Responses to Comments on My Vision for the Future of Education

I respond here to comments and questions on Letter #61, concerning my theory of how our educational system should evolve and is evolving.

Dear friends,

In Letter #61 I began with a brief critique of our current educational system, which many readers would see as a tiny summary of much that I have written before, in books (e.g. here), academic articles, and previous letters on this substack. I pointed out that our educational system, built on coercion, suppresses children’s natural ways of learning and instead relies, inefficiently and ineffectively, on a system of reward and punishment to try to teach ideas and skills that are largely irrelevant to interests and needs of students. I pointed out that the educational system has become a self-contained system, in which the function of each level, from kindergarten on, is seen as getting kids to the next level, with little regard to any relationship between learning and real-world needs. The system not only fails to impart practical skills but, worse, tends to suppress self-initiative, creativity, critical thinking, and personal responsibility.

I followed the critique with a brief description of my vision for a rational educational system, which would consist of three phases: An initial phase of Self-Directed Education that would occur roughly during the years we currently call “K-12,” followed by a phase of deliberate exploration of career paths, which could involve apprenticeships and lower-level jobs in fields of interest to the young person, followed by specialized training and certification for careers where people’s lives depend on professional skill and knowledge.

I pointed out that in the U.S. we are already moving slowly on a path toward this three-phase system, as ever more families are opting out of coercive K-12 schools for homeschooling or some other alternative that permits greater self-direction, as fewer young people are choosing college, as more are choosing apprenticeships or other alternative routes to their chosen career, and as ever more companies are dropping the requirement of a college degree for new hires.

At the time I am writing this, the letter has received 37 comments, many of which express affirmation (for which I am grateful), and many of which, sometimes in addition to affirmation, pose questions or challenges to one or another of the ideas in that letter. I am very grateful to all who commented, as the comments stretch my own thinking and that of other readers.

I have organized the comments according to themes, and I respond to many of them here.

Affirmations Plus

Many comments expressed agreement, in ways that added a bit of wisdom. Here are some:

• Mark Sadlowski: “My vision for education is to create places where kids learn happily without anxiety.... for the love of learning! The challenge is to get everyone on board with this uncomplicated goal!”

•Meghan Lee: “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.”

• Michele Gill: “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.”

• Emily Berheide: “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!”

• Jack Watson: “I’d love to see educational 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.”

• Jeffrey Zygar: “Yes, yes, yes, yes.... 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.”

• Adrian David Cheok (An Australian who is a professor in China), who expresses regret that opportunities for Self-Directed Education are lacking there: “[I]n China …school… is absolutely compulsory and also has a lot of indoctrination of Communist Party propaganda, military training… Unfortunately in China there is just no concept of free play having any benefit, but as a waste of time.” [My note: see my essay here concerning a comparison of Chinese and American schooling.]

What Is Self-Directed Education?

Concerning Phase I, where I propose that young people would be free to pursue their own interests and thereby learn about themselves, including their interests, and their fit into the world, some asked for more specifics.

• Larissa Mears: “Do you have more information on what self-directed means? Do those words mean the same as “student led” which public schools are doing more of than teacher led? With that said with this style of schooling, academics are declining (along with other factors). I would just like to have a better understanding what you mean by self-directed. Thank you.”

Arnold Kling: “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.”

To Larissa and Arnold and others with similar questions or thoughts, I recommend any of my previous writings on this, such as my book Free to Learn, my chapter on Self-Directed Education (SDE) in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Educational Research, and my chapter here concerned with how children learn so-called academic skills when they are in charge of their own education. And, see the web page for the Alliance for Self-Directed Education.

Self-Directed Education (which I generally capitalize) really means that children are allowed to follow their natural interests. Their curiosity leads them to acquire knowledge, their play leads them to acquire skills, their natural drive to grow up and do well in life (by their own criteria) leads them think about and make plans for their future and find ways to prepare for that future.

This does not occur in a vacuum. It occurs in a context of helpful caring adults, other children over the whole age range to explore and learn from and with, and an environment where all sorts of educational opportunities are available but not forced. This is what schools and learning centers for SDE provide. I started as a skeptic, years ago, but my research—including my studies of adults who grew up with SDE-- convinces me that this works for everyone who is neurotypical and many who are not.

I personally prefer to avoid the term “unstructured.” The learning environment is self-structured. We all need structure but thrive best when we can determine the structure we want, which helps us meet our own goals. Students in SDE often do choose structured lessons for some of their leaning, but it is their choice, and they never choose anything like the tedium of courses that our public and most private schools require. They go on to good lives, in the whole range of careers we value as a society. They do well because they have learned the lessons of self-initiative and personal responsibility.

I understand why people observing students in our coercive system would think kids would “flounder in an unstructured environment.” I agree with Zoe Elisabeth who wrote:

• “I think a lot of students flounder without [imposed] structure because current schools 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.”

Limitations of Homeschooling

I suggested that one bit of evidence of educational change toward more self-direction comes from the increased number of families removing their children from public schooling for homeschooling. This led to a couple of comments on homeschooling.

• Christine Malanaphy: “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.”

To which Michelle R replied:

• “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 schools 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.”

Concerning affordability, homeschoolers as a group are generally not wealthy. In fact, there is evidence that the median income of U.S. homeschooling families is less than the median for the population at large. I have heard from many homeschooling families (both informally and in a systematic survey) that they made the choice to live frugally, eschewing material wealth, often in a way that brings them closer to nature, as part of a lifestyle that includes homeschooling.

Still, homeschooling is not for everyone. A bigger problem than the financial one is the ability to provide an environment that connects the children with many other children and with the world outside the home. This is why I am a strong advocate for schools and learning centers for Self-Directed Education, where students can explore and play in a socially and educationally rich environment. If these were publicly supported, the cost to taxpayers would be much less than the cost of our current prison-like schools.

