"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Hello Peter, I think the recipe you described is a recipe for (further) disaster. Example: If you think about becoming a doctor to help people and go to a random hospital to do so, you won't want to become a doctor afterwards. If you meet people who help people, you might want to become a doctor.
Isn't it the enthusiasm to shape life despite adverse circumstances that awakens optimism for something that seems hopeless? What kind of ambition can someone develop who is used to pressing a few buttons on a screen to satisfy their own ambition? (Important note: screens are not the cause of this, because it was the same with book pages. It is infinitely easier to read a book than to write it. It is the sheer volume of new books (including digital ones) appearing every minute that gives hope).
Just like industrialized education, industrialized medicine is doomed to fail. Lockdowns are just one example of political failure. Perhaps because the term political failure is already a pleonasm. So much for critical thinking. Take care and thank you for your abundant food for thought.
Recently I became aware of a teaching protocol referred to as fidelity. the dictionary's definition of fidelity is loyalty to a cause, etc.. It would seem in the context of state pedagogy fidelity is repurposed to mean adherence to a highly specific standardized lesson plan. Apparently teachers are expected to teach using highly pre-specified lesson plans that even include guidance on tone of expression etc.. I find that quite surprising (and troubling).
The idea that any topic could be micromanaged to have only certain boundaries and not others simply does not correspond to the profoundly complex world that we live in. Ultimately, an education that is so precisely micromanaged really is not an education at all.
A work of literature, art etc. can have a universe of possible meanings -- narrowing such meanings down to an easily digestible and standardized mass experience largely defeats the purpose of education as a mental adventure. Exploring the many avenues available will invariably reveal unpleasant realities; such realities do not magically go away by simply ignoring them. However, it is these very excursions that help us grow as people.
Specifically, in relation to the question of a vision of education I think that consideration needs to be given to creating an educational system that acknowledges neurodivergence and creates parallel educational streams for people who are not well served by current largely monotrack systems. Individual differences exist; ignoring these differences do not somehow make them disappear. In fact, substantial harm logically follows from pretending that standardization is universally applicable.
This perspective is informed by my own life experience. Recently, I examined my full polygenically scored genome. It was not difficult to connect several of the phenotype scores to troubles that I encountered in my school days. Given these polygenic scores, I am unsure whether the school system would have even allowed me to attend starting in junior kindergarten. Clearly, several of my outlier polygenic scores with psychological impact have been penetrant and this has made me a firm believer in genetic determinism. Similar genetic observations would be present in a meaningful percentage in all school environments.
Living my life without knowledge of my genetics greatly increased the challenges that I faced. Now when I am given advice by close friends and family I can compare their advice to what my genetic scores suggest-- very often it is entirely clear how completely ill-advised suggestions from others would be for me. People constantly make a wide range of reasonable normative assumptions that they can draw upon from their own life and then just apply these assumptions to others. Yet, this neglects to consider how such assumptions might not generalize.
Genetic differences can SERIOUSLY harm the well being of children when they are placed in standardized bricks and mortar schools.
This was my direct personal life experience. I witnessed many other children who also clearly did not have a good match between their genetics and their environment.
As a community we need to correct this problem; with simple genetic testing the problem is abundantly obvious. I greatly wish that this insight will help the many children who are currently are suffering because of the ignorance.
If communities simply refuse to respond appropriately, very large criminal and civil class action lawsuite could be initiated.
I think a grown up level discussion about the role of genetics in child development needs to occur. The problems that we now see in the school system including school shootings by students, mental health challenges, lack of strong social cohesion etc. all directly result from avoiding the needed conversation about genetics.
For some the result of this conversation might be that typical public school would be determined not to be their best option and perhaps other bricks and mortar or online learning would be better. Acknowledging the existence of neurodivergence and creating a different path for some would then allow existing bricks and mortar schools to more effectively serve mainstream students.
Fragmenting the school system in this way would immediately open up a test market to create a new, innovative school system. For all of the enthusiasm that might be generated for creating a new system (as evidenced in this thread in particular) there are still likely a substantial fraction of students and parents who really are not overly interested in such innovation. The standard operating assumption of near total apathy applies to the school system.
However, for students, like me, with neurodivergent traits there is substantial motivation for change. I have had a substantial reduction in my lifetime human potential because of the issues that went unrecognized over decades. Multiply that by billions and you begin
to appreciate the magnitude of the loss in potential involved. Of course, from the genetic point of view all of this could be uncovered at birth with a simple $200 genome scan. The cost for not utilizing such technology to help structure our society is enormous.
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.
As the parent of an almost 3 year old I wish this change was happening faster, and I wish I had more clarity on it. Outside of the traditional route it seems there are expensive private elementary schools and home schooling, which is only available for families with one parent not working and when that parent is interested in making teaching effectively their full time role.
I do think there are tools being built that provide content and instruction in a way that meshes with the individual child’s interests and learning style, and those could allow the “educating” parent to be more of a guide than a teacher. But at that point is the child just learning from an iPad all day and missing out on the inherent socialization of school?
I think there’s a gap here that is likely to be addressed by private industry before it’s addressed by public policy, leaving it open only to wealthy families. Maybe that is the correct first route to prove the model before mainstream adoption - just like the Tesla Roadster came before the Model 3.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
Hello Peter, I think the recipe you described is a recipe for (further) disaster. Example: If you think about becoming a doctor to help people and go to a random hospital to do so, you won't want to become a doctor afterwards. If you meet people who help people, you might want to become a doctor.
