Does Technology Really Erase Gatekeeping in Learning? What a Piano Lesson Taught Me
The gate was me. That sounds dramatic for a Tuesday in the kitchen, but I meant it as both a parent and a teacher: when my daughter Evie wanted to learn the theme song from her favorite video game, I listened to the first few bars and told her it was too hard. She was nine. She’d been taking piano for about a year. That song had quick left-hand leaps and a syncopated rhythm. I wasn’t being strict. I was being accurate. I thought she needed another six months of basics before she could attempt it.
Three weeks later, she played it for me—roughly but unmistakably, all sixteen bars. She’d found a YouTube tutorial that slowed the right-hand part to twenty percent speed and broke the left hand into two-note chunks. Nobody tested her. Nobody told her it was too hard. Nobody made her play a scale first. She clicked, she watched, she rewound, she practiced the chunks, and she put them together.
I stood in the doorway not sure whether to feel proud or obsolete.
This is what removing a gatekeeper looks like. It doesn’t happen gradually. One day, the only way to learn a song was to ask someone who could already play it—a parent, a teacher, someone who had the sheet music or the patience to write out a simplified version. The adult decided what was achievable. We were the gate, and we did our job.
Now the gate is mostly gone in an informational sense. Evie can access the entire history of piano tutorials, calculus lectures, pottery techniques, ancient history lessons, coding tutorials—anything. In my middle school English classroom, if a student wants to know why a poem uses enjambment, they can find a video essay explaining it before the bell rings. If they want to learn data science after school, they can enroll in a free online course. The barrier of access is nearly nonexistent. The adult is no longer the one who hands out the knowledge.
And yet, standing in that doorway, I realized something: the gatekeeping didn’t disappear. It had moved.
That sounds like a buzzword moment, but it’s just observation. My daughter learned the song, yes. But she skipped a step. The tutorial didn’t require her to understand time signatures. She watched the right-hand part play slowly, copied it by rote, and then dropped the rhythm when it got too intricate. She learned the first eight bars perfectly and hacked the rest. When I asked her if the tutorial taught her why the song felt so urgent, she shrugged and said, “I skip that part. It’s boring.”
The barrier to learning was gone. But the thing that came afterward—the judgment about whether she was actually learning it or just copying it—was still there. It just wasn’t mine anymore. It belonged to the algorithm that autoplayed one video after another. It belonged to the sixteen-year-old YouTuber with a nicely edited thumbnail. It belonged to a quieter kind of gatekeeping that we don’t talk about enough: the idea that a thing worth learning is only worth learning until it stops being instantly interesting.
Over the next few weeks, I watched this play out in class. We were reading a chapter that mentioned the Black Death. A student popped his head out of the aisle, not to raise his hand, but to show me a map on his phone. “You know, I just looked it up—it wasn’t cholera.” Not a question with an easy answer. He didn’t say, “Am I allowed to look this up?” He just did it.
I’ve been teaching for twelve years. I remember when the question was the gateway: a student raises a hand, I have the answer, I give it, they write it down. That’s a beautiful system for control and a terrible system for curiosity. The loss of that gate is not something I mourn. It’s something I live with. I also live with a new responsibility: teaching students what to do with the freedom.
Consider what happened when that student found the map. He felt successful. He briefly believed he’d solved the problem. But when I asked him why the plague spread differently in towns versus the countryside, he had nothing. He had retrieved information, not built understanding. He had accessed the thing, but he had not learned the thing. Technology removed the gate, but it did not remove the difference between needing to know something and wanting to understand something.
What can a parent or teacher actually do with this? I’m not about to lock the piano book back in a drawer. But I’ve made small adjustments.
For Evie, I started saying, “Of course we can try that song—here’s what we’ll need to figure out first,” instead of “It’s too hard for you.” That shifted my role from gatekeeper to scaffold. We watched one of her tutorials together once, and I showed her where the “boring” part was—the bit where the teacher explained counting the rhythm—and I said, “You can skip it, but if you skip it, you’re going to hit a wall at the part you liked.” She didn’t skip it the second time. That’s not a triumph; it’s a tiny lesson in metacognition, repeated daily.
At school, I began explicitly teaching kids what to do when they hit a gap. We keep a running list of searchable questions that come up in our reading—students write things like “what was a lady’s maid?” and “why did grain prices spike?”—and then they hunt for answers, but they must come back and explain in one sentence why that answer matters to the text. Context becomes the gate. I don’t hold it; I keep it.
If I’m honest about these past few weeks, I’m not completely comfortable yet. Some of my students think they know things because they can find them in eight seconds. I think they’re confusing the end of a search with the beginning of understanding. Some will skate by on borrowed knowledge, and not all of them will be helped by lessons about context. I don’t know if this is a new generation of learners being smarter or a new generation being more lost.
With Evie, the song still gets played too fast, full of small inaccuracies. She asks me to listen again, and I do. I notice the rhythm is off, but I don’t correct it right away. I ask her how she learned it, which parts were hard, whether there was an easier way. She shrugs. She plays it again. She’s proud. I’m still figuring out what my job is now that the gate is gone.
I suspect the answer will keep changing, probably for the rest of her childhood. I’m not entirely sorry about that. I just wish the tutorials came with enough footnotes to teach her that some things are worth going slow—not because a gatekeeper said so, but because she’ll feel the difference in her own playing. The gate that remains is the one that separates knowing where something is from knowing how to love it. That sounds almost like a lesson I would have written on a chalkboard. I’ll leave it alone for now.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Does Technology Really Erase Gatekeeping in Learning