Using the Praxis Process requires involving all stakeholders in the ongoing communication of ideas, theories, tasks, structures, and institutions to be transformed. Praxis requires cogent communication that is entwined with reflection, cyclical review, and reciprocity. The praxis process seeks to find the best practices that benefit and liberate the neglected, marginalized, and or "left behind."
There is a Dakota Sioux proverb that ought to be posted above the door of every Department of Education in America: When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. But in this country, we have a different strategy. We form a committee. We hire a consultant. We rename the dead horse. We buy expensive saddle technology from a company that offers no refund and no guarantee. We blame the rider. We grade the rider. We fire the rider. And then we wonder — genuinely, earnestly wonder — why the horse will not move.
This essay is not a polemic. It is a diagnosis. Using Aristotle's three-part framework of Theoria (critical thinking), Poiesis (making and creating), and Praxis (reflective action) — alongside a rigorous MECE analysis — we will examine precisely what is broken, why it stays broken, and what two small nations with no natural wealth chose to do differently. And we will dare to ask what it would look like if American education finally dismounted.
The MECE AnalysisMapping the Broken System — Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive
A MECE analysis demands that every dimension of a problem be identified without overlap and without gap. When we apply this framework to the American education crisis, four non-overlapping root cause categories emerge. Together, they explain the whole failure. Separately, each one is a wound that festers on its own.
These four quadrants are not separate problems. They form a reinforcing system — a doom loop. Weak governance enables market capture by EdTech and publishers. Perverse incentives corrupt curriculum. Poor pedagogy drives teachers out. Teacher shortages deepen inequity. Inequity produces the test-score gaps that politicians use to justify more testing. The horse is not merely dead. The dead horse is hitched to a wheel that spins and spins.
Theoria — The Art of Looking DeeperWe Are Auditing the Wrong Things
Aristotle's concept of Theoria is not mere thinking. It is cyclical, Socratic, probing. It is the discipline of asking why before asking how. It demands that we audit our premises before we audit our teachers.
What does America actually audit? Test scores. Graduation rates. Compliance with federally mandated reporting structures. These are outputs of a system, not indicators of its health. We are reading the thermometer and ignoring the fever.
Our obsession with testing doesn't mean we are doing the right thing. We are measuring the measurable and calling it education.
Paraphrased from research on Finland's PISA success — Krueger et al.
A genuine Theoria audit of American education would ask different questions. Not what score did this school produce? but what conditions allow children to develop into full human beings? Not did this teacher's class hit the proficiency target? but what does this teacher need to do the most important work in civilization?
The Stanford d.school's Design Thinking framework — built on human-centered empathy, iterative prototyping, and genuine problem definition — offers exactly this kind of auditing capacity. It has been applied to healthcare, technology, and urban planning. It has been applied to redesigning hospital gowns and airport experiences. It has rarely, in any systematic way, been applied to the American K–12 system. The irony is staggering. We have a world-class tool for reimagining broken systems sitting forty-five minutes from Silicon Valley, and the Silicon Valley titans who claim to be disrupting education have never seriously picked it up.
Theoria demands that we perform a genuine cost-benefit analysis — not of individual programs, but of the entire paradigm. When Aristotle's audit process is applied honestly, the result is damning: the costs of our current system are incalculable in human potential; the benefits accrue almost entirely to administrators, publishers, test companies, and politicians. The children are the input. They are not the priority.
Poiesis — The Art of MakingWe Have Stopped Letting Children Create
Aristotle's Poiesis is the act of bringing something into being that did not exist before. It is the craftsman's wisdom, the maker's instinct, the artist's compulsion. Martin Heidegger described it as a "bringing-forth" — the blooming of a blossom, the butterfly emerging from its cocoon, the waterfall released when the snow melts. A moment of threshold: something moves from what it was into what it becomes.
