Читать книгу Ready for Anything - Suzette Lovely - Страница 10

CHAPTER 1

Rethinking Education

In a world of change, the learners shall inherit the earth, while the learned shall find themselves perfectly suited for a world that no longer exists.

—Eric Hoffer, American philosopher

A common narrative surrounding K–12 education goes something like this: when children reach age five, they’re ready to enter the system. Elementary teachers teach them to read, write, compute, and listen to prepare them for the next level.

In middle school, there’s no more recess or crying over spilled milk. The test score slump that often occurs between fifth and sixth grades leaves little time for slacking off. An ever-changing bell schedule integrates core subjects, electives, and advisement. Signs around campus implore students to work hard, behave, and remember that high school is just around the corner. Despite racing emotions, teachers do their best to keep these preteens focused.

Once in high school, it’s full steam ahead. Students hear from a young age that studying hard and getting good grades are their golden tickets to a bright future. If students are put in the right classes with the right teachers, they’ll do well. If they graduate with honors, they’ll be accepted to the best universities. Once students finish college, a well-paying job awaits. Not only does society prosper, students’ quality of life soars too.

Less capable learners land in average or low-level courses where they can meet graduation requirements without a lot of fuss. Some fall behind and transfer to the continuation high school. Others drop out. For those who do graduate, many go directly from high school into lower-paying jobs. Others pursue technical degrees that provide access to higher-skilled occupations.

The story many members of the public believe about education assumes the current system is sound. After all, the majority of us succeeded in this very system and are doing well today. For students who don’t do well, we assume we simply need to raise the standards, increase accountability, or provide more resources. However, this false narrative can be deceptive. In theory, education is supposed to pave the path to every youth’s future. But, Sir Ken Robinson (2015) has called this a “dangerous myth” that ignores

the alarming rates of nongraduation from schools and colleges, the levels of stress and depression … among students and their teachers, the falling value of a university degree, the rocketing costs of getting one, and the rising levels of unemployment among graduates and nongraduates alike. (p. xxii)

This inaccurate line of thought can also undermine many well-intentioned reforms that set out to improve the system.

Our job, as educators and administrators, is to provide a sense of perspective and context for the way we prepare students. Simply hoping change won’t happen or tying our wagons to outdated practices won’t cut it. The K–12 education system is of this world, not separate from it (Marx, 2014). Every institution in society is facing a reset. No one, not even our most beloved teachers and administrators, gets a free pass on this journey of rethinking the purpose of education.

This chapter lays the foundation for this book by discussing the shifting paradigm of schooling in a world that is experiencing technological, social, and economic changes at record pace. It makes the case for elevating students beyond average as we prepare them to enter an “any-collar” workforce. It will then delve into the characteristics required for future-ready teaching and learning, including the need for constructive rebellion against conformity. The chapter concludes with Points to Ponder and Rapid-Fire Ideas to get your team started on its journey to reimagine education in a world where learning is available anytime, anywhere, and at any speed.

The Changing Paradigm of Schooling

According to the PDK Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, Americans overwhelmingly want schools to do more than educate students in the core subjects (Phi Delta Kappan, 2017). In fact, when judging school quality, the public gives more weight to students’ job preparation and interpersonal development than to test scores. While they still value traditional preparation, the vast majority of Americans (82 percent) wants to see career-related course offerings, even if it means students will spend less time in academic classes. And 86 percent believe the schools in their community should offer certificate programs that qualify students for employment in a field that doesn’t call for a four-year degree (Phi Delta Kappan, 2017).

If we want students to be prepared for whatever awaits them, our paradigm of schooling must change. One important change should be to the unrestrained focus on college entrance requirements. Algebra serves as a perfect case in point. Despite only 5 percent of entry-level jobs in the U.S. calling for proficiency in algebra, passing algebra remains a high school graduation requirement in most states (Rubin, 2016). If students want to work for NASA, they should be proficient mathematicians. But plumbers, playwrights, and pediatricians need other key competencies. Making algebra a mandatory graduation requirement overemphasizes a skill that’s not vital for the majority of the workforce. Even worse, it widens the opportunity gap for thousands of students who can’t pass algebra and subsequently leave high school without a diploma.

