Is Your School Ready for Self-Directed Schooling?
- Greg Mullen
- Jun 9
- 8 min read
I’ve found that a common reaction to the phrase “self-directed” involves the following presupposition: letting students fend for themselves and learning in isolation without rules or structure. The mental image often evoked is one of academic chaos, kids doing whatever they want, teachers powerless to intervene, and learning outcomes sacrificed to a vague ideal of freedom at the cost of a school's purpose of teaching children and preparing youths for adulthood.
This couldn’t be further from the truth.
In reality, Self-Directed Schooling (SDS) is not a rejection of structure but a redefinition of it. It replaces externally imposed control with internalized purpose. It empowers students not by removing adult guidance, but by redefining the role of the adult as a mentor, coach, and developmental ally. It doesn’t ignore student behavior, but rather transforms it through a focus on developing ownership via agency, reflection, and shared responsibility.
Transformation can begin within your existing structure with intentional interventions.
However, it isn't as simple as deciding to change and announcing to all staff that a new program has been adopted and expecting meaningful change. It's about asking the question every school leader must ask:
Are we truly ready and willing to make this shift?
This article is designed to help you answer that question. It introduces five key parameters of readiness and willingness that every school must evaluate when considering a transition to a self-directed schooling model. At each stage, we’ll explore how specific categories of motivation for change can either support or stall your school’s progress.
Each section of this article explores a specific consideration for whether you and your school are ready to initiate a transformational shift toward genuine student autonomy and self-directedness, including:
Philosophical Alignment
Cultural Readiness
Structural Capacity
Professional Learning Commitment
Stakeholder Engagement
After reflecting on these five sections, a concluding section will ask you to reflect on what your responses to these sections mean for you and your school with an opportunity to discuss this further with me, Greg Mullen, as a potential partnership for shaping your school towards adopting a self-directed schooling model and supporting the self-determination of both your staff, your students, and your community of parents.
1. Philosophical Alignment
Do your beliefs about school align with the principles of self-directed learning?
Too often, "student-centered" teaching struggles to promote agency and autonomy and not because of poor implementation, but because of unexamined assumptions. If your school still views learning as only the transfer of knowledge from expert to novice and assessment is only a measure of standardized compliance, then self-directed models will feel misaligned from the start.
Signs of Alignment:
Leaders and staff believe that all students are capable of meaningful autonomy towards their learning when supported and guided to do so.
Teachers acknowledge the need for their role to evolve from Sage on the Stage as the gatekeeper of knowledge and mastery to Guide on the Side as a coach or mentor.
Conversations center around student growth, metacognition, and purpose and not limited by standardized performance measures.
Example:
A high school principal says, “Our job is to get every student to graduate.” A nearby school says, “Our job is to make sure every graduate knows how to keep learning.” Both may have the same goal of improving student learning outcomes, but only one is aligned with self-direction.
Insight for Motivation:
If there’s resistance at this level of philosophical alignment, consider any biases about identity (“I don't want to be part of that kind of school”) or value proposition (“Our current system works for our top performers”). These are two categories of motivation for change.
Philosophical re-alignment starts with re-articulating the purpose of education. Why do students come to school? And why are they expected to be schooled?
2. Cultural Readiness
Does your school’s culture foster student voice, choice, and ownership—not just in practice, but in its structures and relationships?
Many schools unknowingly reproduce a culture of compliance. If students are accustomed to being told what to do, how to do it, and even when they’re allowed to use the bathroom, they’re not being prepared to navigate autonomy. That kind of environment reflects decision-making structures in which authority flows in one direction—from the system to the individual.
Likewise, if teachers are discouraged from adapting curriculum, or fear reprimand for innovation, it signals rigid Structural Relationships where staff are managed more than empowered. In these conditions, Norms and Traditions often reinforce passive learning and behavioral control instead of curiosity, flexibility, and self-management.
A truly self-directed culture doesn’t emerge by chance. It must be intentionally developed through power-sharing, participatory governance, and cultural rituals that prioritize growth over compliance.
Signs of Cultural Readiness:
Students are granted authentic decision-making power in what, how, when they learn.
Classroom norms promote internal motivation and self-regulation over external compliance via rewards and punishments.
Teachers are trusted as professionals to innovate, reflect, and learn from failure.
Social-emotional learning practices are integrated into routines, not as add-ons.
Shared governance structures promote the co-creation of learning systems.
Example:
In one elementary school, a student asks to create a multimedia project instead of a poster. The teacher responds, “Let’s see how that could work.” This signals flexible norms and a power structure where the learner’s voice matters.In another school, the teacher replies, “No, that’s not the assignment.” This reinforces top-down control—teaching students how to follow rather than how to lead their learning.
The first example builds a culture where autonomy and dialogue shape behavior. The second enforces tradition without examining its relevance.
Motivation Insight:
Schools stuck here may be wrestling with decisional balance: “If we give students freedom, will chaos follow--will we lose control?”
Once schools begin experimenting with shared decision-making, co-created norms, and relationship-centered power structures, those fears often give way to visible benefits: increased engagement, deeper trust, and improved self-regulation.
3. Structural Capacity
How well does your schedule, systems, and staffing support individualized learning?
Self-direction isn’t just about philosophical beliefs—it’s about intentional design. If students are expected to master the same content on the same timeline, using the same materials, autonomy becomes a mirage. Structural flexibility is essential.
