Valeria Aragón, education specialist: “Children learn to prioritize what is expected of them over what happens to them”

Valeria Aragón is a doctoral candidate in Education, a researcher in self-directed learning, and a specialist in pedagogical artificial intelligence. In her latest book, ‘Educar rompiendo el molde’ (Educating by Breaking the Mold), she argues that the real challenge is not the technology we use, but the human capacities we are allowing to fade: attention, independent judgment, creativity, intellectual autonomy, and a sense of purpose.

With a critical but not alarmist perspective, Aragón offers an accessible cultural reflection on childhood and adolescence as stages where more than academic performance is at stake. These years shape the transmission of values, the development of critical thinking, and our relationship with knowledge in a world that is changing faster than our ability to fully understand it. Today, she spoke with AS.

Has maintaining a critical perspective in a field so influenced by trends and dominant narratives come with any personal or professional cost?

Personally, none. Professionally, yes. When you do not align yourself with overly sweetened narratives or promise quick transformations, you probably sell less, or you sell more slowly. There is a large market for messages that touch on deep pain and offer fast solutions without process, discomfort, or personal responsibility.

That is not where I work. My perspective is critical because I believe in the real processes of human development. That means time, discernment, independent thinking, and accepting that not everything can be solved with a powerful phrase or a miracle tool. It is not the fastest way to grow in terms of volume, but it is the only way that allows me to grow with coherence.

Which women, academic or otherwise, have had a decisive influence on how you think about education?

Without a doubt, the first woman who comes to mind is Virginia Satir. When I read her ‘Five Freedoms’, it was a turning point. It was not just an inspiring read; it became a guiding framework.

It gave me a lens through which to understand what meaningful connection with others should look like, both with children and adults. Satir taught me that educating is not about shaping people into a mold; it is about facilitating their ability to be themselves.

Another decisive influence has been Mary Ainsworth, through her work on secure attachment. Understanding that the foundation of human development is relational security profoundly changed how I view both school and family life. You cannot talk about learning if relational security is not present first.

On the cognitive side, the work of Carol Dweck was very important to me. The concept of a growth mindset put scientific language into something I had already sensed: intelligence is not a fixed trait but a process under construction. That has enormous implications for how we evaluate students and how we support them.

Maria Montessori, and more recently Barbara Oakley, also shed a great deal of light on how to support the process of learning how to learn, something I am deeply passionate about.

And, of course, my maternal grandmother. Patient and loving, she always saw the best in me and gave me internal reference points that later allowed me to recognize, in all the women I mentioned, that this was the path, beyond what science itself might say.

From your experience, which human capacities are least encouraged in girls and adolescents, and why?

There are many. But I will focus on one that functions almost like a foundation because it influences all the others: connection with oneself.

Children are born connected to what they feel and what they need. But as they grow, and as adults struggle to accompany emotions or tolerate differences, children often learn to prioritize what is expected of them over what they are actually experiencing internally.

They learn to fit in. And that adaptation usually comes at a cost: their perception, their judgment, their emotions, and their own voice.

When that disconnection occurs, it affects everything else. It affects self-esteem, the ability to regulate emotions in a healthy way, creativity, independent judgment, and the way a person takes responsibility for their relationships and their life. In many girls and adolescents, there is also a reinforced tendency to please others and to measure their value according to performance or external approval.

The problem is that this disconnection becomes so normalized that it stops being recognized as such. Many people live disconnected from themselves without even realizing it. And without inner connection, deep creativity, autonomy, and authentic leadership cannot emerge.

Do you think the education system still rewards ways of learning that have traditionally been masculinized?

I do not look at it so much from a masculine or feminine perspective but rather from the lack of real personalization. Every person learns differently, and yet the system often still functions like a one-size-fits-all garment that is expected to fit everyone. That simply does not work.

Teachers also face high student-to-teacher ratios and heavy bureaucracy, which makes it very difficult to adapt instruction to each student. It is not a matter of intention; it is structural.

And there is something that bothers me even more. Academically, we know far more about how people learn than what we are actually applying in classrooms.

We know that movement helps consolidate knowledge, yet students still spend too many hours sitting down. We know that curiosity and discovery activate deep learning, but in many cases going to school still means opening the book to page eleven and completing an exercise in a notebook without manipulating, experimenting, or exploring. Without stepping into the real world.

We learn through experience. Limiting everything to a textbook and a notebook is almost like telling a child that the world fits inside those pages. And we all know that it does not. If we do not move toward a more personalized education connected to reality, we will continue to leave out a huge portion of our students’ potential.

You say the challenge is not technology but what we stop cultivating. Who decides today what deserves to be cultivated?

The first answer is uncomfortable: we do. Every family has both the responsibility and the ability to decide what is cultivated at home and what is prioritized. Completely delegating that responsibility to the education system is risky because the system has clear limits. It fulfills a function, but it cannot and should not replace the values that originate at home.

Then there is the institutional framework, curricula, and public policy. But here it is important to maintain a critical perspective.

There is also another actor that carries significant weight today: the market. We can see this clearly with artificial intelligence.