Another K–12 paradigm that calls for rethinking is the “college for all” philosophy that has come to dominate American culture (Fleming, 2016). Across the nation, we find policies and practices that encourage students to pursue a four-year degree over any other path. Meanwhile, student loan debt has closed in on $1.6 trillion, representing the second-highest consumer debt in America behind home mortgages (Goldy-Brown, 2019).

With 66 percent of students enrolling in a four-year university directly out of high school, young people are pursuing their dreams of higher earnings. However, many are discovering the job market and their subsequent earning power aren’t commensurate with the degrees they hold. Middle skills jobs, which require education beyond high school but less than a four-year degree, actually make up the largest part of the labor market in all fifty states (Fleming, 2016). Not only are these jobs in high demand, they offer good salaries and income mobility. Nonetheless, employees are struggling to find enough trained workers in occupations like law enfforcement, energy operations, aviation, and the construction and manufacturing trades. Unfortunately, educators, parents, state and federal policymakers, and the media perpetuate this misalignment by encouraging students to attend any university and major in anything under the pretext that there’s only one way to achieve job security, social mobility, and financial prosperity (Fleming, 2016).

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FIELD

As students, we have no say on what we learn or how we learn it. Yet, we’re expected to absorb it all, take it all in, and be able to run the world someday. We’re expected to raise our hands to use the restroom, then three months later be ready to go to college or have a full-time job, support ourselves, and live on our own. It’s not logical.

—Kate Simonds (2015), age 17, TEDx video “I’m 17”

In classrooms today it is evident that some practices have shifted on the surface, although the basic foundation of industrial-era schooling remains in place. Teachers now list assignments on a whiteboard instead of a chalkboard; they share content via document cameras instead of overhead projectors; they arrange desks in table groupings instead of rows. Chromebooks are now present and available for student use, but sit on carts waiting to be checked out. While instructional methods include “talk and turns,” group activities, and looking up information on the internet, most academic work remains teacher directed. Unless schools serve current students differently than they served previous generations, students will be confined to learning things because they have to, not because they want to or can.

Vital Skills for a Changing Economy

Social media manager, app designer, offshore wind farmer, and drone photographer are all jobs that didn’t exist prior to 2010. Today, these occupations are on the rise. Since job requirements change on a dime, the skills students need to secure a job aren’t necessarily the same skills they’ll need to keep that job. As such, employers are calling on schools to equip learners with skills and dispositions that can transfer to any line of work.

While a variety of frameworks describe the 21st century skills vital for success, seven themes stand out: (1) collaboration and teamwork; (2) creativity and imagination; (3) agility and adaptability; (4) critical thinking and problem solving; (5) initiative and entrepreneurialism; (6) oral and written communication; and (7) leadership and civic responsibility (Hanover Research, 2011; Wagner, 2008). Employers say the lessons students need for their future are less about reading, writing, and arithmetic, and more about influencing others, figuring things out, and engaging with people across time zones (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011). Additionally, these same employers expect new hires to be “creative creators or creative servers”—people who can refine and reinvent tasks as needed (p. 88). It’s hard to imagine how a student trained in passive listening can learn to create, collaborate, or think deeply about issues.

Regardless of how we define the vital skills for the 21st century, the 22nd century will be here before we know it. Although general cognitive ability is important, other attributes have moved to the head of the class in the employment arena. Let’s consider the hiring practices at Google. Receiving nearly three million job applications each year, Google is twenty-five times more selective than Harvard, Princeton, or Yale (Bock, 2015). However, in 2010, after an in-depth analysis of the company’s hiring data, Google ended its practice of using grades, transcripts, and college degrees as screening tools. In an interview with the New York Times, then–vice president of people operations Laszlo Bock called academic performance indicators worthless criteria for predicting future job performance (Bryant, 2013). Google finds the best among millions by looking at leadership ability, knowledge of the role, and “Googleyness.” Some might confuse Googleyness with culture fit; however, the company is strongly against hiring people who sound and act like everyone else. They want people who are offbeat, willing to challenge the status quo, and bring new perspectives to their team. Interview questions like Tell us what could go wrong in this situation or If you wanted to bring your dog to work but one of your team members was allergic to dogs, what would you do? help hiring managers determine if a candidate has the mindset to become a “Googler.” Academic excellence is just that—academic (Bock, 2015).

