forward focused, educators find themselves responding to the push and pull of current constraints and the desire for a better system. For example, traditional accountability measures emphasize effects, not causes, of the heroic work of teachers and administrators (Reeves & DuFour, 2018). This is a push. At the same time, teachers and administrators know it’s possible for reading scores to improve with a thoughtful multidisciplinary approach to literacy that stimulates lifelong learning. This is a pull. Being aware of the competing forces that contribute to our own values will enable us to act as intentional change agents.
Educators are working harder and longer, and producing more than ever before, leading to important questions and choices. But how can we ensure our instruction takes into account economic drivers, social progress indicators, and the overall well-being of students? What should students be learning in the age of robotics, artificial intelligence, and hyperconnectivity? Should we situate the goals of education at the classroom level, the district level, the state level, the national level, or somewhere in between?
The Center for Curriculum Redesign (Fadel et al., 2015) has laid out the ideal case for future-focused teaching and learning through its four-dimensional model of education (see figure 1.1, page 14). The first dimension—knowledge—includes traditional subjects like mathematics, reading, and language arts, along with interdisciplinary themes such as STEAM, career and technical education (CTE), global literacy, and entrepreneurialism. The second dimension represents skills, including the four Cs—creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. The third dimension is character. Character comprises interpersonal dispositions like mindfulness, curiosity, courage, resilience, ethics, and leadership. The fourth dimension lies outside the overlapping circles, yet remains inside the sphere of education’s purpose. Referred to as meta-learning, this outer dimension represents the process by which learners become aware of and in control of the habits, perceptions, questions, and growth that propel their own learning. All four dimensions interconnect to establish a framework that takes into account trends, challenges, and future predictions. It also ensures the students we turn loose into the world are the complete package.
Source: Fadel et al., 2015, p. 32. Used with permission.
Figure 1.1: Four-dimensional model of education.
As the world becomes more interconnected, our efforts must reflect a broader purpose. These efforts can no longer be driven by an either/or proposition (my students are either college bound or they’re not; I’m either an academic counselor or a social emotional counselor; I either implement the curriculum with fidelity or ad-lib as I go). The four touchstones in this book provide a framework to incorporate the four dimensions of education into future-ready teaching and learning. By challenging conventional mindsets and structures that hold some learners back, we can refine our curriculum so that every student has the chance to thrive in a global economy.
Constructive Rebellion Against Conformity
Throughout our lives, society pushes us to conform (Gino, 2016). We expect and teach conformity starting in preschool, initially under the guise of safety. In the elementary grades, teachers prompt students to listen, walk quietly down the halls, and follow all the rules. Middle and high schools impose order via a litany of policies and consequences that ensure compliance and teach social convention about public behavior. By the time students enter the workplace, conformity has been so engrained they have no choice but to embrace it.
Rules exist as a means to protect people from the damage others inflict. But the problem with conformity in education is that children aren’t born standardized (Robinson, 2015). This leads one to wonder how strict a school really has to be. How many constraints should schools impose on faculty, who are supposed to let creativity flow? And what about the prevailing wisdom that guides administrators to establish processes that follow organizational norms? If students are to advance society and develop products, ventures, and technologies that help everyone, then our system of education has to be less stifling. This includes more deliberate pushback against the conformity creep that consciously or unconsciously permeates a work culture.
As school and district teams strengthen their work together, constructive rebellion should be part of the equation. Constructive rebellion encourages people to deviate from the status quo. It gives team members permission to become rebels with the right cause. Nonconformists aren’t anarchists. Rather, they’re practical change agents who want to cut through red tape to bring better practices to bear (Gino, 2016).
Table 1.1 illustrates the distinctions between constructive and destructive rebellion. Strategies to foster constructive rebellion in schools include defining what teachers need to do, rather than how they do it; asking for proof; insisting team members (not the principal) come up with solutions; and supporting experimentation. When schools allow (and encourage) team members to express their authentic selves at work, they become more committed to the organization and its purpose.
Table 1.1: Constructive Versus Destructive Rebellion
| Constructive Rebels | Destructive Rebels |
| Create | Complain |
| Ask questions | Make assertions |
| Display optimism | Display pessimism |
| Generate energy | Zap energy |
| Pinpoint causes | Point fingers |
| Focus on the mission | Focus on themselves |
| Attract | Alienate |
| Show passion | Show anger |
Source: Adapted from Kelly & Medina, 2015, p. 2.
Decades’ worth of psychological research has shown that we feel accepted and believe that our views are more credible when our colleagues share them. But although conformity may make us feel good, it doesn’t let us reap the benefits of authenticity.
—Francesca Gino, professor and researcher, Harvard University (Gino, 2016, p. 6)
Many educators find it hard to resist pressure from colleagues and are reluctant to say uncomfortable things. But, without the insight and perspective to know when to push back, teachers and administrators will struggle to remain relevant. Companies like BlackBerry, Polaroid, and MySpace once had winning formulas too (Gino, 2016). We saw what happened when these movers and shakers failed to update their strategies until it was too late. Schools are no different. Rethinking the purpose of education gives us a reason to stay engaged.
Educators talk a lot, but what are we actually saying? Without challenging existing practices by asking “why” and “what if” questions, it’s hard to change mindsets or create energy around getting better. Blending conformity with nonconformity requires a delicate balance. On the one hand, we don’t want a lack of conformity to send the message that doing our own thing or working in isolation is good for students. On the other hand, rigid and inflexible practices limit our ability to come up with new ideas and achieve shared goals. Everyone needs variety and challenge in their jobs to perform well; without it, we switch to autopilot. Constructive rebellion is a way to shake things up in schools without finger pointing, complaining, or alienating peers.
Conclusion: There Is No Limit for Better
Education for employment calls upon schools to move away from century-old routines to cultivate the vast diversity of young people’s talents and aspirations. Educators must give equal weight to the vital skills and habits that will close the widening gap between what’s being taught in schools and what
