time to watch the video you shared.
I did not mean to imply that only the wealthy can afford home school - quite the opposite! My point was meant to be that most of the families I know in the homeschool world are indeed on one income (and it is less than what I have) - yet they are content.
You have a great point that people can choose how much to spend. I would guess that people don't realize how little is actually required...precisely because kids don't need to be kept occupied for 6-7 hrs per day with lessons or extracurricular activities.
We are on our 16th year of home education. Five kids, one income. (My husband makes a slightly higher income for our area, but I would have had a full-time job in IT if we had put the kids in school.) But I do not regret choosing my children's education & character development over having more material possessions or vacations. Each family's situation is different, but the cost of curriculum is very affordable (especially when compared to what school's pay per child each year!) Just to say: if you really want something (like home education), you will find a way to make it happen.
Hey Peter, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this topic and, as usual, agree with much of what you said. I have a nit to pick and two interrelated larger issues.
The nit: the phrase "biologically designed." The distinction between design, which implies planning, and evolution, which does not, is important to many of us.
My two related larger issues are the ongoing collapse of our eco- and social systems and the importance of children learning basic ecological skills and concepts like how to grow food and form mutually beneficial relationships with other human and non-human ecosystem contributors. I wonder, do you envision a future where civilization continues on its current course: continuous growth via ecosystem-destroying extractive methods? I believe today's young people will see a drastic change in their lifetimes.
I see our current predicament as living on a high-tech cruise ship and not knowing how to swim. That would be a problem in any case. The fact that the ship is sinking magnifies the problem. I agree that our current educational system is destructive. I'd add that it does what it does, grooming passive consumers and producers, by design. I also agree that learning happens best through play and playful activity!
My vision for the future of K-12 education is learning centers as places where educators nurture learning environments and communities that support children learning traditional and modern ecological skills and concepts as they play in fields and forests. I believe that current school-aged children will need those skills to survive.
That's why my blog, Exploration in Ecology for Children and Their Adults, includes both general and specific ways for children and their adults to playfully learn those skills and concepts together, and have plenty of time to express their freedom to play, rest, and otherwise pursue their own needs and interests. https://peterkindfieldphd.substack.com
Yes, yes, yes, yes.... thank you for your clear expression of a vision I too want to see manifest. Thanks again for all the research you've completed and probably are completing. I sent a letter to the Gates Foundation, Obama Foundation, Ken Burns, all our state legislators with an email, and anyone else I think might be willing to consider your and other's research on learning. As education moves to embrace learning as nature intended it to occur, it will apply the saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." More happy people, do more happy things.
I am inspired by your vision! I'm excited by imagining this future for education for our children and the joy it would bring, the innovative thinking, creativity and much more. I believe it will lead to many more happy, fulfilled adults because they will have had the opportunity as children and teens to discover what really lights them up and pursue it! Thank you for sharing your vision.
I think the problem here in your analysis is clubbing all majors into one big amorphous blob called "college". Professional degrees are absolutely not the same as humanities ones. Nursing students literally learn to save lives at the end of their degree. College is definitely not useless for them.
In tech, we've seen college vs non-college play out - there are plenty of self-taught programmers, plenty of those who went to programming bootcamp, and the vast majority have a degree in computer science or something related. The ones with the degree win out bigtime. If a kid shows interest and potential, she's guided towards a computer science degree at one of the top universities instead of a bootcamp, even when the bootcamp is cheaper, even when bootcamp grads were being given pretty great offers. You need to study computer science in an organized way. Without immersive classes over at least a year that aren't focused on being immediately useful, you don't get grounded in the basics. I tried being self-taught and if you don't have someone lay out the basics for you and show you what the landscape is like, you can end up quite lost. The most productive self-taught folks eventually find themselves in college classes to get a grounding, or they end up not being able to generalize and adapt with their skills because they are too dependent on the shortcuts they taught themselves in a specific context and can't generalize.