What we have done to education is the precise opposite of Poiesis. We have taken the threshold moment — the astonishing window of childhood when the human mind is most plastic, most hungry, most capable of transformation — and we have filled it with worksheets, standardized bubbles, and test prep. We have replaced the craftsman's workshop with the assembly line. We have stopped trusting children to make things, and we have started trusting Pearson Publishing to tell us what children should know.
Dreyfus and Dorrance Kelly argued that the task of the craftsman is not to generate meaning but to cultivate the faculty for discerning meaning that is already there in the world. This is precisely what great teaching does. And it is precisely what accountability-driven, standardized, top-down pedagogy cannot do — because it is not interested in the individual child's encounter with meaning. It is interested in the child's compliance with a rubric.
What Poiesis Looks Like in a Classroom
Project-based learning where students build, design, and solve real problems. Reggio Emilia ateliers where children direct their own inquiry. Maker spaces. Cross-disciplinary challenges that have no single correct answer. A student who builds a working water filter to understand chemistry has engaged in Poiesis. A student who circles the correct answer about water filtration on a multiple-choice test has not. Both can score the same on a standardized exam. Only one has become a craftsman.
The tragedy is that we know this. The research literature on project-based learning, experiential education, and student-directed inquiry is substantial and consistent. What is missing is not knowledge. What is missing is the institutional will to act on it — because acting on it would require dismantling a testing-industrial complex worth billions of dollars to the companies that profit from its perpetuation.
The EvidenceTwo Nations That Decided the Child Was the Point
It is instructive to look at two nations that had nothing — no oil, no mineral wealth, no legacy of imperial advantage — and decided that their only real resource was the human mind. What they did with that decision is among the most remarkable stories in the history of modern governance.
🇫🇮 Finland
- Teachers hold master's degrees; treated as elite professionals
- No standardized testing until the end of high school
- Play-based, child-centered learning in early years
- Emphasis on well-being, creativity, and critical thinking
- Free public education, free meals, integrated special needs support
- Education policies consistent and stable for over 40 years
- Rooted in the Reggio Emilia and whole-child philosophies
🇸🇬 Singapore
- Largest share of GDP invested in education in Asia
- Rigorous teacher selection, compensation, and ongoing development
- Curriculum regularly overhauled — "Teach Less, Learn More"
- Holds top PISA scores globally across three consecutive assessments
- Strong family and cultural investment in learning from age 3
- Focus on STEM with deep integration of real-world application
- Stable political commitment to education as national priority
These two countries arrived at their excellence through radically different philosophies. Finland chose the whole child. Singapore chose academic rigor with relentless systemic refinement. They share two things: the decision to invest in teachers as the most important variable, and the refusal to allow testing culture to substitute for genuine learning culture.
Finland's education success has the rest of the world looking — because its educational policies were consistent for more than forty years. The US changes course every four years depending on who wins an election.
Adapted from PISA comparative research
America's response to these examples has largely been to either ignore them as "culturally incomparable" or to cherry-pick one element — charter schools, a coding curriculum, a new app — without engaging with the systemic logic underneath. You cannot bolt a Finnish outcome onto an American incentive structure. The incentive structure is the problem.
Praxis — Reflective ActionThe Cycle We Refuse to Enter
Aristotle's Praxis is not simply doing. It is doing with ongoing reflection, revision, and accountability to those the action is meant to serve. It is the antithesis of top-down policy mandated from a position of no accountability and implemented with no feedback loop. Praxis is inherently democratic. It demands that those closest to the problem — teachers, students, parents, communities — be genuine partners in the inquiry.
Action researchers who engage in praxis-oriented work involve the community under study in the research process itself. The knowledge is not handed down. It is built together. The interventions are tested, reflected upon, revised, and tested again. This is neither utopian nor impractical. It is simply rigorous. It is what good doctors do. It is what good engineers do. It is what American education has never, structurally, been willing to do.
The Praxis cycle, applied honestly to school reform, looks like this:
- Take the actionImplement a pedagogy change, structural reform, or new resource — at the classroom or school level, not the district-mandate level. Small, specific, with teacher agency.
