"When reform becomes constant, learning becomes collateral damage."
"Forty years of fixing schools has taught us to distrust the very people who hold them together."
"The more we redesign education from a distance, the less we remember who it's really for."
"Endless reform perfects nothing but confusion and fatigue."
"We’ve mastered audit and accountability but lost sight of the art of trust."
"Every new plan promises progress while erasing the wisdom of teachers quietly steering the storm."
"Systems change faster than people can breathe, yet somehow it's the teachers who are blamed for suffocating."
"Reform has become the ritual of pretending to fix what we refuse to understand."
"The loudest voices for change rarely stand in classrooms long enough to hear the silence of real learning."
"When chaos is disguised as innovation, the only constant left to trust are the teachers still showing up."
The Slow-Motion Collapse of Trust
We destroyed public education not through a single catastrophic failure, but through decades of systematically dismantling the one thing that makes any education system work: trust in teachers.
Since the reform era began in earnest with No Child Left Behind, we've operated from a premise of suspicion. Teachers couldn't be trusted to know what to teach, how to teach it, or whether students were learning. So we built an empire of control—standardized curricula, high-stakes testing, scripted lessons, value-added metrics, data dashboards, and endless compliance requirements. We hired more administrators to watch the teachers, more consultants to fix the teachers, and more lobbyists to ensure the publishers and testing companies stayed fed.
The result? We didn't improve education. We made it worse. We turned teaching into a deprofessionalized, micromanaged bureaucracy where creativity goes to die and talented people flee for careers where they're treated as professionals.
The Publisher-Politician-Policy Triangle
Meanwhile, a cozy triangle emerged: publishers selling billion-dollar curriculum packages, politicians buying them to show they're "doing something," and policymakers mandating their use to ensure "fidelity of implementation." Each standardized test required new materials. Each new policy demanded updated textbooks. Each reform initiative needed professional development packages, licensing fees, and ongoing subscriptions.
The billionaire boys who fund much of education policy—many of whom would never dream of sending their own children to the schools they prescribe for others—became convinced they could engineer success through better systems, better data, and better control. They pointed to the failures created by their previous interventions as evidence that we needed more intervention.
Lost in all this was a simple observation: Finland and Singapore, the countries we claim to admire, did the opposite. They kept politics, publishers, and policy mandates out of classrooms. They invested in teacher education, trusted their teachers as professionals, gave them autonomy, and supported them as experts. They treated education as a calling requiring wisdom, not a mechanical process requiring supervision.
Enter the Elephant: Agentic AI
And now, just as we've spent decades and billions of dollars perfecting this broken system, AI arrives to render much of it obsolete.
Agentic AI can generate highly effective, personalized curriculum for pennies. It can assess student understanding in real-time, adapt to individual learning styles, provide immediate feedback, and iterate continuously based on what works. The billion-dollar publisher packages? The standardized tests that take weeks to score? The one-size-fits-all pacing guides? All of this becomes technologically unnecessary almost overnight.
But here's the cruel irony: we're about to make the same mistake again, just faster.
The Coming AI Debacle
Instead of asking, "How do we finally trust teachers to guide students through an AI-augmented world?"—we're already asking, "How do we control teachers' use of AI? What policies do we need? Which AI vendors should we contract with? How do we standardize the implementation?"
We're preparing to micromanage our way through an AI revolution, which is like trying to control the internet with a 1950s telephone switchboard.
The real questions we should be wrestling with:
What does education mean when information is free and AI can tutor infinitely? We haven't answered this. We're still optimizing for a factory model of education designed for an industrial economy that no longer exists, preparing students for jobs we can't describe, using methods we've spent decades proving don't work.
What kind of workforce are we preparing students for? We have no coherent answer. We still teach and test as if college-and-career-ready means reading passages and answering multiple-choice questions, while the actual economy increasingly rewards creativity, emotional intelligence, complex problem-solving, and the ability to work alongside AI—none of which our current system develops or measures well.
How do we prepare students for a future we can't predict? The honest answer is: we don't know, and we should admit it. But instead of empowering the professionals in the room—the teachers who actually know the students—to experiment, adapt, and innovate, we're already seeing calls for AI curriculum standards, AI testing mandates, and AI implementation rubrics.
The Path We Won't Take (But Should)
There's another way, demonstrated by the countries we claim to admire but refuse to emulate:
Trust teachers as professionals. Give them the training, autonomy, and support to navigate this transition. They're not the problem—they're the only people positioned to solve it.
Abandon the illusion of control. We can't micromanage our way to success in an AI age. The future will be created by teachers and students experimenting at the edges, not by policymakers mandating from the center.
Disinvest from the compliance-industrial complex. Take the billions spent on standardized tests, publisher packages, and administrative oversight, and invest it in teacher development, smaller class sizes, and school-level innovation.
Rethink what education is for. If AI can deliver content and assess knowledge, then schools need to become places that develop what AI can't: wisdom, character, creativity, collaboration, and the judgment to use powerful tools responsibly.
The Uncomfortable Truth
We're about to spend the next decade making education ten times more complicated, not because AI is inherently complicated, but because we're trying to fit it into a broken system we've spent forty years perfecting.
We never trusted teachers in the age of reform. We doubled down on control instead of support, compliance instead of professionalism, standardization instead of wisdom. We let politics, policy, and publishers drive decisions that should have been driven by educators.
Now AI has arrived, and we're preparing to make the same mistakes—just faster, more expensive, and with even less understanding of what we're doing.
The tragedy isn't that we don't know what to do. Finland and Singapore showed us. The tragedy is that we know what works, we've always known, and we're going to ignore it again.
Because trusting teachers—really trusting them—has become an alien thought. And until we rediscover it, we'll keep reforming, restructuring, and revolutionizing our way to the same failures, just with better technology and worse outcomes.
The question isn't whether AI will transform education. It will. The question is whether we'll finally learn that you can't micromanage your way to wisdom—or whether we'll spend another generation proving it the hard way.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you!