Greg Toppo of USA Today and Eduflack wander into the 21st Century Skills debate this morning. Eduflack gets to the heart of the false dichotomy in the skills vs. content idea, noting “this isn’t core knowledge versus soft skills. No, our focus should be on how we teach those core subjects that are necessary…And most importantly, how do we ensure all students are graduating with the content knowledge and skills needed to truly achieve in the 21st century economy?”
Hear, hear. But then Eduflack drops in this observation about the deeply funded and broadly-backed movement:
If anything, 21CS is guilty of bad messaging and bad PR. In a time when everyone is concerned about both academic quality and relevance to the economy, many 21CS advocates remain focused on the need for soft skills, believing they have discovered some long, lost map to student success. In reality, they are calling for a reinforcement of the relevance of core instruction. Their message has been off, and as a result, they’ve painted a nice, large target on the back of a well-meaning concept.
I’m not sure P21’s ”message” is off. They’ve articulated worthwhile goals, but have loopy ideas on how to achieve them, and now they’ve been called on it. That’s not a message problem–it’s a product problem. That said, let’s not list the Battle of 21st Century Skills alongside Agincourt and Thermopylae quite yet. A thoughtful discussion has emerged about the best way to achieve 21CS. And that’s a good and important accomplishment. Up until now, as Toppo writes, “if someone told you that kids need to think critically and creatively, be technologically savvy and work well with others, you’d nod in agreement, right?”
But a small group of outspoken education scholars is challenging that assumption, saying the push for 21st-century skills is taking a dangerous bite out of precious classroom time that could be better spent learning deep, essential content. For the first time since the P21 push began five years ago, they’re pushing back.
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers!
P.S. If you’re wondering why I just quoted an ad for the Playstation 3, count yourself a 21st Century Skills casualty.
Would students taught according to P21’s preferred methods even be able to understand the historical references in this post without Googling them???
Comment by Crimson Wife — March 5, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
I’m more concerned that they might not get the connection even if they did Google them.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — March 5, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Sadly, the assessments that P21 folks recommend would only measure that the students could Goggle and talk with each other about their findings. Whether the info and their analysis is correct does not seem to be the focus.
Comment by Gracie — March 5, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Yeah, I don’t think we can party like post-Agincourt Henry V’s yet. And even if 21st Century Skills dies, its essence (I won’t say “soul”) will quickly return in slightly altered form, like a zombie.
The Playstation ad shows how the liberal arts is a fount of creativity.
And, you know, another big thing that bugs me about the 21st Century rhetoric is its stark view of what it means to be a human. My God, what kind of entity is this content-lite Googling quick-study tech worker they’re hoping to mass produce? I already see so many paper-thin adult souls who have nothing much to say, who know nothing but how to navigate Facebook adeptly. For thousands of years in China, education entailed memorizing the canon (or so I’ve gleaned). Then educated folk had parties where they recited and talked about poetry. If I hear another friggin’ conversation about iPhones… I’d rather America be a second-tier nation of rich souls than a rich nation of empty souls.
Comment by Ben F — March 5, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
Robert,
You phrased it well. If 21st century skills is a “product,” I’m with you.
But if its a process, I support that process.
You are closer to the people involved and I hope your skepticism isn’t warranted. But then again, I grudgingly supported NCLB in 2001 and how wrong was I then?
Comment by john thompson — March 6, 2009 @ 5:40 pm