I want to agree with you but I can't. I am not a knee-jerk person; I've been thinking about the problem of education for a very long time. I despise the polarisation of this debate and so many others. But, my conclusion is other than yours. Allow me to explain:
Firstly, I am not promoting a full systems change because of AI, but I do hope that AI is the straw that breaks the camels back. Institutions are rigid structures, designed to resist change. Most schools do not have built-in mechanisms that allow for evolution; to the contrary, most accumulate inertia, inefficiency, and institutional plaque. Meanwhile, life is defined by change, and it is changing very quickly right now. The result is that we have a tool fit for the purposes of the past but not for the present and certainly not for the future. I would argue that the first principle of education is currently to produce employable workers. It may not have started that way but that's what its become. If your first principles are broken then it's time for a complete rebuild.
Secondly, education is causing real suffering both for students and teachers. This is evidenced by disengagement, absenteeism, late/non submissions, grade inflation, etc. These are the 'freeze' of the 4Fs of anxiety. As fight or flight are not an option, all that is left for students is freeze or fawn. Fawn is a feature of students up until about high school, then they switch to freeze. If school is producing an autonomic nervous reaction in students then it's no longer working. I would ask, which part of the system do you think is worth salvaging? The authoritarian structure of professors and teachers as knowledge bearers in an age of intelligent machines, doling out hall passes and bathroom breaks to intelligent people? Standardised curricula/textbooks that are wrong, biased, or at least outdated as much as they are right? Standardised testing and assessment that proves little more than you are good at tests, while reducing the complexity of a human to single digits? Classroom sizes of up to 30+ in k-12, and more in universities, where teachers have little to no agency or relationship with students? I could go on. The point is, when the majority of problems are systemic, resulting not only in ineffective learning but also in the stigmatisation of learning, then it's time for a change. The world in many ways is at a point of crisis and we need the next generation of youth to act address and survive the problems we've helped to create. Now is not the time for moving slowly.
Does that mean we should be reckless and simply collapse everything all at once? Absolutely not. We need to reconstruct with precision and care. We need to build the new boat while sailing in the existing one. But we need urgent change because the cost is being paid in the lives of our youth. The youth of the present are not the same humans as those of the past; they're humanity's first digital natives. They don't sync with the analogue systems we've forced them into. They deserve an instrument of education that meets them where they're at and empowers their success.
The way forward must be radical but sensible, wise and extremely careful. I've proposed sandboxes of innovation to be placed inside of each school as a starting place - classrooms where the rules don't apply but that allow for experimentation, iteration, and feedback. We should fast-track laboratories for education - fast-moving research facilities, populated with students, that rapidly prototype new solutions for education. We have a wealth of new knowledge about the science of learning that has no landing pad inside of educational institutions. What we now know changes the entire methodology if learning. These are just a few ideas from my ruminations.
Institutional transformation is required, not only because of AI but also because of AI.
Hi, Ryan, I am glad you found my newsletter. I invite you to write a longer response to my piece. I would be happy to publish it. All my pieces are perspectival in nature. This one is responding to the somewhat trite proposition I find periodically tucked away in AI trainer slide decks to "change everything" after giving a long laundry list of other things to try and do. I very much admire systemic reform. If you read me more widely, I had hope for a while that AI might prompt a broader referendum on how we assess students, for example, although two years later I am seeing that as increasingly unlikely given the power of the systemic inertia. I love the 4 Fs by the way, I would love to hear more about that in your response. I do think we have to be a little careful right now when it comes to calling for a complete overhaul of the system, because we might end up unintentionally echoing voices at large that we are diametrically ideologically opposed to. For instance, I personally am very much committed to this thing we call public education. While I think funding is a mess, often misused for poorly thought-out initiatives, I still want such a thing to exist for my children. To get finer grained, we can only work on changing the authoritarian nature of the system by acknowledging its deeply flaw systemic structures and reforming from the inside out. I am with Latour that there is really no outside view when it comes to networks or systems. Here the long and short is that we need a system to change the system. But perhaps that is too philosophical or pragmatic.
Cogent analysis and provocative ideas. Actually, I’ve already got huge amounts of knowledge that I never learned or forgot: how to make shoes, stoke a furnace, or grow food. New skills and cognitive loads are always replacing old ones and there is always nostalgia for them ( maybe not for using an outhouse without freezing). Writing? It may go the way of buggy whips and postcards. New very necessary skills; managing multiple Ais, connecting the dots on information from virtual simulations, communicating effectively across time zones in virtual reality. You get the picture. It’s normal human technological advancement sped up
This sentiment squares with my experience, Jeff. Everything is not like riding a bicycle. In fact, the only thing that has really struck with me from childhood is playing the guitar.
Nick, another excellent post! Whenever I hear phrases like “Change Everything” or “Abandon the Status Quo,” I’m reminded of the old cautionary parable about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. While innovation is essential, a more thoughtful approach is key—one that preserves what is valuable while adapting strategically to disruptive changes. Bold change shouldn’t mean reckless abandonment, but rather a balance between progress and wisdom.