Isn't it the enthusiasm to shape life despite adverse circumstances that awakens optimism for something that seems hopeless? What kind of ambition can someone develop who is used to pressing a few buttons on a screen to satisfy their own ambition? (Important note: screens are not the cause of this, because it was the same with book pages. It is infinitely easier to read a book than to write it. It is the sheer volume of new books (including digital ones) appearing every minute that gives hope).
Just like industrialized education, industrialized medicine is doomed to fail. Lockdowns are just one example of political failure. Perhaps because the term political failure is already a pleonasm. So much for critical thinking. Take care and thank you for your abundant food for thought.
My original German comment is at https://selbstbestimmtsichbilden.substack.com/p/61-meine-vision-fur-die-zukunft-von/comment/86512131
Recently I became aware of a teaching protocol referred to as fidelity. the dictionary's definition of fidelity is loyalty to a cause, etc.. It would seem in the context of state pedagogy fidelity is repurposed to mean adherence to a highly specific standardized lesson plan. Apparently teachers are expected to teach using highly pre-specified lesson plans that even include guidance on tone of expression etc.. I find that quite surprising (and troubling).
The idea that any topic could be micromanaged to have only certain boundaries and not others simply does not correspond to the profoundly complex world that we live in. Ultimately, an education that is so precisely micromanaged really is not an education at all.
A work of literature, art etc. can have a universe of possible meanings -- narrowing such meanings down to an easily digestible and standardized mass experience largely defeats the purpose of education as a mental adventure. Exploring the many avenues available will invariably reveal unpleasant realities; such realities do not magically go away by simply ignoring them. However, it is these very excursions that help us grow as people.
Specifically, in relation to the question of a vision of education I think that consideration needs to be given to creating an educational system that acknowledges neurodivergence and creates parallel educational streams for people who are not well served by current largely monotrack systems. Individual differences exist; ignoring these differences do not somehow make them disappear. In fact, substantial harm logically follows from pretending that standardization is universally applicable.
This perspective is informed by my own life experience. Recently, I examined my full polygenically scored genome. It was not difficult to connect several of the phenotype scores to troubles that I encountered in my school days. Given these polygenic scores, I am unsure whether the school system would have even allowed me to attend starting in junior kindergarten. Clearly, several of my outlier polygenic scores with psychological impact have been penetrant and this has made me a firm believer in genetic determinism. Similar genetic observations would be present in a meaningful percentage in all school environments.
Living my life without knowledge of my genetics greatly increased the challenges that I faced. Now when I am given advice by close friends and family I can compare their advice to what my genetic scores suggest-- very often it is entirely clear how completely ill-advised suggestions from others would be for me. People constantly make a wide range of reasonable normative assumptions that they can draw upon from their own life and then just apply these assumptions to others. Yet, this neglects to consider how such assumptions might not generalize.
Genetic differences can SERIOUSLY harm the well being of children when they are placed in standardized bricks and mortar schools.
This was my direct personal life experience. I witnessed many other children who also clearly did not have a good match between their genetics and their environment.
As a community we need to correct this problem; with simple genetic testing the problem is abundantly obvious. I greatly wish that this insight will help the many children who are currently are suffering because of the ignorance.
If communities simply refuse to respond appropriately, very large criminal and civil class action lawsuite could be initiated.
I think a grown up level discussion about the role of genetics in child development needs to occur. The problems that we now see in the school system including school shootings by students, mental health challenges, lack of strong social cohesion etc. all directly result from avoiding the needed conversation about genetics.
For some the result of this conversation might be that typical public school would be determined not to be their best option and perhaps other bricks and mortar or online learning would be better. Acknowledging the existence of neurodivergence and creating a different path for some would then allow existing bricks and mortar schools to more effectively serve mainstream students.
Fragmenting the school system in this way would immediately open up a test market to create a new, innovative school system. For all of the enthusiasm that might be generated for creating a new system (as evidenced in this thread in particular) there are still likely a substantial fraction of students and parents who really are not overly interested in such innovation. The standard operating assumption of near total apathy applies to the school system.
However, for students, like me, with neurodivergent traits there is substantial motivation for change. I have had a substantial reduction in my lifetime human potential because of the issues that went unrecognized over decades. Multiply that by billions and you begin
to appreciate the magnitude of the loss in potential involved. Of course, from the genetic point of view all of this could be uncovered at birth with a simple $200 genome scan. The cost for not utilizing such technology to help structure our society is enormous.
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.
As the parent of an almost 3 year old I wish this change was happening faster, and I wish I had more clarity on it. Outside of the traditional route it seems there are expensive private elementary schools and home schooling, which is only available for families with one parent not working and when that parent is interested in making teaching effectively their full time role.
I do think there are tools being built that provide content and instruction in a way that meshes with the individual child’s interests and learning style, and those could allow the “educating” parent to be more of a guide than a teacher. But at that point is the child just learning from an iPad all day and missing out on the inherent socialization of school?
I think there’s a gap here that is likely to be addressed by private industry before it’s addressed by public policy, leaving it open only to wealthy families. Maybe that is the correct first route to prove the model before mainstream adoption - just like the Tesla Roadster came before the Model 3.