Somedays I feel this change in thinking about education, which as you point out has been around for almost a century, is like the battle to stop smoking. We know a much better way, the necessary skills to support young people for their future and keep them engaged in learning, but we still default to outdated education models. Thanks for continuing to promote a better, different way. As I wrote in 2017, The World Needs More Montessori, linkedin.com/pulse/worl… and we need it more than ever.
Thanks Margaret. Agreed. It's one of the reasons I brought in From Childhood to Adolescence. I've been to some mainstream conferences recently, and I had to bite my tongue at some of the "innovations" that people were getting excited about. They were things we've been practising in Montessori for decades. But progress is still progress, and it's easier to make a change in the margins.
I love everything I just read here. This school is doing what I’m dreaming. 💭 You mentioned a secondary program. That goes past age 14? I’m developing my philosophy on what to do with “high school.”
Thank you! Right now, we're only registered to 14. We plan to go to 16, and we're working through those details now. But there are many more schools than ours across the world doing similar things, all the way to 18. We're just lively upstarts! There are a number of amazing Montessori High Schools in the US. In the UK, we have the Sands School, Summerhill, The Montessori Place, etc. It's a movement.
I find it interesting that many of the emerging skills needed are often attributes of people with ADHD… maybe there are more diagnoses now because there are more people with ADHD and maybe Thats actually what the world needs ? Also interesting that people who have these attributes tend to be the ones currently being squeezed out of mainstream education- both pupils and teachers .
Yes. That's a really interesting point. In the environments I've worked in, often labels like ADHD and ASD are unnecessary, because in an environment where children's needs are being met, where their strengths are valued and not suppressed, they can just show up as children.
Yes I have adhd and so does my eldest . ADHD wasn’t diagnosed when I was at school but I didn’t struggle , we had small classes didnt follow the national curriculum or do sats , plenty of critical thinking. When I worked in a school for a year I was shocked and my own daughter needed that label to barely survive in her mainstream school . Now at a progressive school again the label feels less relevant.
Please add critical thinking to this list. In Finland this is part of their curriculum at every grade level. The lack of critical thinking in this country has led us to the brink of losing our democracy.
Yes. Someone recently pointed me towards this qualification in Scotland for critical thinking: https://daydreambelievers.co.uk/qualification/. I'm considering it as a possible pathway for our secondary program.
Agreed. Yes, I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't teach reading! I think quality reading instruction is key to a lot of future skills. For example, if AI literacy is a key skill in the future, then the best way to prepare children for that is to develop their critical reading skills. I would argue that many secondary schools don't do a great job of teaching these skills - which have to be developed through socratic seminars, literature circles, reading whole novels, actively fostering independent reading as part of the school culture, etc. I draw from Kelly Gallagher's work in my own teaching of reading and writing.
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. Please consider a better critical foundation for your work.
Woof. I hear you—and I don’t see the WEF as a moral authority either. It’s definitely a complex and flawed institution (although broadly centrist - your outright distrust might not be critically sound either) and this report isn’t perfect. But I think there are still some worthwhile ideas to engage with here. For me, it’s less about agreeing with the WEF wholesale and more about using their platform (and resources) as a window into emerging conversations about skills, work, and education.
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.
Hey JG, I suppose that's fair. It does read a little markety. Although I doubt anyone on substack is going to come to our tiny school, so I'm not intending to use this for marketing. I'm more trying to find a way to share our ideas and methods while also exploring my own thoughts about education. Also, if you read my other pieces, you'll find I'm openly critical about certain aspects of alternative education or "what I'm selling."
I'm curious to see manuel skills out of future needs. That suppose business as usual, keeping perpetual growth of GDP everywhere on this planet without consideration for the sustainability of this mindset. We're heading to increasingly failing ecosystems. 7 of the 9 planetary boundaries have already been breached. I cannot foresee a future on the same path, even if the WEF believe that AI will be useful once the dominos start to fell. In my view, the great simplification as Nate Hagen is talking will see people able to live with much less, use, repair, recycle, reuse, etc will be better off with manuel skills that they can 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. Just read what the scientific community is publishing every day to warn us to adapt to the changing climate and the overshoot and pollution that we cause as if the planet can stay stable for business as usual for eternity. It's not gonna happen.
You've gone further than I would here, but yes, I also agree that tradework feels more relevant than ever. My next article might interest you, as I talk about a model for how our school is, in practice, more aligned with the great simplification model than the WEF's technocratic ideals.
These 'skills' were the same skills people in the 19th century said the 20th century would need.
Unfortunately, the article fails to note that all skills are predicated on knowledge. Students can only be creative about stuff they have developed knowledge schemas on. The only way to be prepared for an unknowable future is to be knowledgeable about many things. You appear to be misinformed about what cognitive science and much pedagogical research actually says about how students learn best.
