>> “The Sir Ken Fallacy is the misleading belief that education stifles creativity, promoting student-led learning as the ideal while ignoring the essential role of knowledge acquisition, cognitive science, and the privilege required for such models to succeed.”
YES! We’ve needed someone to coin this fallacy for years now. I’ll try to use it (and will cite you when I do).
The Hollywood treatment of this shows the difficulties but still makes it seem possible, at least if your parents are brilliant and your grandparents are rich.
I agree wholeheartedly with the first half of your post about the connection between reading and empathy (particularly fiction). Yes, yes, yes.
I also love: "Solutions like, “Just put limits on your phone”, often tend to come from wealthy tech execs who send their own kids to Montessori schools with a dumb phone. Cruel optimism feels like the sister to Rob Henderson’s luxury beliefs, where oversimplified advice is given out from on high."
But I got stuck on "oversimplified advice".
You criticise a credible, authoritative-sounding person putting spin on all that's wrong with education - but then go on to do the exact same thing!
More importantly, why is this a binary?
Why is it cognitive science vs. unschooling with "a pile of sticks and moss" in the Alaskan bush?
Why not both as the Australian Association of Maths Teachers recently posted on LinkedIn: "Differences in how students learn and engage with mathematics means that no single approach can meet all learners' needs. The flexible approach advocated in our paper empowers our educators to make informed professional judgements"?
Rebecca isn’t doing the exact same thing. She’s actually working in education, in a school teaching children, as well as her writing, advocacy and policy work.
Exactly - I would argue that Rebecca is an authoritative person (who I respect greatly, even if we might differ in opinion); with a not-insubstantial following.
The point was about the practicalities of this kind of education as a mass solution. It tends to work best when there is a lot of privilege and prior knowledge. The risks are far fewer and we can roll the dice for these children when the odds are so stacked in their favour.
Thank you for this comment. I appreciate @TeacherAide's question, "Why is it cognitive science vs. unschooling with 'a pile of sticks and moss' in the Alaskan bush?" As someone who has written about the problem of binaries in education, it's a great question. Rebecca's reply is spot on. There are ABSOLUTELY times and places where it is great to let our kids play with sticks and moss--even in traditional classrooms. But as a regular, day-to-day practice? In my experience as a teacher it doesn't lead to the kind of outcomes I'm looking for (deep learning and appreciation for the complicated story of U.S. history).
I think what we do need to do right now in 2025 is consider what for and why we are sending our children to school (which hasn’t really changed in decades), and will this set them up for the future that is ahead of them?
We do need to look at how we can give children more chance at being creative whilst teaching them new skills and knowledge.
Unschooling isn’t the answer but there is a lot mainstream schooling can learn from.
Yes, agree. There's a lot of promise in design thinking, where we can scaffold creativity. But without knowledge and skill, it becomes a bit 1001 things to do with a paperclip.
Here in Nepal, almost all of my professors, skilled leaders, and great teachers that I have known personally came from a very "traditional" school education. But lately their ideas on education and learning are highly influenced by Sir Ken's tedtalk video. It seems they have forgotten how they learned and evolved despite challenges, and how they have become successful in their professions.
Let us be careful in staking our flags. They are not mutually exclusive. There are a multitude of curricula and educational strategies that stifle creativity and cause students to hate school. There are also systems that remove all structures and curricula and fail to achieve any appreciable standard. Any may succeed or fail to different degrees. Typically a well designed mixture aligned with the learning goals will be most successful.
Hi James, you won’t find me arguing for one or the other, rather that these things need to be learned in a particular order. Solid foundations before moving on.
>> “The Sir Ken Fallacy is the misleading belief that education stifles creativity, promoting student-led learning as the ideal while ignoring the essential role of knowledge acquisition, cognitive science, and the privilege required for such models to succeed.”
YES! We’ve needed someone to coin this fallacy for years now. I’ll try to use it (and will cite you when I do).
Yes! I am so glad I've made a contribution to the profession!
The Hollywood treatment of this shows the difficulties but still makes it seem possible, at least if your parents are brilliant and your grandparents are rich.
https://bleeckerstreetmedia.com/captainfantastic
Yes money and privilege (read: prior knowledge) seems to be the magic ingredient!
Great piece Rebecca
Thanks, John.
I agree wholeheartedly with the first half of your post about the connection between reading and empathy (particularly fiction). Yes, yes, yes.
I also love: "Solutions like, “Just put limits on your phone”, often tend to come from wealthy tech execs who send their own kids to Montessori schools with a dumb phone. Cruel optimism feels like the sister to Rob Henderson’s luxury beliefs, where oversimplified advice is given out from on high."
But I got stuck on "oversimplified advice".
You criticise a credible, authoritative-sounding person putting spin on all that's wrong with education - but then go on to do the exact same thing!
More importantly, why is this a binary?
Why is it cognitive science vs. unschooling with "a pile of sticks and moss" in the Alaskan bush?
Why not both as the Australian Association of Maths Teachers recently posted on LinkedIn: "Differences in how students learn and engage with mathematics means that no single approach can meet all learners' needs. The flexible approach advocated in our paper empowers our educators to make informed professional judgements"?
Rebecca isn’t doing the exact same thing. She’s actually working in education, in a school teaching children, as well as her writing, advocacy and policy work.
Exactly - I would argue that Rebecca is an authoritative person (who I respect greatly, even if we might differ in opinion); with a not-insubstantial following.
The point was about the practicalities of this kind of education as a mass solution. It tends to work best when there is a lot of privilege and prior knowledge. The risks are far fewer and we can roll the dice for these children when the odds are so stacked in their favour.
I think I have enough expertise to comment.
Thank you for this comment. I appreciate @TeacherAide's question, "Why is it cognitive science vs. unschooling with 'a pile of sticks and moss' in the Alaskan bush?" As someone who has written about the problem of binaries in education, it's a great question. Rebecca's reply is spot on. There are ABSOLUTELY times and places where it is great to let our kids play with sticks and moss--even in traditional classrooms. But as a regular, day-to-day practice? In my experience as a teacher it doesn't lead to the kind of outcomes I'm looking for (deep learning and appreciation for the complicated story of U.S. history).
Great read & thought provoking.
I think what we do need to do right now in 2025 is consider what for and why we are sending our children to school (which hasn’t really changed in decades), and will this set them up for the future that is ahead of them?
We do need to look at how we can give children more chance at being creative whilst teaching them new skills and knowledge.
Unschooling isn’t the answer but there is a lot mainstream schooling can learn from.
Yes, agree. There's a lot of promise in design thinking, where we can scaffold creativity. But without knowledge and skill, it becomes a bit 1001 things to do with a paperclip.
Add to the cognitive bias codex.
https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/course_materials/Cognitive%20Biases%20Codex.pdf
Love this, thanks Hugh.
Here in Nepal, almost all of my professors, skilled leaders, and great teachers that I have known personally came from a very "traditional" school education. But lately their ideas on education and learning are highly influenced by Sir Ken's tedtalk video. It seems they have forgotten how they learned and evolved despite challenges, and how they have become successful in their professions.
Yes that the education they received made them highly successful!
Excellent, Rebecca. Look forward to seeing the Netflix series and making further connections to the fallacy!
Let us be careful in staking our flags. They are not mutually exclusive. There are a multitude of curricula and educational strategies that stifle creativity and cause students to hate school. There are also systems that remove all structures and curricula and fail to achieve any appreciable standard. Any may succeed or fail to different degrees. Typically a well designed mixture aligned with the learning goals will be most successful.
Hi James, you won’t find me arguing for one or the other, rather that these things need to be learned in a particular order. Solid foundations before moving on.