School is supposed to work for everyone. It offers not only education but structure, community, and a pathway for future success. Nonetheless, school can fall short; standardized tests, deadlines, and one-size-fits-all assignments fail to reflect how many students actually learn. “It’s not that I don’t understand the material,” one Junior explained about Biology, “it’s just that the way we’re tested doesn’t let me demonstrate what I know.” Experiences like this raise a bigger question: if school is meant to serve all students, why does it only work for some?
Learning specialist Peytra Redfield explained that traditional academic structures were originally designed to provide consistency and objectivity, but “learning is complex, and today’s students learn differently than they did a generation ago.” She explained that while standardized tests measure performance under timed conditions, they often fail to capture “problem-solving skills, creativity, emotional intelligence, [and] communication skills,” leaving many students unable to demonstrate their strengths.
From the beginning, the common school system was not designed with all students in mind. The modern American public school system largely emerged in the 1830s through the “common school” movement, led by reformer Horace Mann. Inspired by the Prussian education model, Mann’s system adopted age-based grades, standardized curriculums, strict schedules, and an emphasis on discipline. These features aligned well with the needs of a rapidly industrializing society, which required punctual, obedient, and efficient workers. Grades helped separate students based on assumed intelligence and, in turn, determine their best fit in the workforce. While this model succeeded in educating large populations quickly, it also reinforced assumptions about how students should behave and learn, and what success means.
Moreover, Mann supported education for many marginalized groups, but he did not advocate for accommodations such as Sign Language for deaf students. Physical disabilities, learning differences, and other neurodivergences were largely ignored. Instead, students were expected to adapt to the system, not the other way around. This legacy remains visible today, as many students with diverse needs often struggle within rigid academic structures that reward speed, silence, and standard performance.
Redfield noted that schools have immense power in shaping how students understand themselves, explaining that “intelligence is multi-faceted, but we often only focus on a certain type.” An intense emphasis on grades, she said, can create a fixed mindset, signaling to students that they are either “smart or not,” rather than recognizing creativity, effort, leadership, or curiosity as equally valuable forms of achievement.
Senior Audrey Sherer, leader of the School’s Neurodiversity Affinity, explained the need for “multiple different options that work with all learning styles” to ensure that every student both understands the material and can accurately convey their understanding.
The COVID-19 pandemic briefly disrupted the traditional structure of school, forcing classes online and giving students more control over pacing and deadlines. Learning specialist Peytra Redfield explained how the School “flexed on deadlines and had a shorter school day,” which “met the needs at the time but didn’t help with teaching time-management skills.” She added that reduced expectations during online learning also caused “learning loss, especially in math and reading [which] … we’re still catching up [on].”
Additionally, schools have long claimed to serve everyone while quietly promoting a narrower set of values. For some students, these values extend beyond academics. One student described feeling that the School is more responsive to donor and trustee concerns than to student voices, particularly when it comes to controversial topics. “Personally, it feels like certain conversations are encouraged as long as they don’t disagree with funding or board support,” the student said. While the School emphasizes diversity and critical thinking, experiences like this raise questions about whose perspectives are ultimately protected and amplified.
Today, schools are more than ever expected to prepare students for success in higher education and in the workforce. But they are still operating within a structure designed nearly two centuries ago, when society was less aware of the neurodiversity that causes some students to struggle to conform to academic expectations and succeed within the limited grading system. “Having high expectations is a good thing,” Redfield explained, “but rigidity excludes people who may have incredible strengths and talents but don’t fit into the proverbial box.” If schools were originally built for industrial efficiency and social conformity, it may be time to ask whether reform is enough, or whether education needs to be redesigned altogether.