"Real world" settings don't usually want clueless children getting in their way, especially when it comes to things like healthcare. To even be in an operating theater, you need credentials. Plus, the day-to-day can vary dramatically for different specialities. Someone in family medicine has a very different kind of day than a surgeon. And those things can change dramatically with time as well - imagine being a writer pre- and post-chatgpt. What you spend most of your time doing here in the early years is studying the basics and the basics stay constant throughout the career. And that's what professional degrees are about. If you don't know your algorithms and data structures, it's going to be a struggle to enjoy or even understand what goes on in a tech job.
I've been on all sides of "students aren't prepared for the workforce", and I'll say it isn't the job of college to tailor students to the workforce; It is their job to ground students in the basics. It's annoying managers who say stuff like "college kids can't even code in java", but that's not the job of a college degree. And good companies understand this and have expectations accordingly that help them identify and groom the ones they think have potential.
Tech industry has the most direct relationship with academia and there is the most back-and-forth feedback between industry and academia here with constant improvement, and we've decided college matters.
I agree!!! and am trying to build this here in FL and in my work at UCF. I posted about the attitudes necessary at these re-envisioned schools, but I totally agree that the focus/content ought to be aligned according to the three phases you describe. https://transformingschools.substack.com/p/my-audacious-recommendation
Our canadian Township of Ignace has been choose/accepted as the 1st Canadian Nuclear Depository site. The opportunities for changing the look, feel and fun of learning and exploring at our finger tips. Would appreciate thoughts and participation during this endeavor.
Question: how much time did you spend looking into either how doctors become doctors or how hospitals work before writing this? It does not seem like much time at all.
Med school admissions interviews already verify that students know what they are getting into and the workload required before they get to begin their studies. They already need to complete their studies before they choose a specialization, and part of those studies involves multiple years of essentially doing medical apprenticeship work in every department to get a feel for it and see what you like.
Also, there is no job in a hospital other than a doctor which will ever let you know what being a doctor is like. Doctors have no idea what being a nurse is like, nobody except technicians know what their job is like, and the orderlies don't know what any of these jobs are like.
On top of this, before interacting with patients, potential doctors MUST take training on policies and laws such as HIPAA, which does end up being essentially a full course that they just need to study for. Somebody without a comprehensive understanding of medical ethics and confidentiality policies should NEVER be interacting with patients. And I don't know who is gonna sign up to be baby's first patient while they feel their way around and figure it out through practice, but it won't be me I can guarantee that.
Peter Gray, your line of thinking of "doing away with grades" falls in line with Montessori teachings. It's the reason I was originally drawn to the philosophy and later certified. I wish more educators were aware of Montessori's depth and the incredible foundation it gives children ages 3-6 in literacy, math, science, geography and basic self-help skills.
"In my vision for the future, publicly supported learning-and-recreation centers would provide resources that enable everyone, regardless of family income, to educate themselves well in a community of others"
To me, this sounds like you are proposing an unstructured approach for the K-12 age group. How many young people do you think would flounder in an unstructured environment? I suspect that the number is large. Directionally, you are probably right that moving toward *less* structure would be better for many young people. But structured environments have been around for many decades in many countries, and it seems likely that they benefit at least *some* young people.
I think a lot of students flounder without structure because current school system are so heavily structured, meaning students become reliant from a young age on structure that supports them. This could be different if students were in less structured environments from the beginning of their education and given the opportunity to develop the skills needed to guide themselves.
Free kids develop on a totally different trajectory! Joy and passion all day long! The less "structure", the better the outcome
When you have no objectives or measures of success, then everything is a success!
there is no better measure of success than your own brain!
Absolutely!!
Gray's recommendations only indicate the benefit of a relatively less structured learning environment, not a wholly unstructured one. In particular, in my opinion linking learning skills to one-year ranked tiers for children age 5-9 is terribly determinist, and introduces harm with no additional benefit for the students at all. Mixed-age classes with attention given to peer mentoring by the children who catch on first would be much more effective.
Computer-aided instruction also has promise, particularly for math instruction. There are times when the human factor can be detrimental to learning--like when a teacher gets exasperated over a child not understanding a math operation, for example. Computers don't get exasperated, they don't express negative judgements with their tone, they identify learning obstacles and allow children to keep trying without losing their patience.
