Eduwonk Andy Rotherham gives voice today to something that has been irritating me for a while now–the careless and self-indulgent tossing about of the phrase “21st Century Skills” to describe the simple outcome of a sound, basic education. Problem solving, critical thinking and cooperative learning have been with us in this country since we hunted in groups using spears with Clovis points. As Andy puts it:
We’re not the first society where those skills have been needed or valued. What’s changed is the need — for both equity and economic reasons — to give many more students a high quality education that allows them to develop these skills. In other words it’s about broadening access to a good education rather than a radically different conception of what a good education is. If dressing that up as 21st Century Skills helps sell an equity agenda, that’s great, otherwise we are flattering ourselves some about just how revolutionary the world we live in really is.
Amen. The sooner we stop nattering on about “21st Century” skills the better, especially since the phrase tends to be code for devaluing the content-rich curriculum that makes critical thinking possible.
There *ARE* certain skills needed today that didn’t exist for previous generations, but they’re at max 5% of the curriculum. And training for these types of skills can replace ones previously in the curriculum that have been rendered obsolete (i.e. a semester-long elective on computer skills rather than a semester-long elective on sewing).
Sewing isn’t nearly as obsolete as penmanship and the use of trig tables…
Yes, the whole 21st Century skills” argument is ridiculous, for a number of reasons. The National Council of Teachers of English is very big on this sort of think, and organizes conferences around this silly theme. Don’t forget that much of this is done with an eye on quarterly profits for the makers of high-tech gadgetry. “Smart boards” and Ipods and all the rest are a big part of this push.
Actually, there are cognitive benefits to learning cursive. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001475_2.html