The Great Debate in K-12 Education: Cooks vs. Chefs
The great debate in K-12 education today is often framed as a clash between two philosophies: the "cooks," who champion traditional, structured learning, and the "chefs," who advocate for inquiry-driven, creative exploration. This analogy is drawn from Tim Urban’s distinction between cooks (those who follow proven recipes) and chefs (those who invent them). It captures the tension between explicit instruction and project-based, student-centered approaches.
Tim Urban explains the difference between a chef and a cook in his post for the blog Wait But Why:
The words “cook” and “chef” seem kind of like synonyms. And in the real world, they’re often used interchangeably. But in this post, when I say chef, I don’t mean any ordinary chef. I mean the trailblazing chef—the kind of chef who invents recipes. And for our purposes, everyone else who enters a kitchen—all those who follow recipes—is a cook.
Everything you eat—every part of every cuisine we know so well—was at some point in the past created for the first time. Wheat, tomatoes, salt, and milk go back a long time, but at some point, someone said, “What if I take those ingredients and do this…and this…..and this……” and ended up with the world’s first pizza. That’s the work of a chef.
Since then, god knows how many people have made a pizza. That’s the work of a cook.
The chef reasons from first principles, and for the chef, the first principles are raw edible ingredients. Those are her puzzle pieces, her building blocks, and she works her way upwards from there, using her experience, her instincts, and her taste buds.
The cook works off of some version of what’s already out there—a recipe of some kind, a meal she tried and liked, a dish she watched someone else make.
What all of these cooks have in common is their starting point is something that already exists. Even the innovative cook is still making an iteration of a burger, a pizza, and a cake.
At the very end of the spectrum, you have the chef. A chef might make good food or terrible food, but whatever she makes, it’s a result of her own reasoning process, from the selection of raw ingredients at the bottom to the finished dish at the top.
A cook is then considered a follower. They can even be a creative follower, but they’ll never create from their own understanding, but instead always build on what others have done. They are often doing old things in new ways.
Chefs, on the other hand, are experimenting and doing new things in new ways. They are building and experimenting and often failing.
Are we encouraging students to experiment like a chef? Are we supporting them when their efforts turn into “terrible” food? Do we only praise students for cook-like efforts?
From Tim Urban’s WaitButWhy.com
The Cooks: Structure, Standards, and Certainty
The "cooks" side emphasizes:
Traditional curriculum with clear, sequenced content
Explicit instruction, direct teaching, and modeling
Grades, standardized tests, and measurable outcomes
Supporters argue this approach provides a strong foundation, ensures learning by guaranteeing all students access to essential knowledge, and prepares students for external benchmarks like college admissions and standardized assessments. Research does show that explicit instruction is especially effective for foundational skills, particularly in early literacy and mathematics, and can help close achievement gaps.
The Chefs: Creativity, Inquiry, and Innovation
The "chefs" favor:
Inquiry-based learning, where students investigate and construct knowledge
Project-based and experiential learning, often connected to real-world contexts
Authentic assessments and community engagement
Proponents believe this model fosters creativity, critical thinking, and adaptability. Each of these skills are increasingly vital in a rapidly changing, AI-driven world. They cite research showing that project-based learning can boost engagement, deepen understanding, and help students transfer skills to new situations.
The Research: Both Sides Have Merit
Both camps cite research to support their stance. Explicit instruction is well-supported for building core skills and knowledge, especially for students who might struggle without clear guidance. However, inquiry and project-based learning are linked to higher-order thinking, motivation, and the ability to tackle complex, novel problems. All of these outcomes are highly valued in today’s economy and society.
A False Dichotomy? The Need for a Middle Ground
I admit, framing the debate as cooks vs. chefs is oversimplifying the challenge. I’ve personally done this, and missed the mark on trying to make it so simple to understand. Most educators want students to be creative problem-solvers, not just passive recipients of information. Yet, in practice, schools often default to the safety of the "cook" model, rewarding compliance and rote learning at the expense of risk-taking and innovation.
The reality is that students need both foundational knowledge and skills, as well as opportunities for creativity and innovation.
Foundational knowledge and skills (the domain of the cook) give students something to build on and transfer to real world situations and more academic pursuits.
Opportunities for creativity, exploration, and failure (the domain of the chef) help students develop resilience, adaptability, and genuine expertise.
Both are needed now more than ever.
A New Recipe for Today’s World
In a world of constant distraction and rapidly evolving technology. Where AI can answer factual questions instantly (and do more than that). Now the value of education increasingly lies in what students can do with knowledge, not just what they know.
What if we started blending explicit instruction with inquiry and project-based learning, using each where it fits best?
What if we spent more time teaching students how to learn, not just what to learn?
What if we focused on creating space for experimentation, iteration, and even failure, so students develop the confidence and skills to invent, not just imitate?
Practical Steps Toward Balance
Start with explicit instruction for new concepts, then gradually release responsibility to students for deeper exploration. I explore this concept more in this article.
Incorporate real-world projects that require students to apply foundational knowledge in new contexts. This is the entire focus of my article here.
Assess both process and product, valuing creativity, collaboration, and problem-solving alongside mastery of content. Here are seven ways to do that right now.
Cultivate a culture of inquiry by encouraging "Why?" questions, even when they challenge established routines. Exactly what I dive into in Meaningful and Relevant: Engaging Learners In An Era of Distraction.
Raising Chefs Who Know How to Cook
The future belongs to those who can both follow a recipe and invent a new one. Our challenge as educators and parents is to raise students who are grounded in foundational skills but empowered to question, create, and lead. In today’s world, we need learners who can be both cooks and chefs, who know the rules, but also when and how to break them. As I said years ago in our book EMPOWER:
"The problem is that the magic formula doesn’t work anymore, and I’m not sure it ever did... Ultimately we have to ask ourselves... what is the purpose for almost 15,000 hours of instruction and learning time in a school setting from K-12? Do we want to continue producing students who believe their life will be set as a cook? Or who want to live life like as a chef..."
The answer, perhaps, is to help every student become a chef who knows how to cook. To become a creator who understands the fundamentals, but is never afraid to ask, "What if we tried it this way?"