This article is anti-facts and anti-learning. It sounds valiant and progressive but it's the same elitism that always disadvantages the least advantaged and favours the already knowledge-rich.
Ouch—fair enough on some points, especially that the article is reductive in places, and I can see how the ending might come across a bit “salesy.” But I don’t advocate for abandoning knowledge altogether. For example, I definitely didn’t say reading isn’t important—see my response to another commenter above. In fact, I think high-quality reading instruction is one of the most powerful ways we can build the future skills I talk about.
My concern is with how narrowly our current systems define and prioritise academic knowledge—especially in UK mainstream schools, where the three Rs are often treated as the be-all and end-all. I don’t actually take issue with the National Curriculum itself. We do need a clear structure for building knowledge and skills over time.
But I think the real problem is structural—about how learning is presented, how schools are designed, and how that design fosters passivity and memorisation rather than curiosity and connection. As a Montessori educator, our curriculum is actually quite traditional in some ways. It’s focused on deep knowledge and skill-building, but also on breadth, relevance, and engagement.
I totally agree. 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, and then as soon as I realised there was a product to be sold I read the rest with an enormous pinch of salt.
I'm surprised that Physical abilities ranks as out of focus when the obvious trend is towards A.I. I've not yet seen a neural network that can repair a burst pipe, fix an engine or cook a meal. It makes me wonder about the demographic of the employers that were surveyed, perhaps all office and technology based roles as if they are the only ones that exist?
Yes, agreed. Learning a trade feels more economically secure than white collar work. I think your assumption about the employers surveyed seems fair. There are definitely a few questions I have about the skills identified, especially when trying to apply it to a learning context. For example, 10 years ago, educators were all in a buzz about programming and the need to teach it in schools, but now that is a declining skill. So, now that AI is a rising technology, do we have to suddenly teach AI in schools?
In my little bit of research so far, i’m leaning towards the view that AI should not be taught or probably even used through elementary school. Ezra Klein of the New York Times had a nice podcast about AI and education where he was talking to an expert. I think it was at least a couple months ago at this point.
Somedays I feel this change in thinking about education, which as you point out has been around for almost a century, is like the battle to stop smoking. We know a much better way, the necessary skills to support young people for their future and keep them engaged in learning, but we still default to outdated education models. Thanks for continuing to promote a better, different way. As I wrote in 2017, The World Needs More Montessori, linkedin.com/pulse/worl… and we need it more than ever.
Thanks Margaret. Agreed. It's one of the reasons I brought in From Childhood to Adolescence. I've been to some mainstream conferences recently, and I had to bite my tongue at some of the "innovations" that people were getting excited about. They were things we've been practising in Montessori for decades. But progress is still progress, and it's easier to make a change in the margins.
I love everything I just read here. This school is doing what I’m dreaming. 💭 You mentioned a secondary program. That goes past age 14? I’m developing my philosophy on what to do with “high school.”
Thank you! Right now, we're only registered to 14. We plan to go to 16, and we're working through those details now. But there are many more schools than ours across the world doing similar things, all the way to 18. We're just lively upstarts! There are a number of amazing Montessori High Schools in the US. In the UK, we have the Sands School, Summerhill, The Montessori Place, etc. It's a movement.
I find it interesting that many of the emerging skills needed are often attributes of people with ADHD… maybe there are more diagnoses now because there are more people with ADHD and maybe Thats actually what the world needs ? Also interesting that people who have these attributes tend to be the ones currently being squeezed out of mainstream education- both pupils and teachers .
Yes. That's a really interesting point. In the environments I've worked in, often labels like ADHD and ASD are unnecessary, because in an environment where children's needs are being met, where their strengths are valued and not suppressed, they can just show up as children.
Yes I have adhd and so does my eldest . ADHD wasn’t diagnosed when I was at school but I didn’t struggle , we had small classes didnt follow the national curriculum or do sats , plenty of critical thinking. When I worked in a school for a year I was shocked and my own daughter needed that label to barely survive in her mainstream school . Now at a progressive school again the label feels less relevant.
I’ve been giving the opportunity to learn this way for over a decade. The results are amazing.
Please add critical thinking to this list. In Finland this is part of their curriculum at every grade level. The lack of critical thinking in this country has led us to the brink of losing our democracy.
Yes. Someone recently pointed me towards this qualification in Scotland for critical thinking: https://daydreambelievers.co.uk/qualification/. I'm considering it as a possible pathway for our secondary program.
You are not going to be able to do some creative thinking, critical thinking, curiosity … if you are not reading.