Signs of Capacity:
The daily schedule allows for varied pacing, interdisciplinary learning, or project-based exploration by students.
Assessment systems value mastery, reflection, and feedback, not just grades.
Teachers have time and roles that support advisory or coaching structures.
Technology platforms allow students to plan, track, and reflect on their learning both in and across grade-level academic progressions.
Example:
At one high school, a “Genius Hour” is scheduled every Friday afternoon. During this time, students are encouraged to pursue a self-chosen goal, schedule meetings with a teacher, and reflect on their progress. The rest of the week, however, follows a traditional structure: fixed periods, uniform pacing, and curriculum delivered in departmental silos. While the Genius Hour invites student autonomy, it exists outside the core instructional model—an add-on rather than a cultural shift. The decision-making structure remains centralized, and the flexibility is confined to a specific window.
In contrast, another school has restructured its entire weekly schedule into fluid learning blocks. Students collaborate with peers and staff to plan when and how they will engage with various subject areas. Some students choose to immerse themselves in science for half the day, while others work through integrated humanities projects over multiple days. Staff act as guides and checkpoints, not gatekeepers. The school knows where students are at all times with scheduled "blocks" that place students in classrooms throughout the day, but it does not require all students to be doing the same thing at the same time. In this model, student ownership is not isolated, it is embedded in the governance structure, relational norms, and expectations for mastery.
The first school is experimenting with autonomy within a traditional structure. The second school is redefining autonomy as the structure itself.
Motivation Insight:
Lack of flexibility is often a self-efficacy issue: “We don’t have the staffing… we don’t have time… our schedule won’t allow it.”
Schools can start small—perhaps with a single grade band, team, or pilot program—to build confidence, prove feasibility, offer training to interested staff over time, and improve hiring and onboarding practices to support the transformation.
4. Professional Learning Commitment
Are your educators prepared—and supported—to shift their roles and grow their practice?
Self-directed schooling redefines teaching. That requires time, trust, and professional learning structures that honor the deeper work in identity it demands.
Signs of Commitment:
Teachers are open to redefining their role as facilitators and mentors.
PD includes training in coaching, metacognition, motivational interviewing, and reflective practice.
School leadership models vulnerability, adaptation, and self-directed habits.
Structures exist for ongoing collaboration and peer mentorship.
Example:
A school launches a new advisory model but gives only a single training session, minimal support, and little time to plan for such significant changes, leading to a frustrated and resentful staff. In contrast, a neighboring school brings teachers into the co-design process and offers monthly reflection labs involving a mix of stakeholders. The first rollout fails, the second attempt builds some buy-in and shared ownership, and shared learning experiences lead to ongoing growth toward shared goals.
Motivation Insight:
Resistance here may reflect both identity (“Am I still a good teacher if I don’t lecture?”) and self-efficacy (“I don’t know how to teach this way”).
Change doesn’t stick when it’s imposed. It grows when educators feel equipped, valued, and included in ways that allow individuals to internally embrace change.
5. Stakeholder Engagement
Are students, families, and community partners informed, involved, and invested?
The most forward-thinking schools can still struggle if the broader community misunderstands or mistrusts the shift. Self-direction challenges deeply held narratives about what “real school” should look like. It’s not enough to change what happens inside the building—the communal story must change too.
Signs of Engagement:
Families are brought into conversations about purpose, process, and outcomes.
Students have a voice in shaping their learning and offering feedback on school structures.
The school cultivates partnerships for internships, mentorships, and real-world learning.
Governance includes feedback loops, listening sessions, and transparency in processes.
Example:
A high school invites families to a “Learner Showcase Night” where students present passion project progress and reflect on growth and respond to questions. In contrast, another school implements portfolio assessments with minimal communication, resulting in confusion about expectations and backlash toward the change. One creates allies; the other, resistance.
Motivation Insight:
Schools that hesitate here often face community-based resistance: “Will parents buy in?” or “How do we prove this model works?”
Start by building a shared language to help frame ideas and promote a shared understanding. Let stories (not just data) demonstrate growth and purpose for transformation as a need.
Final Reflection: Are You Contemplating Change?
Many schools today are in what the Transtheoretical Model refers to as the Contemplation Stage of change. They’re not in denial about the limitations of the current system, but they’re not fully ready to commit to such a significant transformation.
This is where understanding the five categories of motivation becomes essential:
Value Proposition: Do we truly believe this model will improve learning outcomes?
Decisional Balance: Are the benefits worth the risks and discomfort of change?
Self-Efficacy: Do we believe we can do this, or just that we should?
Identity: Can we let go of old definitions of teacher, student, and school to become something new?
Community: Are we doing this alone? Or together, as a learning community?
The good news is that readiness is not a fixed trait. It can be cultivated.
Take the Next Step
If your school is serious about improving student learning outcomes (and not just short-term gains, but the long-term development of each learner’s capacity), you must look beyond what students are currently capable of doing. You must examine how your school’s systems either support or hinder their growth into the kind of learners you believe they can become.
The Self-Directed Schooling model is not a trend or a toolkit of checklists. It’s a rethinking of education from the inside out, rooted in trust, agency, metacognition, and mastery. Use this article to start the conversation. Map where you are. Clarify your sticking points. Invite your staff and community into the process. Reach out to discuss your school's readiness to shift toward a more student-led, self-directed learning environment.
Because the question isn’t whether you and your school can change. It’s whether you're ready to change.
Greg Mullen
April 9, 2025
