This essay first appeared in my newsletter. Sign up here if interested in F’ing up the status quo and fixing education.

---

Two-thirds of US teenagers hate school. This isn’t teenage angst or hormones – it’s a design problem. We’ve built an education system that actively fights against how teenage brains work, then wonder why students disengage.

Today, I wanted to explore why this happens in the context of adolescent development and suggest what it means for what education should look like.

The conventional and convenient explanation that the disinterested and lazy might offer is that teenagers are just difficult – moody, rebellious, distracted by social drama and hormones. 

But as I’ve dug into this more, it appears we’re looking at this backwards. 

Teens are not the problem at all. 

We’ve designed a system that treats teenagers’ most powerful developmental features – their social drive, reward sensitivity, and risk-taking inclination – as bugs rather than features. It’s like building an electric car that treats electricity as a nuisance.

And so the disengagement we observe is an output of this broken model.

Consider this: 

Neuroscience research over the past 15 years has revealed that the adolescent brain undergoes massive changes, particularly in the prefrontal cortex – the area responsible for planning, decision making, and impulse control, but these changes happen later. Meanwhile, the limbic system, which processes emotions and rewards, develops earlier¹. This creates a fundamental mismatch between how schools operate and how teenage brains function.

In other words, it’s like giving teenagers a powerful sports car (their emotional brain) before they’ve fully developed their driving skills (their rational brain). Traditional schools expect students to exercise perfect control and planning when their brain’s “control center” is still under construction, while ignoring the fact that their emotional and reward systems are running at full throttle. It would make more sense to design schools that work with this reality rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.

But we pretend or perhaps just fail to comprehend how teenage brains work so we persist with the model we’ve had for the last 100 years (or perhaps it’s a 1000 years old). 

We force them to sit quietly and listen to lectures when their brains are literally rewiring themselves to crave social interaction. Research shows that adolescents consistently spend more time with peers than with adults or children, report being happiest when with peers, and give the highest priority to peer norms when making decisions³. 

Jay Giedd, a neurologist and professor at the University of California at San Diego, notes, “The peer group is the one that will help protect you, who will be your teammates, and who will supply resources. Job one for adolescents is navigating their social world.”

The mismatch becomes even more striking when you examine how teenagers actually learn. By age 15-16, adolescents can reason as well as adults in “cold” cognition situations – those without emotional or social pressures. But in “hot” cognition contexts – which describe most of real life – their decision-making becomes significantly compromised². Yet our education system largely ignores this reality, throwing students into high-pressure situations without proper scaffolding or support.

The peer effect on teenage behavior is also particularly striking. Research shows that adolescents are far more likely to take risks when they believe peers are watching. 

In one fascinating study, teenagers playing a driving simulation game took twice as many risks when they thought peers were observing them, while adults’ behavior remained unchanged regardless of peer presence³. Their reward centers literally light up more intensely on brain scans when they’re with peers. Yet traditional schools often treat peer influence as a distraction to be minimized rather than a powerful tool for learning. This is like fighting against gravity instead of using it to our advantage – we could be harnessing this peer motivation for positive learning outcomes instead of treating it as a problem to be solved.

What would a school designed for teenage brains look like? Research and practices from the likes of Armstrong and Maria Montessori suggest twelve essential practices, grouped into four key design areas:

Social Design – Working with, not against, adolescents’ intense peer focus:

• Peer learning connections – Leveraging social dynamics and peer influence for positive learning outcomes
• Multi-age grouping – Enabling peer teaching and mentorship opportunities that satisfy both teaching and learning drives
• Social-emotional skill building – Explicit instruction in navigating social contexts and emotional regulation with peers

Environmental Design – Creating spaces and structures that support adolescent development:

• Prepared environments – Thoughtfully designed spaces supporting independence and various types of learning
• Progressive challenge structure – Moving strategically from “cold” to “hot” cognition as students build capability
• Learning through physical movement – Active, embodied experiences that engage the developing cerebellum

Learning Design – Aligning with how teenage brains actually process information:

• Opportunities for choice – Giving students agency over their learning path to develop decision-making skills
• Metacognitive strategies – Teaching students to think about thinking as their abstract reasoning develops
• Real-world experiences – Connecting learning to authentic contexts for immediate relevance
• Affective learning – Integrating emotional engagement to enhance memory and meaning

Development Design – Supporting identity formation and emotional growth:

• Self-awareness activities – Structured reflection and identity exploration during this crucial period
• Expressive arts activities – Channeling emotional intensity creatively while building self-understanding

Some innovative schools are already moving in this direction. 

• High Tech High in San Diego engages students in real-world projects that combine academic learning with authentic community impact. 
• Avalon School in St. Paul, Minnesota has students design their own learning projects and work collaboratively with peers. 
• Forney Independent School District in Dallas, Texas has an entrepreneurship program that includes a mall-like facility called Opportunity Central (OC). The program gives students real-world experience working with local businesses and learning about business operations.
• One Stone in Boise, Idaho has a student-driven model which focuses on helping adolescents “build real-world relevant problem-solving skills”.

The educational model at The School of Entrepreneuring which we are launching was developed to work in concert with adolescent development by offering:

• Creative studios and makerspaces that enable immediate, hands-on learning rather than abstract theory
• Real business creation requirements that provide authentic contexts for learning and controlled risk-taking with peers
• A “guide on the side” coaching model that respects adolescents’ need for autonomy while providing structured support
• Multi-disciplinary projects that replace traditional siloed subjects, matching how teenage brains actually process and connect information
• Mastery-based assessment that aligns with the variable pace of adolescent development rather than arbitrary time-based measures and grades
• Emphasis on immediate relevance over deferred utility, working with teenagers’ need to understand the “why” of their learnin

Interestingly, all of the above schools aren’t making things easier or inflating grades – they’re often more rigorous than traditional schools. They’re just working with teenage biology rather than against it. By providing structured progression from individual practice to real-world engagement, they help students develop the neural pathways needed for successful decision-making under pressure.

The current model isn’t just failing to engage students – it’s actively working against their natural development. If we want to see real improvement in secondary education, we need to stop trying to change teenagers and start changing our schools to work with, rather than against, the teenage brain.

The solution isn’t to make school easier or more fun – it’s to make it more aligned with how adolescents actually learn and develop. 

The schools that embrace these changes won’t just see better engagement – they’ll be developing humans who are better equipped to handle real-world challenges. The science is clear. The examples exist. The only question is whether we’ll continue to ignore what we know about teenage development, or finally build schools that work with it rather than against it.

(For those interested, I highly recommend Thomas Armstrong’s book, The Power of the Adolescent Brain. He does a great job of breaking down the neuroscience of the adolescent brain and strategies educators can use to be more effective when working with adolescents)

---

¹ Armstrong, T. (2016). The Power of the Adolescent Brain: Strategies for Teaching Middle and High School Students. 

² Dustin, A., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2013). Peer Influences on Adolescent Decision Making. 

³ Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry.

---

If you read this far, some related essays you’ll also like:

1. What plumbing teaches that calculus doesn’t
2. The Great Disengagement: America’s students have checked out
3. Beyond grades: Why measuring learning kills it
4. Degrees of deception: How America’s universities became debt factories
5. Bread, circuses and education
6. The School of Entrepreneuring
7. From myth to measurement: Rethinking US News & World Report College Rankings
8. The perverse incentives driving America’s government schools
9. The endless ladder
10. Students are solving the wrong problems
11. Your kids grades are bullshit
12. Ghost nonprofits and the manufacturing of virtue