I single out math skills, because numbers are entirely denotative and straightforward. Computers are ideal as a teaching aid for that skill.
Verbal language partakes of a lot of arbitrary irrationality--particularly English. Computers can't adequately explain why alphabetic spelling is so often at variance with the logic of phonetics, or the subtleties of context than influence the use of terms. Computer logic can't adequately explain the significance of the fact that the words 'vary' and 'very' have two different meanings, for example. A lot of the ability to read written English is dependent on familiarity, and learning to not be defeated by its inherent irrationality quotient. A human teacher present in the moment helps out a lot with that process. Programs like Duolingo can be valuable for learning a second language, but it's my impression that they require some baseline skills competence with ones first language.
My own vision involves choice. Having been home edding for a year (my eldest and I've just added my youngest), it's obvious that some kids benefit more from structure than others.
However, there needs to be reform. About 67% of UK home educators run 'semi-structured' and that's also what I've drifted into (and what Alpha School in the US is also piloting using teaching apps). Semi-structured involves about two hours maximum of formal teaching of 'the basics', e.g. reading, writing, maths, with everything else delivered in a play-based form.
Today, UK schools, certainly, seem to think it's reasonable to have six hours of structured adult-led teaching of very young kids. Having taught elementary-age kids as a parent, it's simply not developmentally appropriate. My kids, developmentally speaking, just want to play all the time - this seems to be a natural behaviour for them - and they seem to be set up to learn through play.
Free kids thrive! Not always the way you want them to thrive, and they may need a healthy environment to grow. All that matters is that they develop faster and with joy!
Your vision is spot on and a conversation I have regularly with my husband, family, friends, and colleagues regarding public education. We started homeschooling several years ago, both of our children. One still remains homeschooled, the other has returned to public. One of my children is thriving in all ways possible. My other child who “loves” being back in public, loves the social aspect and is floundering in almost all the other aspects of it. I continue to say, public education will implode on itself…someway or somehow. It is not changing like our ever changing world continues to do. Thank you for this piece, Peter Gray. I respect all of your work and continuously recommend your book “Free to Learn”. It was life-changing for me during our transition to homeschool. I’ve also enjoyed your sessions on the Raised Good Summit online. Cheers to you and your vision! Let’s hope this becomes a reality sooner than later…for the sake of children and their childhood.
I very much appreciate your work, Peter, and I do hope that much of what you've discussed here comes to pass. But I still think there is a core question of "why school?" that still needs to be asked.
What is the purpose of education in a time of increasing complexity and challenge? We can no longer NOT layer a lens of climate change, growing disconnection from one another and nature, receding democracies, advancing conflicts, shocking losses in biodiversity, etc. onto any conversations around what it means to be educated. If the core goal of education remains to be to prepare children to get good jobs so as to feed a capitalist economic system that is pushing us to the brink, then we are surely complicit in what's happening right now.
I've written a lot more on this topic recently in a "manifesto" titled "Confronting Education in a Time of Complexity, Chaos, and Collapse" that might be of interest. https://futureserious.school/manifestoedu
Here's a short read that will give you an idea of what I do. https://peterkindfieldphd.substack.com/p/earth-centered-transformative-ecological
I just read your manifesto and agree 100% Check out my blog. I also focus on the issues you mention in your manifesto, including the excerpt above. Our "transformative activities" are written to support children in changing their worldview from one of separation to one of interdependence. We also focus on learning the skills and concepts they'll need to face collapse, including forming deep mutualistic relationships with themselves, each other, and the beyond-human world and otherwise being able to thrive off the high-tech cruise ship.
Hey Will, I couldn't agree more! I'd love to talk with you more. See my comment here as well. You might be interested in the monthly Zoom meetings I host for Collapse Aware Educators via the Deep Adaptation Forum
Just DM'ed you. Thanks!
I've just written on this topic. Perhaps, you might find my thoughts interesting.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ryanbromley/p/a-first-principle-for-education?r=2e8gk6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Peter - As always, I enjoy your passionate newsletters and your progressive view of what schools can and should be. I must admit, though, that article #61 has shown me that I have a more nuanced view of the changes needed so our education system serves everyone well.