Present-day academic curricula assume that students will naturally develop the skills and dispositions employers seek as they matriculate through the school system. But nothing could be further from the truth. Knowledge remains inert unless it’s activated with deliberate, purposeful experiences. As educators, though we may not be able to dictate statewide or national curricula, we can still identify which parts of the curriculum are best suited to develop the essential dispositions to ensure these attributes receive the time and attention they deserve. Intentional, integrated professional development helps teachers recognize how to activate these skills inside and outside the classroom. There’s no reason teaching and learning have to be so isolated.

A Farewell to Average

Every segment of society is changing quickly. A major driver of this change is the free, always-open internet. New ideas zip across the planet at warp speed, creating an international network of connectedness. Back in 1874, Alexander Graham Bell invented the first telephone. It took seventy-five years for the telephone to reach fifty million users, the coveted mark of a technological revolution (Interactive Schools, 2018). Comparing this with the acceleration of other new technology reveals a trend. The radio reached the fifty million user mark in thirty-eight years. The television—which was initially deemed too expensive to become a popular consumer product—made it into fifty million households in thirteen years (Interactive Schools, 2018). The internet hit fifty million users in four years. Twitter took a mere nine months (Interactive Schools, 2018). Additionally, innovation is no longer confined to think tanks in the Silicon Valley. Twelve-year-olds now write code, build mobile apps, and start their own businesses.

As technology advances, the education necessary to utilize it grows too. In essence, education and technology are in a bit of a race (Fadel, Bialik, & Trilling, 2015). Moreover, the notion of education for employment has moved away from routine, impersonal tasks toward more creative, complex tasks that only humans can perform. It no longer matters if a good idea comes from the top floor, shop floor, or someone’s garage. In That Used to Be Us, Pulitzer Prize–winning author Thomas Friedman and coauthor Michael Mandelbaum (2011) explain:

In this hyper-connected world, there is increasingly no “here” and no “there,” there is no “in” and no “out,” there is only “good,” “better,” and “best,” and managers and entrepreneurs everywhere now have greater access than ever to the better and best people, robots, and software everywhere. This makes it more vital than ever that we have schools elevating and inspiring more of our young people into those “better” and “best” categories, because even “good” might not cut it anymore and “average” is definitely over. (p. 106)

Experts say there’s never been a worse time for people with “ordinary” skills to be looking for work (Tucker, 2017). This is because computers and automated systems perform “ordinary” tasks at extraordinary speed. The ability to learn new things, adapt to changing environments, and do imaginative work is the gold standard for high-demand, high-wage employment. While smart may get an applicant in the door, it won’t move him or her past the lobby (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011). Students need a sound academic foundation coupled with an ability to see beyond the obvious to recognize emerging trends and patterns, no matter what field or passion they may decide to pursue.

The Any-Collar Workforce

Despite huge employment shifts in the later part of the 20th century, claims that all of America’s blue-collar jobs have gone to Mexico or that the majority of white-collar work is being outsourced to India are simply untrue (Paquette, 2017). Also untrue are stories that it’s only a matter of time before U.S. workers are replaced by robots. While organizations are increasingly using technology to automate existing processes, the majority is upgrading structures to maximize the value of both humans and machines (Agarwal, Bersin, Lahiri, Schwartz, & Volini, 2018). The goal is to complement what people do, not replace them.

As we think about preparing students for the workforce of tomorrow, we need to consider the skills and dispositions that will guarantee a symbiotic relationship among employees, machines, and consumers. Today’s workforce is a dynamic ecosystem, where employee-employer relationships are redefined in a variegated labor market (Agarwal et al., 2018). So, let’s take a look at the changing skills and dispositions needed for the white-collar, blue-collar, camouflage-collar, and no-collar occupations of the future.

White-Collar Workers

Our doctors, lawyers, engineers, pilots, programmers, bankers, and teachers must be nimble and flexible. In these fields, thinking and learning are constant since information changes so quickly. Rather than spending time looking for more efficient ways to do old work, employers ask their white-collar workers to innovate and invent entirely new ways to do the work (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011).

