Exploring the Boundary Between Aspiration and Acceptance in Education
The concept of "can't" sits uneasily in the conversation around growth mindset in education. Growth mindset, a term coined by psychologist Carol Dweck, champions the idea that abilities and intelligence can be developed through dedication and hard work. It’s a powerful, transformative perspective that motivates students to persist, strive, and believe in their potential to grow. Yet, when we encounter tasks or skills where “can’t” seems to arise as a reasonable conclusion—where mastery is unlikely within a reasonable timeframe or practical limits—it challenges us to examine whether “can’t” might sometimes be a valid, even helpful boundary.
This article is an exploration of “can’t” in the context of a Growth Mindset. It explores when “can’t” is more than a hurdle to overcome - whether it's a fixed rule or an exception that proves the rule. By the end of this article, I aim to show that while a Growth Mindset serves as an empowering philosophy, embracing “can’t” - thoughtfully and selectively - may be a meaningful way to enhance personal and professional educational growth.
Let's explore these ideas.
Growth Mindset: Limitless or Simply Expansive?
Growth mindset is undeniably a powerful perspective, but the common interpretation that it is boundless doesn’t always reflect the reality. Growth mindset is expansive, encouraging people to stretch themselves, but it doesn’t imply that one can or must master everything. This nuance often gets lost, especially in the competitive world of education, where the drive for continuous improvement risks minimizing individual limits.
Consider a student with a clear aptitude for languages but a deep struggle with abstract mathematical concepts. Should this student be expected to reach the same level of mastery in mathematics as in language arts, regardless of the time and effort it takes? Educators know all too well that time, energy, and interest are finite resources. An overemphasis on the “just keep trying” mantra risks pushing students toward burnout rather than growth.
But does this mean we as educators minimize or negate students' focus on areas that require extraordinary time and effort to improve? Ought student voice be considered when considering what skills and concepts they can or cannot learn to develop over time? And how can educators strike a reasonable balance between accepting a student's limits in certain academic areas for the sake of improving other areas to extraordinary heights, particularly in the context of academic expectations set forth by a school or district's clearly defined accredited curriculum requirements for grade level promotion towards graduation?
The Validity of “Can’t”: Setting Boundaries with a Purpose
The concept of “can’t” can be functional. Acknowledging that there are things beyond a student’s reach—whether due to innate limitations, time, or practicality—can help students learn how to make more meaningful choices about where to invest their time and effort. For example, knowing when “can’t” is a legitimate conclusion enables a learner to focus on developing strengths that align with their goals, rather than stretching themselves thin over areas to a point of decreasing return on time and effort invested (especially in a time-based education system where student academic interests may lay beyond school requirements).
This idea suggests that a growth mindset doesn’t have to mean the relentless pursuit of mastery in all areas. It can mean striving for improvement where there is passion or purpose while setting reasonable limits elsewhere. Embracing “can’t” does not have to mean giving up but focusing on growth where it matters most.
The question here becomes whether what matters most is up to the student, the parent, the teacher, or the district administrators; and whether school leaders are considering the impact a Growth Mindset may be having on the confidence of students pressured into learning concepts and skills that may not be serving meaningful interests and goals.
The Exception That Proves the Rule?
It's also important to recognize “can’t” as the exception that proves the rule of a Growth Mindset. By accepting limitations in certain areas, students (and educators) reinforce the idea that a growth mindset is about progress in meaningful areas, not about mastery of every skill by whatever means necessary. Recognizing personal or practical limits can clarify a student’s path forward and align their efforts with their passions. This way, growth mindset remains a motivational force, not a source of pressure.
It is less important to note, but perhaps fascinating at least, that this idea is rooted in a deontological philosophy where the ends must not justify the means. Too often, schools imply an opposite philosophy - a teleological philosophy - where increasing student learning outcomes via state tests (the "ends") justify framing the Growth Mindset to promote proficiency in concepts and skills that may be impractical or unnecessary to a particular student's future success.
This often leads to conversations of motivation in school leadership rooted in funding concerns and other state and local incentive programs designed in favor of strict oversight and accountability measures that assume causal connections between specific actions by school and district leaders and observable measures of student learning outcomes via standardized testing. But that is a different conversation - and one I'm happy to have.
When Embracing “Can’t” Enhances Growth
Here are a few situations where “can’t” may serve students better than a relentless pursuit of “can”:
Prioritization of Strengths: Students have unique abilities and interests. Focusing on these areas can maximize growth and cultivate confidence that can be eventually applied to other areas, rather than forcing effort where it yields diminishing returns. Some might negatively reframe this as neglecting students who struggle or have different interests, reinforcing existing hierarchies of ability rather than fostering an inclusive and supportive learning environment for all students; unfortunately, this view overlooks the potential for improving differentiated instruction and personalized learning that can effectively support all students by recognizing their diverse needs and interests without the ongoing discouragement of insisting students master concepts they may not be ready or willing to master yet.
Well-being and Balance: In education, mental health and well-being matter just as much as intellectual progress. Knowing when to set boundaries is a skill that will serve students in all areas of life. Some may reframe this as claiming celebration of mediocrity but is actually celebrating socioemotional development and collective awareness often missing in the more competitive focus on rewarding mastery of all prescribed and compulsory concepts and skills.
Self-Acceptance and Confidence: Embracing certain “can’ts” allows students to understand and accept themselves. This realism fosters a sense of confidence built on who they truly are, rather than a constant sense of inadequacy from chasing goals beyond reach. This might be reframed by some as settling for mediocrity—the idea that accepting certain “cant's” could be viewed as an excuse for not pushing oneself to achieve more, preventing students from realizing their full potential. The danger here is in fostering fear of failure, increasing pressure to conform, undermining individuality, neglecting emotional well-being, deterring respect for lifelong learning via constant striving for excellence, and exacerbating inequities that ultimately stifle a genuine sense of long-term growth and development.
Conclusion: Growth Within Bounds
By the end of this exploration, it’s clear that “can’t” has a place in education—an important one. A Growth Mindset, while expansive, benefits from boundaries. “Can’t” is not about giving up or making excuses; it’s about accepting that growth is most meaningful when aligned with personal values, goals, and practical limits - components of a vision for education that is traditionally defined not by the student but by the school or district.
That said, embracing a Growth Mindset can be liberating, but perhaps its true power lies in empowering students to pursue the growth that genuinely matters to them. Knowing that “can’t” can be a reasonable, even helpful, conclusion helps keep students grounded, allowing students to thrive in ways that are authentic, achievable, and ultimately fulfilling.
Greg Mullen
October 30, 2024