In my 13 years of experience in global education philanthropy, I grew to appreciate that the US has a unique education ecosystem with a vast array of learning opportunities. This is especially true when you compare our post secondary pathways to almost any other country.
I don’t think we have a wholesale K-20 quality problem. Rather, we have an equity problem. Don’t get me wrong - we have opportunities for improvement everywhere. But there are some AMAZING learning opportunities in K-12 and post-secondary - just not everywhere and for everyone.
As for the Apprenticeship models that are gaining traction (finally) in the US, I think real-life hands-on experiences can be superb. But let’s also be honest with our students seeking a career: Skills are great - until they’re obsolete (from technology, outsourcing, etc…).
Just today (12/16/2024) NPR’s Market Place featured an interview with Matt Notowidigdo , a professor of economics and business at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. The topic was about manufacturing jobs. Of note:
“…when workers lose their job in manufacturing, as I said, a lot of them struggle to get back in finding another job, and if they really struggle to find another job, then they leave the labor force. They don’t work…”
“We’ve been trying job training for a really long time, and it’s really hard. It’s hard to come up with training programs that look effective when people are older.”
https://www.marketplace.org/2024/12/16/manufacturing-workers-jobs-factories-education-workforce/
College as we know it is certainly imperfect, and people understandably question their return on investment. After all, the tuition increases over 20 years are unconscionable - but the value of the experience can be critically important.
Here’s an example: Coding boot camps can be a pivotal experience for some. But let’s be clear - what they teach is not equivalent to what you learn (and what you earn) from getting a computer science degree.
Colleges and universities offer another type of benefit that extends beyond the course syllabi: Social capital is real, learning to learn is essential for all the career twists and turns ahead, and learning about yourself may have the most value of all.
Yes, let’s reduce the unnecessary stress of education. Let’s expose our young adults to the real world and career possibilities. Let’s stop treating “hands-on” and “academics” as mutually exclusive. Let’s also help our students see the big picture and develop a love of learning that will serve them for a lifetime.
What a phenomenal, passionate read. I’d love to see educations systems designed the way you suggest. Even in my short years as a teacher, I’ve also wondered whether grading children by age is important and I love the idea of students guiding their learning through topics of their own choice. It’s a crime that we don’t see more of it.
In my view, it is important to get as many people as possible talking about the questions found at the end of this article. The more they are discussed, the more informed people will become, and then the more likely they will be to take action to transform education.
I agree with much of this. Because I work in an environmentally focused non-profit I regularly work with students that fall into what you describe as grades 10-16. We operationalize what you describe as Phase 2 or career exploration. Programmatically we provide opportunities for young people to explore horticulture, gardening, ecological research, land management, nature-based arts and a great deal more. We see this work as part of our mission, but it also takes a great deal of focused energy, planning, relationship building, specialized skills focused on supporting youth, and more. In other words, time and resources. If every student currently in high school/college were diverted to work environments for career exploration it would overwhelm those systems. Those young people do not appreciatively expand the capacity of an organization to get more work done. They take a great deal of time. I still agree with the Phase 2 approach, but I think we would need to rethink the types of people, and the needed resources, to be able to provide them with quality experiences. Organizations that take on young people engaged in Phase 2 would need outside support to help make that happen. Both in terms of people with the right skill sets, and in funding to make a career exploration journey fruitful. But that could be done. It may just mean diverting funding from the current model to a new model.
I just started our homeschool journey with our 5 year old this year. I don't know if families will be able to afford homeschooling. I was able to find a fully remote position that allows me to be home and still have an income. But if one parents needs to stop working to allow for the children to be home schooled, with this economy, I don't think families can survive with only one income, especially if they have multiple children.
I hope you don't mind the late reply: you were quoted in Dr. Grey's latest post and I wanted to chime in.
