By LeiLani Cauthen
If you understand a bit about how systems change, you can find reasons for optimism about what’s happening in America, in education, and around the globe. Change often begins when function shifts — when people need to do things differently — and form, the structures that organize society, eventually follows. Sometimes that shift is peaceful, like the decades-long struggle that won women the right to vote. Other times it’s turbulent, forced by crises or new technologies that make old forms obsolete. Right now we’re navigating one of those turbulent moments; in education the shift has been harsh, but it is part of a long-expected transition into digital forms.
A simple rule helps explain this: form follows function. When the structure of something doesn’t match the function it is meant to serve, friction and failure result. This idea is a practical lens for seeing why institutions stumble when their forms don’t evolve to match changing human needs.
Here it is more simply put
Choose a spoon instead of a knife when you intend to scoop soup. The spoon’s form fits the spooning function; the knife’s form fits cutting. When form and function match, things work. When they don’t, you feel the friction.
Right now many social functions have changed, and those changes are forcing structure to adapt — often painfully. But the upside is that these shifts are directional: they point to new and potentially better forms. America has adapted through hard transitions before — from agrarian to industrial economies, through labor struggles, and toward democratic governance — and can do so again.
The important thing is to recognize that these changes lead somewhere. That possibility makes working in education exciting: we can help invent the new forms that match new functions.
What are the forces changing how things work?
At the center of today’s transformation is one major factor that hasn’t existed before at this scale: technology. Technology is both savior and disruptor. It goes beyond tools that extend our hands or muscles; it increasingly extends the functions of the mind. That shift is altering what humans do, how we communicate, and how institutions operate. A device that fits in a pocket has reshaped family mealtimes, mass media, commerce, and how we build trust across society.
Technology has also upended economic forms: platforms monetize attention and identity, social media fragments shared narratives, and digital logistics reconfigure distribution. These changes create friction because many social structures were not designed for a world where information, contribution, and access flow through a trillion-node Internet.
There is an antidote, however: a renewed emphasis on the humanities and on human-centered skills. Tech will not be undone — nor should it be — but the counterweight is stronger human judgment, empathy, critical thinking, ethics, and civic literacy. Where human capacities are underdeveloped, technology fills the void and often degrades trust. Where human capacities are nurtured, technology becomes a powerful augment rather than a replacement.
Tech as disrupting force
Technology’s villainous reputation comes from its role as more than a mere tool. It performs cognitive and social functions that used to be purely human. As a result, it has shredded many institutional norms and challenged governance models. The right response is not rejection but harnessing: build new structures that accept technology’s strengths while aligning them with human values.
Many institutions are automating old practices instead of inventing new forms that suit technological capabilities. This mismatch explains why market-driven platforms disrupt incumbents: Netflix upended video rental, Amazon redefined retail distribution, and Uber reshaped transport. Similarly, education has been unevenly prepared for the digital era. The pandemic exposed that schools were designed around physical presence and common schedules, not the dispersed, personalized, on-demand possibilities that technology enables.
Most educators, thrown suddenly into remote learning, tried to preserve existing forms — whole-class instruction, fixed schedules, the same curriculum — in a digital wrapper. That created predictable friction. The better approach is to learn from those points of failure, then invent new forms tailored to the changed function of education.
A useful new form must recognize several emerging realities:
- Humans are networked. The Internet makes each person a connected node with immediate access to alternative views and communities. Schools must develop humane, discerning capacities — social-emotional skills and critical thinking — while tolerating diverse perspectives rather than enforcing narrow conformity. Attempting to suppress alternatives only drives learners to other sources.
- Distribution and logistics matter. Advanced logistics and centralized platforms have reshaped commerce. Education will face the same pressures: who controls distribution of content, who curates contributions, and who manages logistics will greatly influence how learning is accessed. If distribution becomes a public utility focused on equitable access, it can serve the common good. If it becomes dominated by commercial interests, traditional public systems risk irrelevance unless they evolve.
- Cultural diversity strains old forms. Schools increasingly serve students who bring many languages and cultural experiences. Rigid, one-size-fits-all models lose effectiveness when they don’t accommodate this reality.
- Work can happen anywhere. As remote work becomes common, the time and space needs of families and students change. Schools must rethink schedules, locations, and the role of physical campuses.
- Flatter organizational models are rising. The Internet flattens hierarchies and favors on-demand staffing and flexible roles. Schools need staffing models that are less rigidly hierarchical and more responsive to learners’ needs.
- Personalization is expected. Digital experiences are increasingly tailored to individuals; learning will follow. Students and families now expect educational options that reflect their unique needs and aspirations.
- Smaller, local models often outperform monolithic institutions. Large bureaucracies are criticized for treating people as anonymous users. Successful education models will likely combine the scale of resources with locally crafted, community-centered approaches.
- Ideological conflict is inevitable but manageable. The current political friction resembles past transitions. One side emphasizes cohesion and shared public goods; the other emphasizes individual choice and customization. Both perspectives are necessary. The challenge is to design new governance forms that allow collective structures while enabling individual freedom and innovation.
Traditional systems built on uniformity must adapt to serve individual equity — freedom within a form — while those pushing complete separation must recognize the value of shared civic goods. Technology amplifies both impulses. Schools must decide how to position themselves amid these tensions: as enablers of public cohesion, as platforms for individualized learning, or as hybrid systems that support both.
The good news is that the pandemic accelerated the pace of change. It broke many assumptions about the old normal and created opportunities to invent new forms of schooling that match current functions. If educators, policymakers, and communities act thoughtfully, we can harness technology and human-centered values to create more equitable, flexible, and effective learning systems.
About the author
LeiLani Cauthen is CEO and Publisher of The Learning Counsel. She specializes in the digital content landscape, software development, adoption processes, and modern models for teaching and learning. With two decades of research, publishing, and market leadership across technology, education, and government sectors, she writes and speaks about the ongoing transformation of education in the digital age.