
Deer In Headlines
By Gery Deer
For decades, we have told ourselves a comforting story about education. If we standardize it, measure it, test it, rank it, and repeat it often enough, we will somehow produce better students and, by extension, better adults. It sounds reasonable. It feels orderly. It also happens to be deeply flawed.
If the system worked as advertised, we would be surrounded by confident graduates who understand their strengths, know how they learn, and are excited to apply their talents to the world. Instead, many students leave school disengaged, uncertain, and convinced they are “bad at learning,” when the real problem is that learning was never designed with them in mind.
Somewhere along the way, we stopped teaching the A, B, C’s and started teaching to a test. Those tests promise clarity and accountability, but their ability to predict a student’s future success is questionable at best. Believing a standardized exam can forecast a child’s career potential is like believing the tea leaves at the bottom of your cup can tell you who will win the next Super Bowl. The charts look official. The conclusions feel authoritative. The accuracy is another matter entirely.
What these measurements consistently ignore is the single most important factor in learning: individuality. Every student arrives with a unique mix of curiosity, aptitude, temperament, and interest. Some think spatially. Some think musically. Some learn best by doing, failing, and doing again. Others need time, reflection, and quiet focus. These differences are not inconveniences. They are early indicators of where a student might thrive.
This is why education models that emphasize science, technology, engineering, arts, and math point in the right direction. When done well, they recognize that creativity and logic coexist, that problem-solving is rarely linear, and that imagination is not the enemy of rigor. Hands-on experimentation, design challenges, and interdisciplinary projects allow students to see relevance in what they are learning, not just requirements.
Still, even these programs can fall into the same trap if they are forced into rigid pacing guides and uniform assessments. When curiosity is scheduled and creativity is graded into submission, engagement disappears. Students become compliant rather than curious, efficient rather than inventive.
Traditional public school systems were not designed around individual learning styles. They were built for efficiency and uniform outcomes. That made sense in an industrial era that valued standardization. It makes far less sense in a world that rewards adaptability, specialization, and original thinking. We continue asking students to sit still, move together, and absorb information the same way, then wonder why so many tune out.
There are alternatives, and they are no longer fringe ideas. Some learning environments emphasize individualized study plans that allow students to move at their own pace, diving deeper into subjects that capture their interest. Others use project-based education, where students learn math, science, communication, and critical thinking by solving real problems and building tangible outcomes. In these settings, a student’s natural curiosity is not a distraction; it is the engine.
Non-traditional environments often replace rows of desks with collaborative spaces, mentorship with lectures, and progress portfolios with letter grades. Students learn how to manage time, pursue questions, and reflect on their work. They fail safely, revise often, and understand why their learning matters. These experiences mirror the real world far more closely than memorization ever could.
The goal is not to eliminate traditional schools or abandon standards. The goal is to expand the definition of what school can be. Public education should adapt by offering flexible pathways alongside conventional ones, giving families and students real options instead of one-size-fits-all solutions.
When we stop forcing square kids into round desks and start honoring natural gifts, education becomes preparation instead of endurance. That shift does not weaken schools. It strengthens students. And that is the outcome worth measuring.
Adapting these options requires courage, policy support, and a willingness to trust educators and students alike. It means valuing progress over uniformity and recognizing that success can look different without being lesser. When schools evolve to meet students where they are, learning stops being something done to them and becomes something they actively claim as their own. That shift benefits communities, employers, families, and democracy itself long term.






advocacy summit, Deer In Headlines, Gery Deer, Gery L. Deer, healthcare advocacy, Jamestown, journalism commentary, Ohio, Only at this table, opinion column
Only at this table.
In Opinion, Uncategorized on March 6, 2026 at 11:20 pmDeer In Headlines
By Gery Deer
It was late evening at a hotel restaurant in Washington, D.C. Most of the restaurant crowd were either deep in their own discussions or had eyes glued to televisions broadcasting college basketball. And there we were. A handful of adults who were born with or a parent of someone with bladder exstrophy, all of us in town as patient advocates preparing to take on Congress.
We laughed and talked, as burgers, salads and something fried occupied most of the real estate between us. Someone had to move a basket of fries so we could make room for desserts and more drinks.
On the surface, we didn’t look so different from anyone else in the room. Just another group decompressing after a long day. But the conversation? That could have only happened there. Only at this table.
Bladder exstrophy is rare – very rare. So, when you’re born with a condition that requires extensive surgery – or surgeries – and lifelong management, there are very few who can relate. Explaining it often brings sighs of pity, confused expressions, and a host of questions.
At this table, there was none of that. We didn’t have to define the anatomy. We didn’t have to summarize childhood surgical histories or explain why insurance preauthorization feels less like paperwork and more like gladiator combat. We could start mid-story.
We compared hospital experiences the way other people compare hometowns. We talked about the benefits and challenges of living with something so unusual it was often hard to explain, even to those closest to us.
That shared experience can lead to its own sort of verbal shorthand. It strips away the introductory chapter and drops you straight into the middle of the book. And shared experiences from birth? There’s no need to tiptoe around things, perform bravery or package vulnerability in tidy language. You can be direct. You can be specific. You can be understood.
There was a moment — and I won’t detail it, because some conversations belong only to those who were present — when the tone softened. Someone shared a memory from adolescence, a time when feeling different felt especially sharp. No one rushed to fix it. No one offered a motivational poster response. Instead, there was safety in letting go, in the expression of feelings and thoughts that only others like us could understand.
It manifests as a shared laugh, or a look, or a nod. It’s not dramatic. It doesn’t require a spotlight. It’s a quiet acknowledgment that says, “Yeah, I know.”
Every community has a version of this table. Veterans find it with other veterans. Cancer survivors with survivors. Parents of children with complex needs with others who speak that language fluently. I experience it whenever I talk to those who have cared for elderly parents. Even journalists have our own version — around a busy lunch counter or late dinner table, arguing about headlines.
The table isn’t about exclusivity. It’s about the rare and deeply emotional relief of not having to translate your life for someone else, and timing matters.
We weren’t children navigating surgeries for the first time. We were adults who had built careers, relationships and resilience. We had come to Washington to advocate, to push for better systems. That context shaped the conversation.
We were recounting the past, but also connecting it to the future. Even more incredible to me was the fact that the congenital flaw that made us the objects of both fascination and ridicule as children was now quite literally our superpower. It was what brought us to Capitol Hill to help others – because we can.
When we finally stood up, games still flickering on the screens and the crowd still rumbling, I looked at that table and felt the weight of its ordinariness. It was just wood and silverware and a stack of dishes.
But for a couple of hours one evening, amid basketball fans and bar noise, it was something far more. It was a place where five people shared something unique to them – an understanding. No, it was more than that. It was something as rare as the condition that we shared, but as unique as each one of us. But only at this table.