As a fellow homeschooling (and FT SAH) mom, I guarantee you that YOU can make homeschooling as affordable or as expensive as you want it to be as there's an infinite number of free resources to help you along on your journey--from curricula, to local activities, to worksheets (if they're your thing), the works. Here are just a handful: https://youtu.be/wkjVvMoy518?si=9TdaUtWc-Sv4Rw6I
For starters, reading aloud, the most important thing you can do with/to your child and which will most influence his/her future academic success, is free. A library card is free. Many cities even forego late fines for kids' books. Local events like reading challenges from said libraries let your kiddo earn free tickets (like to the zoo, museums, etc.), which further decreases those costs you mention.
Additionally, the fact that only the wealthy can afford homeschooling is false (I linked to the video discussing these below):
- Yearly costs are significantly lower (and even more so if they're $0) than the annual cost attributed to a kid in public school
- MOST homeschool families are at *or below* the median income level, w/65% of them earning <$75K/year
- More than HALF of homeschooling takes place w/only ONE parent in the labor force ==> This one's key because you allege otherwise, and the data doesn't support you.
Here's really interesting look at the myths surrounding homeschooling. I started it at the one re:costs for your reference but you're welcome to backtrack and skip ahead a few mins for more debunked claims: https://www.youtube.com/live/C0l965uwyxw?si=JYfFw5Xlw3apZZep&t=3076 (..And here are the sources he cites, toward the middle of the page: https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/sources-december-17)
ETA: Many states will give you back some-most of the money you're already paying through taxes for public schools, through dual-enrollment programs or actual scholarships. Our state awards up to $8K/year/child through a new scholarship, but it also makes available other programs that give families ~$1800/year/child.
Thanks for sharing Annie! There are sooo many myths surrounding home school - I hope people take time to watch the video you shared.
I did not mean to imply that only the wealthy can afford home school - quite the opposite! My point was meant to be that most of the families I know in the homeschool world are indeed on one income (and it is less than what I have) - yet they are content.
You have a great point that people can choose how much to spend. I would guess that people don't realize how little is actually required...precisely because kids don't need to be kept occupied for 6-7 hrs per day with lessons or extracurricular activities.
We are on our 16th year of home education. Five kids, one income. (My husband makes a slightly higher income for our area, but I would have had a full-time job in IT if we had put the kids in school.) But I do not regret choosing my children's education & character development over having more material possessions or vacations. Each family's situation is different, but the cost of curriculum is very affordable (especially when compared to what school's pay per child each year!) Just to say: if you really want something (like home education), you will find a way to make it happen.
Hey Peter, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this topic and, as usual, agree with much of what you said. I have a nit to pick and two interrelated larger issues.
The nit: the phrase "biologically designed." The distinction between design, which implies planning, and evolution, which does not, is important to many of us.
My two related larger issues are the ongoing collapse of our eco- and social systems and the importance of children learning basic ecological skills and concepts like how to grow food and form mutually beneficial relationships with other human and non-human ecosystem contributors. I wonder, do you envision a future where civilization continues on its current course: continuous growth via ecosystem-destroying extractive methods? I believe today's young people will see a drastic change in their lifetimes.
I see our current predicament as living on a high-tech cruise ship and not knowing how to swim. That would be a problem in any case. The fact that the ship is sinking magnifies the problem. I agree that our current educational system is destructive. I'd add that it does what it does, grooming passive consumers and producers, by design. I also agree that learning happens best through play and playful activity!
My vision for the future of K-12 education is learning centers as places where educators nurture learning environments and communities that support children learning traditional and modern ecological skills and concepts as they play in fields and forests. I believe that current school-aged children will need those skills to survive.
That's why my blog, Exploration in Ecology for Children and Their Adults, includes both general and specific ways for children and their adults to playfully learn those skills and concepts together, and have plenty of time to express their freedom to play, rest, and otherwise pursue their own needs and interests. https://peterkindfieldphd.substack.com
Yes, yes, yes, yes.... thank you for your clear expression of a vision I too want to see manifest. Thanks again for all the research you've completed and probably are completing. I sent a letter to the Gates Foundation, Obama Foundation, Ken Burns, all our state legislators with an email, and anyone else I think might be willing to consider your and other's research on learning. As education moves to embrace learning as nature intended it to occur, it will apply the saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." More happy people, do more happy things.
