Deschooling Society (Illich): A Political (Anarchist) Perspective on Education

Have we confused the right to education with the obligation to be part of the school system?

Ivan Illich — an outsider priest and philosopher — throws at us a set of deeply unsettling questions. He does not simply criticize classroom practices. He questions the very legitimacy of the school system itself. Illich argues that the modern education system fundamentally distorts the nature of learning. He believes that schools act as factories that process students into obedient consumers rather than critical thinkers and empowered learners. He proposes dismantling schools in favor of "Learning Webs"—decentralized networks that connect people with resources and peers for self-directed learning.

Let’s be clear: Illich does not propose shutting down schools tomorrow. What he proposes is something more radical: stop believing that learning can only happen inside them. He challenges the idea that schools must occupy such a dominant, central, almost monopolistic role as the legitimate place where learning happens.

The "stated" curriculum (math, reading) is less impactful than the "hidden" curriculum—the structure of the school day itself. By sitting in rows, obeying bells, and asking for permission, students learn compliance, deference to authority, and conformity. Illich argues this environment suppresses critical thinking because it rewards those who do not "rock the boat". 

For Illich, the modern educational system rests on three dangerous confusions:

• Confusing teaching with learning

• Confusing a diploma with competence

• Confusing school services with real educational value

We can synthesize his thinking into three “myths” that deeply shape the way we understand school — and that challenge us directly as future educators.

Myth 1. Public schooling reduces social inequality.

According to Illich, the opposite often happens.

First, public money ends up financing school systems that benefit families who already have cultural and economic advantages, reducing their need to invest privately in their children’s education.

Second, schools may alienate poorer children by taking away valuable time from childhood and adolescence — time that could be invested in socially or economically meaningful activities — while simultaneously convincing them of their “cultural deficiency.” The knowledge and skills that schools privilege are typically those aligned with dominant social classes and the state.

Illich suggests that schools shape aspirations without transforming structural conditions. They encourage students to internalize standards of success they may never realistically access.

Myth 2. Instruction guarantees learning.

Schools tend to assume that delivering a curriculum — and assessing it — ensures the acquisition of knowledge and skills.

But most of what we learn in life does not come from formal instruction delivered by certified professionals. We learn by observing others, through informal conversations, through trial and error, through participation in real practices.

The problem, for Illich, is not only that school-based learning can be ineffective. It is that schools train us to believe that learning only counts when it follows institutional procedures. Other environments — communities, families, workplaces, peer networks — are devalued as legitimate learning spaces.

Myth 3. Education must be in the hands of certified professionals.

Just as clergy traditionally monopolized religious services, Illich argues that credentialed teachers have come to monopolize educational services.

Once someone is certified as a teacher, they gain institutional legitimacy to teach. But many other people — craftspeople, neighbors, family members, peers — may have the ability to help others develop knowledge and skills, even if they lack formal credentials.

The issue is not whether teachers are valuable. The issue is whether teaching should be institutionally monopolized. The critiques what he call: "The Professionalization of Knowledge": the reliance on credentials and licenses. He argues that by restricting knowledge to "certified experts" (like doctors or licensed teachers), society disempowers individuals, making them dependent on professionals for things they could learn to do themselves or with peers. This creates a monopoly on knowledge and devalues practical experience

Does Illich only criticize — or does he propose alternatives?

Illich does not develop a fully detailed blueprint for a new system, but he does sketch possible directions for more emancipatory educational organization.

Among them:

Educational vouchers (or “learning passports”)

Families would receive public funds — in the form of vouchers or credits — and could choose how to invest them in educational services that best respond to their needs and interests.

Learning webs

Self-organized networks where people connect to learn from one another or from individuals they consider capable of helping them develop specific skills — regardless of age, curriculum, or institutional affiliation.

This decentralized system could have, at least, four components:

• Reference Services to Educational Objects: Access to tools, libraries, and labs for everyone.
• Skill Exchanges: A database to connect those who have a skill with those who want to learn it.
• Peer Matching: Finding partners who want to study the same topic.
• Reference Services to Educators: A directory of professionals (pedagogues or elders) who can facilitate learning, without having the power to certify or grade

Are there real examples today?

It is difficult to find schools that fully embrace Illich’s anarchist perspective. After all, doing so would imply questioning their own institutional existence.

However, some educational projects incorporate more libertarian learning dynamics.

In Madrid, for example, the Trabenco school in Leganés has promoted participatory pedagogies centered on family involvement and non-conventional learning approaches.

A more radical example — closer to Illich’s vision — is the “Expanded School” initiative by the collective Zemos98. In 2009, they “hacked” a secondary school in a socially complex neighborhood of Seville for one week, transforming it into a knowledge exchange space. First, students exchanged knowledge among themselves. Then the neighborhood joined in: market vendors, taxi drivers, local residents shared their expertise with the school community. Learning flowed beyond institutional boundaries.

"Expanded School" A Documentary produced by Zemos98 

It did not abolish school. But it expanded it.

Illich’s perspective may feel uncomfortable. It destabilizes our professional identity as future educators. But perhaps that discomfort is precisely the point.

If we take him seriously, the question is not whether schools should exist — but whether we are brave enough to imagine education beyond their monopoly.