Someone who worked on Ohio Governor Ted Strickland’s 2009 budget proposal seems a little confused about the difference between Core Knowledge and “21st Century Skills.”
“We thought former Illinois Governor Blagojevich was the most confused state leader in the Midwest,” notes Common Core. “But this chart, which lumps the idea of core knowledge in with 21st century skills, clearly illustrates that the Ohio Governor and the folks who advise him on education are at best deeply confused themselves–about the content of education. No one who knows a lick about curriculum would put these two ideas together.” Hmmm. Where would such a confusing idea come from?
Case closed.
The whole diagram makes no sense to me, even after I read the accompanying text in the linked document. It seemed to me as if the author(s) had simply thrown in all the educational policy buzzwords ever heard without knowing what they actually mean.
Perhaps what the author(s) need is less in the way of 21st century techno-skill and more in the way of old-fashioned learning how to write a comprehensible and persuasive document…
I think the diagram is an admission that, without Core Knowledge, 21st century skills are useless.
CW, you’re demonstrating an acute lack of 21st Century skills. You should be able to communicate and problem solve across language and cultural barriers. This applies to places with unfamiliar ideas and languages like, er….Ohio.
What do you expect from a politician who thinks he is the “education” governor because he can spell the word without an aide’s help?
Ohio’s Governor Strickland has two “education” goals:
1)Elimination of school choice. Show the Ohio charter schools the door and eliminate the state’s voucher program.
2)Elimination of voter choice. Automatically increase property taxes targeted for schools by an annual inflation factor. This would eliminate Ohioans’ current opportunity to vote on such increases.
The rest of his senseless palaver is adorned with education terminology like ornaments on a Christmas tree. They hang there in no particular order.
I am roughly with tm. Although the Common Core people seem to have appointed themselves the official arbiters of what knowledge constitutes a requisite “core” of needed knowledge, the world is wide and there are others entitled to valid opinions. 21st Century skills are also still up for grabs. One would think that ODE’s first task in following through on the Gov’s plan would be to establish some working definitions (not purchased from Common Core, one would hope) of what these things will mean in Ohio.
Hey, my mom and her siblings grew up in the Buckeye state, and I’m certain that *NONE* of them would’ve come up with this kind of gobbledy-gook.
On the other hand, none of them are bureaucrats so *THAT* may be the real culture gap :-p
It appears from the comments I’ve read here that the authors are unable to logically interpret the diagram and accompanying text because it is not formulated in Core Knowledge “lingo.” And THAT is precisely the problem with utilizing only a Core Knowledge approach in a curriculum.
I don’t agree with everything in the governor’s proposal, either, but I know that because I can understand it. The content/process argument — and the notion that they represent two incompatible paradigms — is so last century.
All learning requires some combination of both and the only people who want to continue beating this dead horse of dualities are a) academics whose careers are founded upon it and b)edcucation wonks whose careers are founded upon it.
I’m not sure I follow what you mean by “Core Knowledge lingo.” To your point about content and process, I’ll challenge you. I accept the linkage of process and content. My question is why so many process devotees do not.
The reason the diagram and accompanying text makes no sense to me is because the author(s) talk about wanting “student-centered” education that is tailored to meet the unique needs of each child- and then immediately follow that with talk of standards and testing. Huh?
If one agrees with the Progressivists about “student-centered” education, then one will be against the use of “one size fits all” standards and traditional tests. And if one is in favor of universal standards and testing, then one will dismiss the Progressivists’ Romantic ideas about education.
Now, if the author(s) hold a middle-ground position (as I personally do), then there ought to be some language to that effect. Perhaps something about trying to strike a balance between the two goals.
Before judging too harshly about Gov. Strickland, you may want to take a look at his budget proposals, and compare them with the last twenty years where education has largely been ignored. It’s easy to sit back and pick one graphic, and demean his efforts, but a closer look at least shows a Governor that is attempting to address issues in education.
Hilarious post. The graphic is more amateurish, but reminds me of the graphic on the 21st Century Skills website: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/framework_flyer_updated_jan_09_final-1.pdf In both cases, I’m left wondering: What purpose does this computer graphic serve, other than throwing up a bunch of random terms into various colored segments? Is there any particular reason that some terms are above others, or more central than others?
Oh, and check out the lengthy list of corporate sponsors . . . I’m waiting for an educational “progressive” to claim that a focus on “critical thinking” and “creativity” is just serving as a tool for corporate interests.