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).
“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