Totally agree, John. Schools have their organizational parts that aren’t going to change anytime soon. Repurposing them means not giving up on what has always served us. In fact, in my experience, change everything yesterday in an actual school can do a lot of damage. I appreciate Nick’s vision
I want to agree with you but I can't. I am not a knee-jerk person; I've been thinking about the problem of education for a very long time. I despise the polarisation of this debate and so many others. But, my conclusion is other than yours. Allow me to explain:
Firstly, I am not promoting a full systems change because of AI, but I do hope that AI is the straw that breaks the camels back. Institutions are rigid structures, designed to resist change. Most schools do not have built-in mechanisms that allow for evolution; to the contrary, most accumulate inertia, inefficiency, and institutional plaque. Meanwhile, life is defined by change, and it is changing very quickly right now. The result is that we have a tool fit for the purposes of the past but not for the present and certainly not for the future. I would argue that the first principle of education is currently to produce employable workers. It may not have started that way but that's what its become. If your first principles are broken then it's time for a complete rebuild.
Secondly, education is causing real suffering both for students and teachers. This is evidenced by disengagement, absenteeism, late/non submissions, grade inflation, etc. These are the 'freeze' of the 4Fs of anxiety. As fight or flight are not an option, all that is left for students is freeze or fawn. Fawn is a feature of students up until about high school, then they switch to freeze. If school is producing an autonomic nervous reaction in students then it's no longer working. I would ask, which part of the system do you think is worth salvaging? The authoritarian structure of professors and teachers as knowledge bearers in an age of intelligent machines, doling out hall passes and bathroom breaks to intelligent people? Standardised curricula/textbooks that are wrong, biased, or at least outdated as much as they are right? Standardised testing and assessment that proves little more than you are good at tests, while reducing the complexity of a human to single digits? Classroom sizes of up to 30+ in k-12, and more in universities, where teachers have little to no agency or relationship with students? I could go on. The point is, when the majority of problems are systemic, resulting not only in ineffective learning but also in the stigmatisation of learning, then it's time for a change. The world in many ways is at a point of crisis and we need the next generation of youth to act address and survive the problems we've helped to create. Now is not the time for moving slowly.
Does that mean we should be reckless and simply collapse everything all at once? Absolutely not. We need to reconstruct with precision and care. We need to build the new boat while sailing in the existing one. But we need urgent change because the cost is being paid in the lives of our youth. The youth of the present are not the same humans as those of the past; they're humanity's first digital natives. They don't sync with the analogue systems we've forced them into. They deserve an instrument of education that meets them where they're at and empowers their success.
The way forward must be radical but sensible, wise and extremely careful. I've proposed sandboxes of innovation to be placed inside of each school as a starting place - classrooms where the rules don't apply but that allow for experimentation, iteration, and feedback. We should fast-track laboratories for education - fast-moving research facilities, populated with students, that rapidly prototype new solutions for education. We have a wealth of new knowledge about the science of learning that has no landing pad inside of educational institutions. What we now know changes the entire methodology if learning. These are just a few ideas from my ruminations.
Institutional transformation is required, not only because of AI but also because of AI.
Hi, Ryan, I am glad you found my newsletter. I invite you to write a longer response to my piece. I would be happy to publish it. All my pieces are perspectival in nature. This one is responding to the somewhat trite proposition I find periodically tucked away in AI trainer slide decks to "change everything" after giving a long laundry list of other things to try and do. I very much admire systemic reform. If you read me more widely, I had hope for a while that AI might prompt a broader referendum on how we assess students, for example, although two years later I am seeing that as increasingly unlikely given the power of the systemic inertia. I love the 4 Fs by the way, I would love to hear more about that in your response. I do think we have to be a little careful right now when it comes to calling for a complete overhaul of the system, because we might end up unintentionally echoing voices at large that we are diametrically ideologically opposed to. For instance, I personally am very much committed to this thing we call public education. While I think funding is a mess, often misused for poorly thought-out initiatives, I still want such a thing to exist for my children. To get finer grained, we can only work on changing the authoritarian nature of the system by acknowledging its deeply flaw systemic structures and reforming from the inside out. I am with Latour that there is really no outside view when it comes to networks or systems. Here the long and short is that we need a system to change the system. But perhaps that is too philosophical or pragmatic.
Cogent analysis and provocative ideas. Actually, I’ve already got huge amounts of knowledge that I never learned or forgot: how to make shoes, stoke a furnace, or grow food. New skills and cognitive loads are always replacing old ones and there is always nostalgia for them ( maybe not for using an outhouse without freezing). Writing? It may go the way of buggy whips and postcards. New very necessary skills; managing multiple Ais, connecting the dots on information from virtual simulations, communicating effectively across time zones in virtual reality. You get the picture. It’s normal human technological advancement sped up
and bigger. Strap
In.
This sentiment squares with my experience, Jeff. Everything is not like riding a bicycle. In fact, the only thing that has really struck with me from childhood is playing the guitar.
Nick, another excellent post! Whenever I hear phrases like “Change Everything” or “Abandon the Status Quo,” I’m reminded of the old cautionary parable about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. While innovation is essential, a more thoughtful approach is key—one that preserves what is valuable while adapting strategically to disruptive changes. Bold change shouldn’t mean reckless abandonment, but rather a balance between progress and wisdom.
Totally agree, John. Schools have their organizational parts that aren’t going to change anytime soon. Repurposing them means not giving up on what has always served us. In fact, in my experience, change everything yesterday in an actual school can do a lot of damage. I appreciate Nick’s vision