What’s wrong with “Alternative Education”?

I wrote this back in 2011 as part of a blog series on Natural Learning Relationships and as a lead-up to the opening of Summa Academy. I believe it stands the test of time.


We were asked the other night to discuss the how Natural Learning Relationships (NLR) compares to Waldorf education – and I was reminded in that moment of just how different what we are trying to do is. Waldorf, like many “alternative” educational approaches, has much to recommend it vs. traditional public school; the same could be said for Montessori, Reggio Emilia, unschooling (especially the second wave that we are in now), the “Free School” movement and many others. These approaches were in large part formed in response to the shortcomings of what I refer to as the “factory” model of education – the public education that considers children to be vessels to be filled with knowledge from an authoritarian class of subject specialists, with the aim of creating economic beings capable of being “contributing members of society” and able to “think critically”. Part of the project of alternative education is to rail against the inhumanity and violence inherent in this system (and the epistemology that underlies it). So, while we can compare and contrast NLR with Waldorf and any of these other educational expressions, NLR really isn’t an alternative educational approach – it didn’t arise in response to the shortcomings of traditional schooling and doesn’t carry the same agendas around undermining it and vilifying it as some alternative approaches do. Why is that? Simply put, NLR arises from a much greater worldview – a new paradigm really, where the interesting questions are:  what is the nature of the health and well-being that is naturally emergent in human beings? How can we best serve the full actualization of it?

When we deeply participate in those questions, we realize that education isn’t about taking care of our fears about global competitiveness and individual achievement; it’s not about healing our childhood wounds by “healing” education in this country; It’s not about instilling notions of social justice (or any other imposed morality). It’s not about standing up to the man or making us feel better about our parenting or giving our children the best education we can afford. It’s much more interesting than all that – it’s really a question in consciousness.

When we talk about consciousness, what do we mean? This consciousness pervades all life in the universe; it’s source is incomprehensibly grand and mysterious; Our great gift and opportunity as humans is that of self-knowledge – for to know oneself is to be in tune with consciousness (this is what Gebser referred to as “the ever-present origin”). So to be in consciousness is to recognize our place in the universe, to take the responsibility to care for ourselves and others, and to hold as the greatest aim the knowledge of self – for it is only by engaging this aim that the hurts in the world can begin to be healed.

So, to come full circle – what should be the aim of education? It can only be about self-knowledge – of the children, the teachers, the parents—and by extension the community, society and planet of which we are all a part. Any lesser aims must serve this higher purpose – “functional in society” “economically productive” “free from guilt” “unwounded” “unbiased”- none of these are worthy in and of themselves. Only in the context of self-knowledge do these qualities have any value – and then they are hardly noteworthy – these qualities are a natural result when we are in touch with our own wisdom – when we are living in consciousness.

Any of the educational models mentioned above – even traditional schooling – would be immeasurably more powerful if they were deeply informed by the primacy of self-knowledge. 

Albee Kara
August 2011