Kaiser, the largest health care system in the U.S., is one of many companies leading the way in reimagining white-collar work. Its coordinated, connected, and convenient patient care model allows people to see their doctor, get an X-ray, have blood drawn, and pick up a prescription all in the same building (Levine, 2017).

When Kaiser opens its first school of medicine in 2020, students will see patients and interact with families in their very first year. One of only a handful of medical schools in America not connected to a university, the California-based provider has also decided to waive tuition for every student in its first five graduating classes. Using a case-based curriculum, medical students will be assigned to study groups and teams of specialists, primary care doctors, nurses, and therapists. In these “integrated clerkships” there is no separation of science and application as students learn it, see it, and practice doing it. Kaiser’s goal is to ensure physicians-in-the-making become aggressive champions for their patients in every field of medicine—no matter where they make their careers (Goodnough, 2019).

Blue-Collar Workers

Our machinists, mechanics, production line workers, farmers, miners, and transportation workers must possess a clear understanding of how their jobs add value wherever they are in the company chain. A sense of presence and expertise in human interaction is necessary for blue-collar workers to share their ideas for making a product better. In the latter part of the 20th century, workers in these trades generally performed manual tasks that called for limited knowledge or critical thinking. Today’s blue-collar workers, however, are expected to function more like “technical careerists” than cogs on an assembly line where conveyer belts dictate the momentum (Wilke, 2019, p. 3).

One company that has managed to transform its production model is American conglomerate DuPont. Founded in 1802 as a gunpowder mill, DuPont is one of the most sustained industries in the world. With a vast portfolio of products including Nylon, Teflon, Mylar, Lycra, and Kevlar, the company has revamped its employee development programs to reflect changing needs (Ponzo, 2013). In the past, employees learned a set of tasks and repeated those tasks over and over again. Today, engineers and line operators work side by side to solve problems, improve production time, and make decisions together. Systemwide operations software allows employees at any plant to suggest ways to enhance equipment, boost manufacturing processes, and improve technology. The idea is for every employee to add value, no matter where they fall in the company chain. DuPont’s determination to address the blue-collar image gap is reflected in the time leaders spend creating an environment where everyone brings their best thinking to work (Ponzo, 2013).

Camouflage-Collar Workers

Engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other remote parts of the world have required new training for our military. During the 20th century, the primary mission of the U.S. armed forces was to deter aggression and re-establish order in a particular region. However, the threats America faces today are decentralized, networked, and syndicated (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011). The enemy is no longer a specific country. Instead, some of the greatest hostility comes from loosely-coupled ideologies spread across continents. To that end, our camouflage-collars need a wide range of capabilities, including the ability to adapt to the ever-changing technology that opponents use.

Students who join the military will need to visualize, understand, and decide without necessarily waiting for base commanders to convey every order. In many situations, officers and enlisted personnel respond to unpredictable encounters as they unfold. Every branch of the service is seeking people who understand the complex nature of the environments in which they work along with the courage to offer respectful and candid feedback to superiors (Erdmann, 2013).

Another distinction for the camouflage-collar workforce is the expanding role troops now play in post-conflict stabilization campaigns. Described as soft power tasks, deployed personnel—including our National Guard and reservists—need a different skill set to win a war than they need to keep the peace. Reflections on post-conflict operations in Haiti, Somalia, and the Middle East have placed greater emphasis on cultural and political awareness. Military-backed reconstruction efforts require strong interagency collaboration, cohesion in setting priorities, sophisticated leadership, and a well-coordinated ground game (Chong, 2015).

No-Collar Workers

No-collar workers can do anything anyone wants, anytime, anywhere, at any pace. Speechwriters, software developers, web designers, marketing specialists, and Uber drivers build networks through experience, contacts, and a personal brand. They’re able to start work at midnight, noon, or after dropping the kids at school. In the United States, 40 percent of the workforce is currently employed in “alternative work arrangements” (Agarwal et al., 2018). Globally this number has surpassed 77 million, with collective earnings exceeding one trillion dollars (Pofeldt, 2016). Many CEOs tell their teams, “I don’t care where the work gets done or who does it, just get it done.”

