Mike on School and Learning to Learn

Background and Context

The note was written in the first days of February 2020, weeks before school closures turned the question of what school is for from a staffroom argument into a live emergency. Within two months, hundreds of millions of students were learning from kitchen tables, and the parts of schooling that survived the move to a screen turned out to be very different from the parts that didn't. The maxim predates that stress test but reads as though it anticipated it. It also sits inside a longer argument — one running from Dewey's progressive education through the "21st century skills" movement of the 2000s and into the credential-anxiety of the AI era — about whether the purpose of instruction is to transmit a body of knowledge or to build the capacity to acquire knowledge independently. Mike states the case in its sharpest form: not a balance, a replacement.

Interpretation

The maxim's structure is a negation followed by a substitution, and both halves carry weight. "School should not be about information" is not a claim that information is worthless — it is a claim about aboutness, about what the institution takes as its organizing purpose. An institution can handle information constantly and still not be about it, the way a hospital handles paperwork without being about paperwork. What Mike is rejecting is information as the measured output of schooling: the arrangement in which content coverage defines the syllabus, recall defines the test, and a student's success is a function of how much material they can hold long enough to be assessed on it.

The substitution names two things, and they are not the same thing. Critical thinking is the capacity to evaluate a claim — to ask what would have to be true for this to hold, who benefits from my believing it, what the evidence actually supports versus what it merely permits. Learning to learn is narrower and more procedural: metacognition, the skill of monitoring your own understanding, noticing the gap between feeling like you know something and actually knowing it, and choosing a strategy to close it. The term has a real research lineage — John Flavell named metacognition in the mid-1970s, and the 2001 revision of Bloom's taxonomy added a metacognitive knowledge dimension precisely because the original 1956 framework had no place to put "knowing how you know." Pairing the two is a deliberate move: critical thinking without metacognition produces a student who can dismantle other people's arguments but not detect the holes in their own; metacognition without critical thinking produces an efficient learner with no filter on what is worth learning.

The word doing the heaviest lifting is should. This is not a description of what schools do; it's a claim about what they owe. And the obligation Mike is naming has a specific shape — it is about durability. Information decays: it goes stale, gets superseded, or is simply forgotten within months of the exam that measured it. The two capacities he substitutes are the ones that keep working after the content has expired, and that continue to compound in environments the school never anticipated. Read this way, the maxim is an argument about time horizon rather than about content per se. A curriculum optimized for what a student can demonstrate in June is a different artifact than one optimized for what they can still do at forty, and Mike is asserting that schools have been quietly optimizing for the wrong one because the wrong one is the one that can be measured on schedule.

There is a professional signature in the framing too. The distinction between covering material and producing capability is the foundational distinction of instructional design — the discipline's whole quarrel with subject-matter experts is that experts naturally organize instruction around what they know rather than around what the learner must become able to do. Mike's maxim applies that quarrel to schooling itself, treating the school as a training system that has confused its content inventory with its performance objective.

Current Relevance

The maxim's stakes rose sharply after it was written. Generative AI made the retrieval and synthesis of information nearly free, which removed most of the practical argument for holding information in a student's head as an end in itself — and simultaneously made critical thinking and metacognition far more load-bearing, because a system that produces fluent, confident, occasionally fabricated text is exactly the environment in which the ability to evaluate a claim and monitor your own certainty determines whether you are informed or misled. The failure mode Mike's maxim guards against is now automated and available at scale.

The pandemic supplied the other half of the case. When instruction moved to screens in 2020, students who had the metacognitive equipment to structure their own time, notice when they were lost, and go find help fared very differently from students who had only ever learned in a room where someone else set the pace. Learning-loss research through the following years consistently found the gap widening along lines that tracked prior self-regulatory capacity and home support, not just access to devices — which is a partial vindication of the maxim and, as the objections below argue, a partial indictment of it.

The counter-pressure has intensified just as fast. Accountability regimes still measure content mastery because content mastery is what standardized instruments can cheaply and defensibly measure, and the gap between what the maxim asks schools to produce and what the system is instrumented to detect has not narrowed. A school can be doing exactly what Mike prescribes and have no way to show it — which means, under any funding or ranking regime tied to test performance, that it has an active incentive not to. The same problem now runs downstream into hiring: as degrees became weaker signals through the 2020s and employers moved toward skills-based assessment, the capacities the maxim privileges are precisely the ones no widely accepted instrument certifies. The maxim describes what the labor market increasingly wants and what no institution in the chain is yet built to verify.

Impact and Legacy

As a private note, this line has no public circulation; its significance is as a compact statement of a position with a very large public history. That position runs from Dewey's Democracy and Education (1916) through the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, founded in 2002, whose "4 Cs" framework — critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity — pushed the same substitution into U.S. state standards through the 2000s, and through the European Union's 2006 Key Competences framework, which lists "learning to learn" as one of eight competences every citizen should possess. Its most quoted popular expression is the line Alvin Toffler cited in Future Shock (1970), crediting the psychologist Herbert Gerjuoy: that the illiterate of the future will be those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.

