Revisiting 'The Future Belongs to the Curious'

An Open-Ended Exploration

AI, please melt the Core Skills for 2030 graphic for me…

It’s annoying to read an “article” only to find it’s really a marketing piece in disguise. This is not an open ended exploration at all because it’s written with predetermined conclusion: buy what we’re selling.

JG in the comments.

Last month, I had my first very minor brush with Substack virality.

I don’t know what defines an actual “viral” post, but for me—someone who writes mostly about Montessori Education for a small audience—my article The Future Belongs to the Curious: Skills for a Changing World received a hundredfold more views, likes, comments, and restacks than anything else I’ve written. I figure it was the catchy title and the World Economic Forum graphic that went with it. It was all very buzzy.

But what I most enjoyed were the comments. Oh yes.

Because the article reached beyond my usual circle, I received some of my first critical feedback from readers who wouldn’t normally engage with my writing. And I found this thoroughly refreshing. It made the whole experience feel more like a dialogue, whereas my writing previously has often felt a bit…onanistic.

So in this follow-up, I want to reflect on some of those responses and unpack a few of the ideas from the original piece. I promise there’s no “predetermined conclusion” this time, and no secret sales pitch—just further questions. I mean, the future does belong to the curious, after all.

Going Head to Head Against Chinese Engineers

My article began with a reference to the WEF’s Future of Jobs Report (2025), which highlights core skills employers expect to be essential by 2030—skills like creativity, AI literacy, resilience, and empathy. Many of these, I argued, are still underdeveloped in our current education system. The report also identified “out-of-focus skills” expected to decline in relevance—including programming, multilingualism, manual dexterity—and, perhaps provocatively, the 3 R’s.

Here’s what I wrote in the original article:

And then look at what’s on the decline: reading, writing, and arithmetic. For over a century, the “Three R’s” formed the foundation of schooling and were once enough for most factory, clerical, or service jobs. Our entire education system was engineered to develop those skills—efficiently, uniformly, and at scale.

This led to a lot of concern in the comments that I was advocating for the complete abandonment of core academic skills:

“I was concerned the moment I saw that “reading” was a skill that apparently isn’t really needed now, and will be needed less in the future.”

“You are not going to be able to do some creative thinking, critical thinking, curiosity … if you are not reading.”

Let me be clear: I still think we should teach reading, writing, and mathematics in schools. First, the WEF report is about what skills employers anticipate needing—not what we should or shouldn't teach children. Second, my problem isn’t with reading, writing, and arithmetic themselves—it’s with how narrowly these skills are often treated as the ends of education, rather than the means. And finally, I personally don’t believe we should design education systems around career preparation alone—but even by that narrow measure, many schools are failing.

I was making the point that, for much of the 20th century, the 3 R’s were essential outcomes for the industrial economy. They “formed the foundation of schooling and were once enough for most factory, clerical, or service jobs.” Yes, we probably can’t compete with the scale or structure of China’s industrial workforce—but is that really the benchmark we want to set for our education system? Are we really trying to train young people to win a race no one wants to run anymore?

Today, as the nature of work shifts, those same skills—while still foundational—aren’t enough on their own. And yet, in many schools, they remain checklist outcomes: Can you decode text? Complete a timed essay? Pass a maths test? Young people who then leave school with only these narrow competencies often find themselves unprepared for what comes next. Whether it’s the independent thinking and rigour that university demands, or the complexity and adaptability required in adult life, these are capacities that aren't cultivated by rote memorisation or exam technique alone. Reading, writing, and arithmetic should be vehicles for inquiry, creativity, and connection—not ends in themselves.

Take reading, for example. I agree that it’s essential—not just in itself, but as a gateway to other “future skills” like creative thinking, AI literacy, empathy, and critical analysis. But those capacities aren’t built through worksheets and test prep. They’re developed through rich, sustained reading, deep discussion, writing for real audiences, and curiosity-driven inquiry. In my own practice, I draw heavily from Kelly Gallagher’s work on literacy instruction. I believe reading whole novels, participating in Socratic seminars, and fostering a culture of independent reading is essential for developing critical, connected learners.

Anti-Facts and Anti-Learning

The prize for my favourite comment goes to this gem:

Oof. Credit where it’s due—this from James was one of the sharpest critiques, and one I’ve found myself returning to. He brings up a real and ongoing tension in alternative education, one that I’ve often found myself wrestling with.

Skills like creativity, systems thinking, and problem-solving aren’t free-floating abilities. They depend on well-developed knowledge structures (or schemas) that help us organise and apply information meaningfully. You can’t think critically about history unless you know some history.

This is where I think Montessori, in particular, shines.

Montessori schools offer a deep, expansive curriculum focused on conceptual depth, real-world relevance, and interconnected knowledge; not just memorisation, which in itself is not an effective way to build knowledge.

