In July, the Courageous Minority group had our second synchronous meeting. Over the past month, the members shared their initial ideas in our community and provided feedback to each other. Due to the size and different time zones, the meetings occured on three days: July 1st, 2nd, and the 4th. Some joined during school holidays. Some came after long school days. Some logged in late at night or early in the morning. As always, I was struck by the generosity of people who are willing to make this effort not because they have easy answers, but because they want to imagine and create better possibilities for young people.

Across the three sessions, we heard stories of frustration, experimentation, uncertainty, and hope. We heard from teachers trying to create small spaces where students can do something more meaningful than simply complete assignments. We heard from educators experimenting with AI, not as a shortcut for answers, but as a tool for curiosity, dialogue, creation, and contribution.

One story stayed with me.

A teacher had invited a group of Grade 6 students to undertake passion projects. They could explore questions that interested them, use AI to investigate ideas, and create something meaningful. But many did not know how to begin. They asked, “What is this worth?” “What are we supposed to do?” Some quickly made what the teacher called “sparkly posters”—polished products that looked good but did not necessarily reflect deep inquiry or genuine interest.

I do not see this as a failure of the students. I see it as a consequence of schooling.

For years, students have been taught that adults define the questions, determine the right answers, and decide what counts. Then we suddenly tell them to follow their interests, formulate their own questions, and create something meaningful. Of course many hesitate. They have learned that school rewards compliance more reliably than curiosity.

That is why transformation cannot simply be announced. We cannot tell students, “You now have agency,” and expect agency to appear. We have to create conditions in which students can gradually rediscover curiosity, take risks, and learn that their ideas are worth pursuing.

This is also why I believe in the idea of a courageous minority.

We do not need to wait for an entire school system to agree before we begin. We can start with a few students, a club, an after-school group, a project, or a small protected space in the curriculum. A teacher may not be able to redesign the whole school, but they may be able to help five students pursue a real question. A school leader may not be able to change every course, but they may be able to support one team willing to try something different.

Small spaces are not insignificant. They are where new cultures begin.

Another theme in our July conversations was the difference between school projects and meaningful work. Too much so-called project-based learning is still schoolwork in disguise. Students make slides, posters, or presentations, submit them to a teacher, receive a grade, and move on.

But what happens when students create something that matters to someone beyond the classroom?

Our members shared examples of students working with local organizations, universities, councils, businesses, and community groups. They discussed young people investigating environmental issues, creating resources for others, designing tools, and responding to real needs. These examples reminded me that learning becomes more powerful when students are not merely trying to impress teachers. It becomes more powerful when they are trying to create value for others.

That is what I mean by problem finding and solving. It is not simply answering questions adults have already asked. It is noticing something that matters, formulating a problem, seeking resources, working with others, and contributing something useful.

AI was also a major topic, but not in the usual way.

No one was interested in AI merely as a faster way to complete worksheets or generate answers. Instead, participants were exploring how AI might help students become more curious and capable. One teacher described using AI as a conversational partner for younger students. Students would not simply ask a question and accept the first answer. They would challenge it, ask follow-up questions, test assumptions, and improve their own thinking.

That is a much more promising vision of AI in education.

AI should not become another machine for delivering predetermined content more efficiently. It should help students ask better questions, see more possibilities, access more resources, and engage in deeper dialogue. It should help teachers understand students’ interests, thinking, and development in ways that are otherwise difficult to see.

At the same time, our conversations made clear that schools are in very different places. Some participants work in systems that allow certain AI tools. Others work where student use of AI is tightly restricted. Some are experimenting openly. Others are trying to create responsible opportunities within significant constraints.

I do not believe bans will solve the problem. Banning AI may make adults feel more comfortable, but it does not prepare students for the world they are entering. At the same time, I do not think teachers should ignore the realities of their contexts. The challenge is to find the spaces where responsible experimentation is possible and use those spaces well.

One of the most inspiring stories came from a teacher working with seven- and eight-year-olds in a low-tech setting. Her students transformed a social-emotional learning display into a three-dimensional world of learning zones. They created characters, stories, and pathways for moving from uncertainty toward trying, learning, and mastery.

At the end, she asked what mattered most in collaboration. The children gave two simple answers: listening and we.

Those two words stayed with me.

They capture what we are trying to build. Personalized learning is not about isolating students in individualized routes toward the same standardized outcomes. It is about helping each person discover and develop their unique strengths, interests, and possibilities. But that does not mean individualism. We discover ourselves through others. We become better through others. And our strengths matter most when we use them to contribute to others.

That is human interdependence.

Our July conversations gave me hope because they showed that educators around the world are already taking action. They are trying small experiments. They are creating room for students to ask real questions. They are exploring more thoughtful uses of AI. They are looking for real audiences, real problems, and real contributions.

Most importantly, they are realizing that they are not alone.

In the coming months, we will continue to share resources, stories, questions, frustrations, and emerging ideas. We will also explore ways for students in different countries to connect around meaningful problems and projects. Perhaps the old idea of pen pals can become something richer: young people learning with one another, creating with one another, and contributing to one another across borders.

Transformation will not begin when everyone agrees. It begins when a few people decide that the current arrangement is no longer sufficient—and when they are courageous enough to act.

That is what I heard in July.

Learn more about the Courageous Minority movement here: https://www.yeeeducation.com/

Or read a recently published article in ECNU Review of Education: Obsolete Schooling and the Courageous Minority: Rethinking Educational Change in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.