Its introduction into schools and universities often responds first to optimization, efficiency, or corporate positioning rather than to a deep reflection on what kind of human being we want to educate.

Optimizing processes is not the same as developing human potential. That is why the real challenge is not technological; it is ethical and cultural. We need discernment to decide which tools we use and why. If we do not make those decisions ourselves, others will make them for us, and their priorities may not align with ours.

Is there a risk that educational AI could reinforce gender bias if it is not designed with a critical perspective?

Absolutely. AI systems are not born neutral. They are trained on enormous volumes of data from the internet, created by humans who carry their own biases: gender biases, racial biases, and also ageism, meaning prejudices associated with age that can affect how childhood or old age is represented and understood.

If the data used to train an AI system contains these biases, it is reasonable to expect that the system may reproduce them or even amplify them if they are not consciously addressed.

For this reason, educational AI must not be designed solely from an engineering perspective but also from pedagogical and ethical perspectives. It is not enough for systems to function technically; they must have a clear educational intention.

There is tremendous potential, however. AI can reinforce stereotypes, or it can help challenge them. It can create dependency, or it can encourage critical thinking and autonomy. It can think for you, or it can help you think better. The difference lies in how it is designed, what data it is trained on, and above all, its purpose.

What concerns you more: the uncritical use of technology or adults giving up their responsibility to exercise judgment?

The second concerns me more: adults giving up their responsibility to exercise judgment. If we had that, the first problem would largely disappear.

Technology is not dangerous in itself. It becomes dangerous when we delegate to it our capacity to observe, think, and decide. When we outsource thinking and simply consume what is presented to us, already processed and without a filter.

Accepting what an AI produces without questioning it can be as unhealthy as living on ultra-processed foods. It is convenient, fast, and accessible, but it ultimately weakens and impoverishes you.

When an adult takes responsibility for what feeds their mind and for where they place their attention, they will inevitably use technology more consciously. They will ask when it should be used, when it should not, and for what purpose.What are we communicating to girls and adolescents about their value beyond performance?

It depends greatly on the context. But if we look at the dominant message, especially on social media, the outlook is concerning.

Often the message is that your value depends on what you achieve, how well you perform, or how you look. That there are hierarchies of value based on appearance, popularity, or productivity. This is profoundly limiting. It installs the idea that value is something that must constantly be proven rather than something inherent in being human.

At the same time, there are other spaces, families, schools, and educational projects where something different is cultivated every day. In those spaces, people recognize the uniqueness and intrinsic value of each individual exactly as they are. Children are encouraged to discover their latent talents, express them, and live a conscious and fulfilling life.

The challenge is that the dominant message is powerful and repetitive. That is why we need clear counterbalances. We need adults who communicate that value does not depend on applause or results but on our shared human condition.

What should schools unlearn in order to educate better in this historical moment?

It depends on what we mean by school. If we think of school as a community space where children meet, explore the world, and learn how to relate to others, losing that would be a huge mistake.

But if we are talking about the rigid model that still dominates, then yes, there are things that need to fade away.

School needs to be reborn. It needs to reconnect with the deeper meaning of the word education. Education is not about inserting knowledge into someone. It is about allowing what is already within a person, their potential, to emerge.

Today we still spend many hours on tasks that artificial intelligence can perform faster and more efficiently. That reality forces us to rethink our priorities.

If AI has revealed anything, and recent studies from Harvard are confirming this, it is that what will truly differentiate people in the future is precisely what is most human: creativity, abductive thinking, the ability to detect and create patterns, to build connections, to engage in ethical reflection, to inspire, and to lead.

That is why it worries me that philosophy has lost space in classrooms rather than gaining it. There is less debate, less exploration, and fewer projects that have real impact on the surrounding environment. Yet these are precisely the experiences that train judgment and depth of thought.

Schools do not need to disappear. But they do need to leave behind what keeps them anchored in an industrial logic that no longer corresponds to the historical moment we are living in.

What uncomfortable conversation about education and gender do you think we are still avoiding?

On a day like today, I believe the uncomfortable conversation we are still avoiding is something very basic: truly listening to today’s girls and adolescents.

Listening to them without projecting onto them the frameworks of previous generations. Without assuming we know what they need simply because we know what we needed.

But it also means listening to them in their diversity. Social, cultural, and family realities vary enormously. If we do not engage in a broad, cross-contextual listening process that includes different environments and experiences, we risk creating oversimplified diagnoses.

The context is dynamic and constantly changing. Social media, constant exposure, image culture, hyperconnectivity. All of this shapes experiences that are very different from those of previous generations.

If we do not understand those experiences from within, we may end up responding to today’s problems with yesterday’s answers. Everything begins with listening. Without listening, any discourse becomes superficial.

Get closer to the game! Whether you like your soccer of the European variety or that on this side of the pond, our AS USA app has it all. Dive into live coverage, expert insights, breaking news, exclusive videos, and more. Plus, stay updated on NFL, NBA and all other big sports stories as well as the latest in current affairs and entertainment. Download now for all-access coverage, right at your fingertips – anytime, anywhere.

And there’s more: check out our TikTok and Instagram reels for bite-sized visual takes on all the biggest soccer news and insights.