But I’ve seen other alternative models that lean so far into “child-led” learning that they forget to ensure knowledge is being built at all. There are alternative programs that are strictly focused on “unschooling”, on removing all of the “adultist” dynamics of traditional schooling to free children from those oppressive structures. I think this is a worthwhile endeavour, but my experience is that some of these programs then lack a clear plan for supporting children in actually acquiring the knowledge and skills they’ll need. And I acknowledge that these models often emerge in privileged, knowledge-rich communities.

So yes, knowledge matters. So does structure. I don’t actually have a major beef with the UK National Curriculum like some educators. My concern is how schools are designed to deliver it: often in ways that foster passivity, repetition, and disengagement, rather than purpose, autonomy, and connection.

Montessori anticipated this, writing:

“This does not mean that in secondary schools there should be no preparation for the intellectual professions, and still less that ‘culture’ should be neglected. On the contrary, education must be very wide and very thorough.”

Exactly.

F the Fascist WEF

That someone took the time out of their day to post this on my Substack genuinely delights me. There were several comments like this, refusing to engage with the piece on the basis that it cited the World Economic Forum.

One person wrote:

“Might be some things of value here, but you lost me at "WEF." One of the most important skills of the coming age might be the ability to discriminate between credible authorities and those who have nefarious, suspect and contrived motivations, and who openly have advocated against those who seek to build a better, more prosperous future.”

I actually agree with part of that. The ability to assess the credibility of sources is absolutely a critical skill for the future—and another reason why we need high-quality literacy education. Young people must be equipped to navigate a messy, complex information landscape. To see through fake news. To evaluate claims. I don’t necessarily support using AI in schools, but I do think AI literacy is essential.

What I guess I find a little ironic about this particular comment is how it seems rooted in conspiracism. I suspect the same objection would be made if I had cited the UN, EU, or IMF. Yes, multilateral organisations are flawed and often complicit in complex geopolitical dynamics. But that doesn’t invalidate all of the research conducted under their umbrella.

The WEF is a complex and flawed institution, and I know it has its virulent detractors on the left and right. I don’t expect readers to accept everything they publish wholesale. But I do think their ideas are worth discussing—especially when they surface tensions between work, learning, and the future.

I’ve Not Yet Seen a Neural Network Repair a Burst Pipe

This is an excellent question. The report identifies “core” skills like creative thinking, resilience, AI literacy, systems thinking, and empathy. But what about manual skills? Trade work? Stewardship of local ecosystems? If the future is truly unknown, then manual and trade-based skills may be more economically secure than white-collar work.

Another commenter referenced Nate Hagens’ concept of The Great Simplification:

I'm curious to see manual skills out of future needs…We're heading to increasingly failing ecosystems. I cannot foresee a future on the same path, even if the WEF believe that AI will be useful once the dominos start to fall…In my view, the great simplification, as Nate Hagen is talking about, will see people able to live with much less, use, repair, recycle, reuse, etc. [Children] will be better off with manual skills that they can [use to] barter with other people that form a community able to take care of each other. And this is not going to happen in a hundred years, it is in 5 to 10 years…

I don’t necessarily share this timeline—but I do agree with the sentiment. Education must be rooted in long-term values, not short-term labour market trends.

Ten years ago, everyone was shouting about the need to teach coding. Now it’s on the WEF’s “out of focus” list. Today, it’s AI. Are we meant to rebuild the curriculum every time there’s a new tech trend? What we teach shouldn’t constantly chase the latest economic forecast. Education must cultivate capacities that endure—even as industries rise and fall.

A Skills-First Approach

One final point, in response again to James Hilditch’s accusations of elitism.

I actually believe that a skills-first approach—when done well—can be more democratic than our current system.

Too often, children arrive at school to find that only one kind of knowledge “counts.” Our system tends to reward those who’ve already mastered a narrow set of academic skills—usually centred on the 3 R’s—and overlooks the broader set of strengths, experiences, and intelligences that many children bring. In classrooms like these, you’re either “good at school” or you’re not. And for too many children, that label sticks early and shapes everything that follows.

A well-designed, skills-first model expands what counts as success. It invites all learners to participate meaningfully, and recognises that the ability to collaborate, problem-solve, empathise, or lead is no less valuable than the ability to write a persuasive essay or do long division. It creates space for every child to be seen—and to succeed on their own terms.

This aligns with, dare-I-say, another WEF initiative, Putting Skills First: A Framework for Action, which outlines a model of employment that “emphasises a person’s skills and competencies—rather than their degrees, job histories, or job titles”—and argues that this could “democratize access to economic opportunities and pathways to good jobs for many more people than traditional approaches have done.”

This is one of the reasons I support the Da Vinci LifeSkills curriculum. It’s not focused on grooming students for university admissions; it’s focused on helping them build the skills they need for life. And for a rapidly changing world.

Not because that world will necessarily follow the WEF’s predictions. But because no matter what the future brings—curiosity, communication, collaboration, empathy, and purpose will always matter. And if we want a better future, those are the skills we should be building now.

See You In the Comments

I doubt anything I write will go viral again anytime soon. But I’ve realised I’m not really writing for virality. I’m writing for conversation. So if you’ve made it this far—thank you—and please drop a thought in the comments.