Critique of the Four-Year College Experience

I referred in Letter #61 to evidence that relatively little is learned by most students in college and that there is little empirical support for the argument that college increases critical thinking. I did mention, however, that for many it provides a sort of halfway house to adulthood and is a place to meet people and ways of thinking that are different from those they grew up with. I suggested (in the Further Thoughts section) that there are other, less expensive, more productive ways of accomplishing those ends. Here are some comments relevant to my thoughts about college.

• SEMH Education): “There's definitely merit in having dormitory-style campuses to encourage young people to become more independent. However, I think the model you describe makes perfect sense!”

• LB: “You are correct in that college is not for everyone and how we do it currently is all wrong. Originally, college was probably to protect the elite classes. Then it became big business for the rest of America. So it'll be hard to turn that tide. But as long as more parents are open to alternative schooling and realize that a college degree is not a required path to a fulfilling life for their child, there is hope! I discuss the financial fraud in a post: https://substack.com/home/post/p-152147679”

• Jim Vanides: “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.” … (and separately he wrote: “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.”

I agree, with Jim, that compared to other countries we offer an extraordinary variety of educational choices. We have more flexibility at every level of the educational system than other countries do. However, my point is that, despite all those choices, the system doesn’t work well because of the coercive nature of the public schooling system, which trains students not to feel they can take charge of their own education and future, and because we are too fixed on the idea that a four-year liberal arts experience is superior to any other route. I am not against rigorous courses in computer science—or anything else—for those who want them, but we are wasting time and money on courses for people who don’t really want them and therefore get little out of them. Most students in college today are paying for a diploma, not for an education. If we allowed people to develop their passions as kids, they would find ways to pursue those passions without coercion. And in today’s world, largely because of the Internet, there are more ways than ever to take charge of your own education.

• MLisa makes a good point about this: “So many of the students don't really want or need to be [in college] and the colleges dumb it down to accommodate that while raising tuition/fees. Here is a little nugget of information about WHY the "paper ceiling" became the law of the land and I hear grumblings that it may be revisited by SCOTUS again. https://lawliberty.org/a-novel-plan-to-reduce-student-debt/”

Concerning Apprenticeships

I noted in Letter #61 that many businesses and institutions have dropped the requirement of a college diploma for new employees. They find that on-the-job training of enthusiastic young people works better, and there is a sharp increase in recent years in the number of apprenticeships available, including in careers that formerly required a college diploma.

• Claude Stephens, who has experience with an environmentally focused nonprofit that offers training for young people, cautions us that businesses and institutions that took on a training mission would need time and resources for it. He wrote: “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.”

This is a good point, but may overstate the additional support needed. I think the degree to which new resources would be needed would vary greatly depending on the type of career. At present, some businesses are glad to foot the bill for the training component of an apprenticeship because they need qualified employees and because the young people can be valued assistants in profitable work right from the beginning.

• Also, regarding Stevens’s point, “Think Tray” provides valuable insight with this comment: “Self-directed learning also leads to self-directed work. There is a broader societal change that is also taking place alongside the educational transformation. As more and more children are removed from the standardized school system they will also be able to be more independent as adults.”

Yes, my research suggests that when young people grow up self-directed and learn to take responsibility for themselves and their learning, they need much less handholding. The additional personnel required may not be as great as observers of today’s new employees or apprentice might believe. Schools for Self-Directed Education operate on a far lower budget than do other schools because students following their interests find their own ways to learn and learn quickly.

Role of Education in Solving World Problems

Will Richardson and Peter Kindfield both wrote eloquently about the need for our educational system to turn itself toward solving increasingly complex and threatening world problems, including, in Richardson’s words, “climate change, growing disconnection from one another and nature, receding democracies, advancing conflicts, shocking losses in biodiversity, etc.” Richardson provides this links https://futureserious.school/manifestoedu and Kindfield links to his substack on “Explorations in Ecology for Children and Adults.”

Yes, this is an issue I did not touch on in Letter #61 but is crucial for human survival and future wellbeing. I’m going to save that for a future letter, however, because this one is already long enough and the topic deserves much more energy than I have at this moment.

• However, I do think that Judith Frizlen made a good point, relevant to this, in this comment: “I agree that this approach makes sense when the goal is to have a population with creative and critical thinking skills, a sense of social responsibility and a connection to the self. In my opinion, this would put an end to mindless consumption and looking outside of ourselves for answers. With such a radical shift in education, the ripple effect would be huge!”

My studies of people who grew up with SDE indicates that, on average, they are more concerned with social responsibility and less concerned with material wealth than are products of our typical educational system. But that is something deserving more research and discussion. Also, I think it is a mistake to pin our hopes for the future of the world on our children. We need to work on that ourselves! It is adults who need the most education and provocation to action on these issues, and how to provide that would be a terrific topic for us all to consider. If we act as we should, our kids will follow suit and go beyond us.

Coda

Again, I thank everyone who commented on Letter #61. I must add that there is no such thing as Utopia in education. The system I suggest will not work perfectly for all people; it will not eliminate all the disturbing wrinkles in human personalities; it will not solve all our problems. But, if it comes to pass, it will greatly improve the lives of most young people and lead to future adults who have a better sense of who they are, what they want to accomplish, and how they can help make the world a better place.

If you aren’t already subscribed to Play Makes Us Human, please subscribe now, and let others who might be interested know about it. By subscribing, you will receive an email notification of each new letter. If you are currently a free subscriber, consider converting to a paid subscription. I use all funds that come to me from paid subscriptions to help support nonprofit organizations aimed at bringing more play and freedom to children’s lives.

With respect and best wishes,

Peter