- Consider the impactsObserve what actually happens — not through a standardized test administered months later, but through real-time teacher observation, student response, and community feedback.
- Analyze through reflectionAsk: did this serve the child? Did it serve the teacher? What changed? What didn't? Who benefited and who did not? Whose voice is missing from this analysis?
- Alter and revise the conceptionRedesign — not by committee mandate, but by the people with genuine knowledge: the practitioners, the families, the students themselves. Revise the theory based on the reality.
- Implement and continue the cyclePraxis is not a one-time reform. It is an institutional posture — a permanent commitment to looking at what we are actually doing and asking whether it is serving human flourishing. The cycle never ends. That is the point.
This process is unglamorous. It does not produce a press release or a TED Talk or a billion-dollar contract. It does not give politicians a talking point or give billionaires a product to scale. It is slow, iterative, deeply human work. This is precisely why it has never been seriously attempted at the systemic level in American public education.
The Political EconomyWhen Billionaires Play Curriculum Designer
We cannot leave this analysis without addressing the particular damage done by the entrance of tech wealth into education reform. Bill Gates's Common Core initiative — one of the most expensive and consequential education experiments in American history — was built on the same logic as enterprise software: standardize, scale, measure. It treated the classroom as a deployment environment and children as end users.
The results speak for themselves. The 2024 NAEP Nation's Report Card confirmed a decades-long crisis. Major initiatives including No Child Left Behind, Common Core, and Every Student Succeeds Act were all designed to improve achievement. They did not. The most significant losses occurred among the students who were already most disadvantaged — the very students every reform claimed to be serving.
This is not an accident. It is the predictable outcome of designing reform without asking the people it affects, without building in reflective feedback, and without genuine accountability for failure. Gates did not refund the districts. The publishers did not offer refunds. The politicians moved on to the next initiative. The children remained.
Meanwhile, Stanford's d.school has spent decades developing human-centered design frameworks explicitly suited to complex systemic challenges. IDEO has produced methodologies that begin with genuine empathy for the human at the center of a problem — in this case, the child — and work backward from there. These tools exist. They are not obscure. They are simply not profitable for those who control the policy levers, and so they are not used.
The Path ForwardWhat Dismounting Actually Looks Like
To dismount the dead horse is not to abandon accountability. It is to build a different kind of accountability — one that flows upward from teachers and children, not downward from politicians and publishers. It means genuinely investing in the people who do the work, as Finland and Singapore did, rather than surveilling them with instruments designed by people who have never spent a day in a classroom.
It means acknowledging that poverty is not a teacher problem. That chronic absenteeism is not a curriculum problem. That a child who is hungry, unsafe, or unhoused cannot perform on a standardized test — and that no amount of testing will change that reality. It means accepting that early childhood investment is not a liberal or conservative value — it is an economic one. Every dollar invested in early childhood education returns between seven and twelve dollars in reduced remediation, incarceration, and social costs over a lifetime. This is not ideology. This is arithmetic.
It means treating teachers the way Singapore and Finland treat them: as the most important professionals in the country, whose judgment should be trusted, whose working conditions should be respected, and whose expertise should be the foundation of curriculum, not an afterthought to it.
And it means applying the Praxis process — genuinely, systematically, at scale — to the question of what education is for. Not what it should produce for the economy. Not what it should look like on an international ranking. But what it owes to each specific child, in each specific community, right now.
The best education system for any individual depends on what they value most: academic rigor, student well-being, equity of opportunity, creative development, or career outcomes. The research is consistent on one thing: excellent teachers, adequate resources, high expectations with strong support, and cultures that value learning.
The Tutor Bridge, Global Education Rankings, 2026
The horse is dead. It has been dead for a long time. Parents know it — which is why charter school enrollment and homeschooling have surged to historic levels. Teachers know it — which is why attrition is at record highs. Children, who are not permitted to say so out loud, know it in the particular way that children know when the adults around them have stopped paying attention to what actually matters.