Agreed. Yes, I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't teach reading! I think quality reading instruction is key to a lot of future skills. For example, if AI literacy is a key skill in the future, then the best way to prepare children for that is to develop their critical reading skills. I would argue that many secondary schools don't do a great job of teaching these skills - which have to be developed through socratic seminars, literature circles, reading whole novels, actively fostering independent reading as part of the school culture, etc. I draw from Kelly Gallagher's work in my own teaching of reading and writing.
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. Please consider a better critical foundation for your work.
Woof. I hear you—and I don’t see the WEF as a moral authority either. It’s definitely a complex and flawed institution (although broadly centrist - your outright distrust might not be critically sound either) and this report isn’t perfect. But I think there are still some worthwhile ideas to engage with here. For me, it’s less about agreeing with the WEF wholesale and more about using their platform (and resources) as a window into emerging conversations about skills, work, and education.
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.
Hey JG, I suppose that's fair. It does read a little markety. Although I doubt anyone on substack is going to come to our tiny school, so I'm not intending to use this for marketing. I'm more trying to find a way to share our ideas and methods while also exploring my own thoughts about education. Also, if you read my other pieces, you'll find I'm openly critical about certain aspects of alternative education or "what I'm selling."
I'm curious to see manuel skills out of future needs. That suppose business as usual, keeping perpetual growth of GDP everywhere on this planet without consideration for the sustainability of this mindset. We're heading to increasingly failing ecosystems. 7 of the 9 planetary boundaries have already been breached. I cannot foresee a future on the same path, even if the WEF believe that AI will be useful once the dominos start to fell. In my view, the great simplification as Nate Hagen is talking will see people able to live with much less, use, repair, recycle, reuse, etc will be better off with manuel skills that they can 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. Just read what the scientific community is publishing every day to warn us to adapt to the changing climate and the overshoot and pollution that we cause as if the planet can stay stable for business as usual for eternity. It's not gonna happen.
You've gone further than I would here, but yes, I also agree that tradework feels more relevant than ever. My next article might interest you, as I talk about a model for how our school is, in practice, more aligned with the great simplification model than the WEF's technocratic ideals.
These 'skills' were the same skills people in the 19th century said the 20th century would need.
Unfortunately, the article fails to note that all skills are predicated on knowledge. Students can only be creative about stuff they have developed knowledge schemas on. The only way to be prepared for an unknowable future is to be knowledgeable about many things. You appear to be misinformed about what cognitive science and much pedagogical research actually says about how students learn best.
This article is anti-facts and anti-learning. It sounds valiant and progressive but it's the same elitism that always disadvantages the least advantaged and favours the already knowledge-rich.
Ouch—fair enough on some points, especially that the article is reductive in places, and I can see how the ending might come across a bit “salesy.” But I don’t advocate for abandoning knowledge altogether. For example, I definitely didn’t say reading isn’t important—see my response to another commenter above. In fact, I think high-quality reading instruction is one of the most powerful ways we can build the future skills I talk about.
My concern is with how narrowly our current systems define and prioritise academic knowledge—especially in UK mainstream schools, where the three Rs are often treated as the be-all and end-all. I don’t actually take issue with the National Curriculum itself. We do need a clear structure for building knowledge and skills over time.
But I think the real problem is structural—about how learning is presented, how schools are designed, and how that design fosters passivity and memorisation rather than curiosity and connection. As a Montessori educator, our curriculum is actually quite traditional in some ways. It’s focused on deep knowledge and skill-building, but also on breadth, relevance, and engagement.
I totally agree. 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, and then as soon as I realised there was a product to be sold I read the rest with an enormous pinch of salt.
Reading, writing and mathematics decreasing in importance? Good luck with that going head to head against Chinese engineers.
(UK) Education needs a reboot. Sir Ken Robinson’s TED talk is a call to all to reconsider our classrooms.
F the Fascist WEF.
I'm surprised that Physical abilities ranks as out of focus when the obvious trend is towards A.I. I've not yet seen a neural network that can repair a burst pipe, fix an engine or cook a meal. It makes me wonder about the demographic of the employers that were surveyed, perhaps all office and technology based roles as if they are the only ones that exist?
Yes, agreed. Learning a trade feels more economically secure than white collar work. I think your assumption about the employers surveyed seems fair. There are definitely a few questions I have about the skills identified, especially when trying to apply it to a learning context. For example, 10 years ago, educators were all in a buzz about programming and the need to teach it in schools, but now that is a declining skill. So, now that AI is a rising technology, do we have to suddenly teach AI in schools?
In my little bit of research so far, i’m leaning towards the view that AI should not be taught or probably even used through elementary school. Ezra Klein of the New York Times had a nice podcast about AI and education where he was talking to an expert. I think it was at least a couple months ago at this point.