The legacy is genuinely contested rather than settled, and the contest has been consequential. England's national curriculum reforms from 2014 pushed hard in the opposite direction, rebuilding a knowledge-rich core explicitly against the skills-first framing, while U.S. state standards absorbed the 4 Cs language without ever resolving what it meant for assessment — two large systems drawing opposite conclusions from the same decades of evidence. The same period that carried this position into policy documents also produced the strongest empirical case against its stronger versions. Mike's maxim is one voice inside that argument, stated at full strength — its value in this collection is that it does not hedge, which makes the objections it invites unusually clear.

Contrasting Views or Controversies

The strongest objection is empirical and comes from cognitive science: critical thinking is not a content-free skill. Daniel Willingham's Why Don't Students Like School? (2009) argues that the ability to think critically about a domain is substantially a function of how much you know about that domain — the reasoning does not transfer cleanly from chemistry to constitutional law, because what looks like general reasoning is largely pattern recognition running on background knowledge stored in long-term memory. On this account the maxim's opposition is a false binary: information is not the alternative to critical thinking, it is the substrate critical thinking runs on, and a school that de-emphasizes the substrate produces students who are worse at the very thing it was trying to prioritize.

E.D. Hirsch made the same case earlier and more polemically in Cultural Literacy (1987) and The Knowledge Deficit (2006), and added the equity argument that has proved hardest to answer: knowledge-light curricula hurt disadvantaged students most. Affluent children absorb an enormous amount of background knowledge at home — vocabulary, references, the ambient furniture of educated conversation — and can afford a school that declines to teach it. Children without that inheritance cannot. A curriculum that treats information as the school's least important business quietly assumes someone else is supplying it, and for many students no one is. This objection turns the maxim's implicit progressivism against itself: the substitution it recommends is, in practice, regressive.

There is a third line from instructional-design research proper. Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark's 2006 paper in Educational Psychologist argued that minimally guided instruction — the discovery and inquiry methods often deployed in service of "learning to learn" — is less effective than direct instruction for novices, because novices lack the schemas that make unguided exploration productive and are simply overloaded by it. The maxim does not prescribe discovery learning, but it lives in a tradition that often has, and the record of that tradition is mixed enough that the burden of proof sits with it.

Finally, a definitional worry: "learning to learn" is unusually resistant to assessment, which makes it easy for an institution to claim while changing nothing measurable. A goal that cannot be checked is a goal that can be professed indefinitely.

Practical Application

• Individual (learner): Separate the feeling of understanding from the fact of it — after reading or watching something, close it and try to reconstruct the argument from memory. The gap you find is the actual state of your knowledge; the fluency you felt while reading was not.
• Individual (teacher/instructor): Make thinking visible in the assessment, not just the outcome. Ask students to show which claim they doubted and why, or to identify where they were confused and what they did about it, so the metacognitive work has somewhere to be graded and therefore somewhere to be practiced.
• Organizational (curriculum/instructional design): Write objectives as capabilities the learner will retain and transfer, then treat content selection as the means rather than the specification — but choose that content deliberately rather than sparsely, since the objections above establish that thinking runs on knowledge.
• Organizational (training providers): Audit whether your evaluation measures recall at course end or capability at some later date. If nothing in the system observes the learner after the exam, the system cannot tell whether it produced durable capability or a temporary performance.
• Organizational (leadership): Resist the temptation to declare a shift toward "critical thinking and learning to learn" without changing what gets measured or how instructors are evaluated. A goal that no instrument observes is a goal the institution can profess indefinitely while behaving exactly as before — which is the maxim's most common failure mode in practice, and the one hardest to detect from inside.
• Civic/policy: When accountability frameworks measure only what is cheap to test, expect institutions to optimize for it. Advocating for this maxim means advocating for assessment instruments that can detect what it values — portfolio and performance assessment, delayed retention checks, transfer tasks in unfamiliar contexts — otherwise the maxim stays a slogan and the incentives stay unchanged.
• Parent/mentor: Ask what someone did when they got stuck, not what they got right. The recovery strategy is the thing the maxim actually cares about, and it is invisible in a grade — a student who reached the correct answer by a method they cannot repeat has learned less than one who reached a wrong answer and could say why they doubted it.

Background on the Author

Mike Hower spent his career in instructional design, including developing training for U.S. military officers — a background he sets out directly elsewhere in this collection, where his Air Force service and his work building courseware for officer education both appear in his own words. That vantage is what authorizes the claim, and it authorizes a specific version of it. Military training is one of the few large-scale educational systems that is routinely and unsentimentally evaluated on whether the capability held — whether the person can actually do the thing later, under conditions the course did not simulate, when the consequences of not being able to are real. Someone who has designed instruction inside a system with that feedback loop has watched the difference between a student who passed and a student who became capable more often, and more consequentially, than most classroom practitioners ever get to.

The rest of his maxims in this collection sharpen the reading. His lines on disparaging education, on the Pharisees of education, and on courseware design all circle the same conviction: that educational institutions are prone to mistaking their own procedures and artifacts for their purpose. This maxim is that conviction applied to schooling at its most general — not a theory of pedagogy arrived at from the outside, but a designer's diagnosis of a system he has spent a career building parts of.

---