An ever-evolving job market makes it hard to gauge what type of workers will be necessary twenty years from now or how to strategically manage these workers. Moreover, students are entering an economy where temporary and short-term engagements have become the norm (Agarwal et al., 2018). As a general rule, education for employment must move away from routine, impersonal tasks to more personal, creative tasks that only people can do well. For graduates to function well in this “any collar” environment, they’ll need more than glowing test scores and impressive GPAs. No matter what industry or profession students pursue, our responsibility as educators is to ensure they’re ready.

Future-Ready Teaching and Learning

Effective 21st century teaching and learning must reflect what’s happening technologically, socially, economically, and globally. When education lags behind other advancements, students are unprepared for the world ahead. Additionally, inequality grows among the population, as the “haves” secure better employment opportunities while the “have-nots” hold little hope of improving their status or circumstances. As a result, both individuals and society suffer in the form of unemployment, underemployment, income gaps, personal stress, and social unrest (Fadel et al., 2015).

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FIELD

“We can’t educate today’s students for tomorrow’s world with yesterday’s schools.”

—Damian LaCroix, Wisconsin superintendent (Marx, 2014, p. 4)

As we consider the values of schooling that are both universally sustainable and 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.

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FIELD

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 the economy actually needs. Most jobs today demand a different skill set than that necessary for the jobs that have vanished. This has caught many educators off guard. Nevertheless, we can no longer turn a blind eye to economic realities and our responsibilities as educators to do something about it.

Communities across America depend on a range of talent, roles, and occupations to remain vibrant. Sir Ken Robinson (2015) points out, “The work of electricians, builders, plumbers, chefs, paramedics, carpenters, mechanics, engineers, security staff, and all the rest (who may or may not have college degrees) is absolutely vital to the quality of each of our lives” (p. 17). Many people in these occupations find their careers fulfilling and financially rewarding. To secure rewarding careers, students need exposure to the variegated paths available in the “any collar” marketplace. There is no fixed utopia for education (Robinson, 2015). At the same time, there is no limit for getting better. Although teaching is a highly individualized endeavor, the issues surrounding teaching are increasingly global. Healthy schools are interdependent learning organizations that aren’t afraid to disrupt the status quo to improve.

The following chapter lays the groundwork to embrace a culture of innovation as a gateway for getting better. The emphasis in chapter 2 is to examine the drivers of innovative thinking and how to put this thinking into practice. Readers will learn how the best companies and the best schools use innovation as a centerpiece for new ideas that everyone can get behind.

Touchstone Takeaways

Consider the following Points to Ponder and Rapid-Fire Ideas on your own or within a teacher or leadership team to cultivate a broader vision of future-focused teaching and learning.

Points to Ponder

1. Would you want to be a student in your own classroom today? Why or why not?

2. How might you align staff or team meetings to rethink education? What paradigms of schooling need to change in your building or district?

3. College professor Kevin Fleming (2016) argues that we should broaden the “college for all” rhetoric dominating the K–12 system to a mantra of a “post-high school credential for all” (p. 9). Which philosophy permeates your organization? What interplay between academics and application is in place now in your school or district?

4. Using the Four-Dimensional Model of Education in figure 1.1 (page 14), what immediate shifts in teaching and learning might lead to longerterm change?

5. How might you embrace constructive rebellion to move conversations forward? What nonjudgmental language will you use to address practices that inadvertently hinder future-ready learning?

Rapid-Fire Ideas

Consider the following rapid-fire ideas as you begin implementing the ideas from this chapter in your classroom.

Consider Success in the New Economy

Watch Kevin Fleming’s “Success in the New Economy” video at your next team meeting (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs6nQpVI164). Share takeaways. Discuss how the team can create upstream changes to shore up students’ paths to the future.

Empower the Collar

Future occupations will consist of many shapes, sizes, and colors. But, a common thread in this “any collar” environment is a worker’s ability to look at a task and see the desired outcome. At the same time, employers expect workers to imagine different ways to achieve the outcome. Create a graphic organizer that depicts how you empower students to recognize desired outcomes and imagine different ways to accomplish tasks.

Evaluate Your School’s Readiness

Individually or in a team, complete the worksheet in figure 1.2. Discuss your responses to track current progress as it relates to preparing students for a fast-changing world. Determine a good starting point to develop a shared vision for undertaking this work.

Figure 1.2: Ground floor quiz–Ready or not?