The question is not whether the horse is dead. The question is whether we have the institutional courage — and the political will — to dismount.
Food for ThoughtQuestions Worth Sitting With
This is not a conclusion. It is an opening. The Praxis process demands that you bring your own reflection to what you have read. So before you close this page, consider:
If you are a parent: What are you being asked to accept as "normal" in your child's school day? What would you fight to change if you believed change was possible?
If you are a teacher: When did you last feel trusted? When did you last feel that your professional judgment mattered more than a test score? What would you teach if you were free to teach it?
If you are a policymaker or administrator: Who sits in the room when reform decisions are made? Who does not? What would happen if the people most affected by your decisions were genuine co-authors of them?
If you are a citizen: Education is not a product. It is a public good — the most foundational investment a society makes in its own future. Who benefits from the current system? Follow the money. Then follow the children.
The Praxis cycle does not end here. It begins here. The thinking, the making, the doing — and then the reflection, the revision, the return. This is the work. It has always been the work.
Get off the horse.
Sources & Further Reading: NAEP Nation's Report Card 2024; Pew Research Center Survey of Educators 2024; Learning Policy Institute Teacher Shortages Scan 2025; PISA Global Rankings (OECD 2022–2024); Comparative Analysis of Singapore and Finland Education Systems, International Journal of Education and Humanities (2024); Stanford d.school Design Thinking Framework; Heidegger, M., The Question Concerning Technology; Dreyfus, H. & Kelly, S.D., All Things Shining; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.
Like action researchers, those who engage in praxis-oriented research involve the community or group under study in the research process. ... Praxis-based researchis a long process that involves establishing mutually beneficial relationships between the researcher and members of the community of study. methods.sagepub.com
- Define clear goals, objectives, competencies measures, and or desired outcomes of critical learning procedures, activities, pedagogical reform theories, or new educational systems being considered for adoption.
- List alternative ideas, projects, systems, theories, programs.
- List all stakeholders.
- Select clear benefit measures, and measure all cost/benefit elements.
- Predict all possible outcomes negative and positive, examine the cost, the amount of time, real wages, buy-in, and the measurable benefits over the relevant time period.
- Convert all "possible costs" and "possible benefits" into a common language and value.
- Apply a value for the negative reciprocity over time.
- Calculate net present value of project options.
- Perform sensitivity analysis. +1 to -1 correlation
- Adopt the recommended choice based on real value and reforms that have a strong statistical correlation.
Martin Heidegger refers to poiesis as a 'bringing-forth' (physis as emergence), using this term in its widest sense. He explained poiesis as the blooming of the blossom, the coming-out of a butterfly from a cocoon, the plummeting of a waterfall when the snow begins to melt. The last two analogies underline Heidegger's example of a threshold occasion: a moment of ecstasis when something moves away from its standing as one thing to become another. (These examples may also be understood as the unfolding of a thing out of itself, as being discloses or gathers from nothing [thus nothing is thought also as being]). Additional example: The night gathers at the close of day.Praxis in education starts with critical thinking about problems within pedagogical institutions and or educational systems. New actions, structures, systems, ideas and or theories that may solve the problems are always being analyzed. Comprises, review, further reflections, action, and reexamination of the efficacy of actions are key parts to praxis. Praxis can be viewed as an ongoing progression of cognitive and physical actions:
Dreyfus and Dorrance Kelly urge each person to become a sort of “craftsman” whose responsibility it is to refine their faculty for poiesis in order to achieve existential meaning in their lives and to reconcile their bodies with whatever transcendence there is to be had in life itself: “The task of the craftsman is not to generate the meaning, but rather to cultivate in himself the skill for discerning the meanings that are already there.”
- Taking the action
- Considering the impacts of the action
- Analysing the results of the action by reflecting upon it
- Altering and revising conceptions and planning following reflection
- Implementing these plans in further actions
