There are two dominant ways people tend to see children.
One is the computer paradigm. In this view, a child is like a blank computer. Empty. Unfinished. Waiting for adults to install the right software. Reading, writing, math—all seen as programs that must be carefully downloaded. Without input, the child is considered useless, even broken. They need regulation, direction, correction. Every move they make is supervised to make sure they’re “on track.”
Then there’s the seed paradigm. In this one, a child is like a seed. Whole from the start. Everything they need is already inside. They don’t need to be programmed. They need sunlight, soil, protection, time. The right conditions—not the right commands. Growth happens from the inside out.
You can’t operate from both paradigms at once. They come from entirely different assumptions about what a child is and how they learn.
The first creates systems of control.
The second asks for trust.
So which one do you lean toward?
And maybe more importantly—who benefits from each?
These paradigms aren’t just abstract ideas. They shape how schools are built, how parents are trained, how kids are labeled. They impact how we talk to children, how we measure them, and how we judge their worth.
When you start to see it, you can’t unsee it.
You start to notice how often we assume kids can’t learn without us.
How deeply we believe they need to be fixed.
And how rarely we trust their natural unfolding.
There’s a cost to that way of thinking. And it’s not just theoretical. Kids feel it. Families feel it. We all do.
What would change if we treated kids like seeds instead of machines?
If this stirred something in you, I’d love to hear about it. Drop a comment or reply. Let’s keep questioning what we’ve been taught to accept.
– Moira