I am inspired by your vision! I'm excited by imagining this future for education for our children and the joy it would bring, the innovative thinking, creativity and much more. I believe it will lead to many more happy, fulfilled adults because they will have had the opportunity as children and teens to discover what really lights them up and pursue it! Thank you for sharing your vision.
I think the problem here in your analysis is clubbing all majors into one big amorphous blob called "college". Professional degrees are absolutely not the same as humanities ones. Nursing students literally learn to save lives at the end of their degree. College is definitely not useless for them.
In tech, we've seen college vs non-college play out - there are plenty of self-taught programmers, plenty of those who went to programming bootcamp, and the vast majority have a degree in computer science or something related. The ones with the degree win out bigtime. If a kid shows interest and potential, she's guided towards a computer science degree at one of the top universities instead of a bootcamp, even when the bootcamp is cheaper, even when bootcamp grads were being given pretty great offers. You need to study computer science in an organized way. Without immersive classes over at least a year that aren't focused on being immediately useful, you don't get grounded in the basics. I tried being self-taught and if you don't have someone lay out the basics for you and show you what the landscape is like, you can end up quite lost. The most productive self-taught folks eventually find themselves in college classes to get a grounding, or they end up not being able to generalize and adapt with their skills because they are too dependent on the shortcuts they taught themselves in a specific context and can't generalize.
"Real world" settings don't usually want clueless children getting in their way, especially when it comes to things like healthcare. To even be in an operating theater, you need credentials. Plus, the day-to-day can vary dramatically for different specialities. Someone in family medicine has a very different kind of day than a surgeon. And those things can change dramatically with time as well - imagine being a writer pre- and post-chatgpt. What you spend most of your time doing here in the early years is studying the basics and the basics stay constant throughout the career. And that's what professional degrees are about. If you don't know your algorithms and data structures, it's going to be a struggle to enjoy or even understand what goes on in a tech job.
I've been on all sides of "students aren't prepared for the workforce", and I'll say it isn't the job of college to tailor students to the workforce; It is their job to ground students in the basics. It's annoying managers who say stuff like "college kids can't even code in java", but that's not the job of a college degree. And good companies understand this and have expectations accordingly that help them identify and groom the ones they think have potential.
Tech industry has the most direct relationship with academia and there is the most back-and-forth feedback between industry and academia here with constant improvement, and we've decided college matters.
I agree!!! and am trying to build this here in FL and in my work at UCF. I posted about the attitudes necessary at these re-envisioned schools, but I totally agree that the focus/content ought to be aligned according to the three phases you describe. https://transformingschools.substack.com/p/my-audacious-recommendation
Our canadian Township of Ignace has been choose/accepted as the 1st Canadian Nuclear Depository site. The opportunities for changing the look, feel and fun of learning and exploring at our finger tips. Would appreciate thoughts and participation during this endeavor.
Janet Lett
Question: how much time did you spend looking into either how doctors become doctors or how hospitals work before writing this? It does not seem like much time at all.
Med school admissions interviews already verify that students know what they are getting into and the workload required before they get to begin their studies. They already need to complete their studies before they choose a specialization, and part of those studies involves multiple years of essentially doing medical apprenticeship work in every department to get a feel for it and see what you like.
Also, there is no job in a hospital other than a doctor which will ever let you know what being a doctor is like. Doctors have no idea what being a nurse is like, nobody except technicians know what their job is like, and the orderlies don't know what any of these jobs are like.
On top of this, before interacting with patients, potential doctors MUST take training on policies and laws such as HIPAA, which does end up being essentially a full course that they just need to study for. Somebody without a comprehensive understanding of medical ethics and confidentiality policies should NEVER be interacting with patients. And I don't know who is gonna sign up to be baby's first patient while they feel their way around and figure it out through practice, but it won't be me I can guarantee that.
Peter Gray, your line of thinking of "doing away with grades" falls in line with Montessori teachings. It's the reason I was originally drawn to the philosophy and later certified. I wish more educators were aware of Montessori's depth and the incredible foundation it gives children ages 3-6 in literacy, math, science, geography and basic self-help skills.