Join the conversation

I fear that this is just a relabeling for the attempt of some to concentrate on easily testable skills in math and science and to a leeser extent technology such as computers. In an increasingly interconnected world one would think some knowledge about different cultures might be part of the mix, but so far I do not see that as part of the discussion. Thus we remain horribly ignorant of the culture, history, and religion of much of the world, which leads to our totally misunderstanding how and why people in other nations act and react as they do to the actions of our nation. I am not sure that there is really such a great difference in this relatively new century. Heck, to a large degree we are still teaching 19th century skills, even if the content to which they are applied has advanced some in the intervening years. But then, maybe my reaction is colored by my own life. I am 62, going on 63. I have worked in the computer industry. I have traveled to other nations, both for work and on my own. I have lived for at least a month at a time in a very different environment, a Greek-speaking monastery on Mount Athos. Much of my life has been spent in environs that are multicultural. And I have wandered through a variety of religions on my own, even as at different times I have been in the Village during the heart of the Hippy era, served in the Marines, been active in politics, and been on the edge of homelessness myself. I came to teaching relatively late, in the midst of the madness of he so-called "reform" movements imposed upon our schools. There is much wrong with our schools, but our approach towards fixing them has proven so idiotic and destructive that at times I am ready to give up in total frustration. So consider all that as context as you read my reaction to Claus's post, and to the subject at hand. Peace. teacherken aka Ken Bernstein

Thanks for a thought-provoking read.

I, too, have been curious about the recent spate of articles claiming there is no such thing as 21st century learning skills. I agree with Ken: whenever a group of writers or thinkers climbs on a bandwagon, the relevant question is Cui Bono?--Who benefits?

If trends in ed policy thought around instruction and measurement took a turn toward collaboration, innovation, creativity, synthesis, evaluation or global awareness, a lot of the infrastructure of the growing testing industry would be threatened. That infrastructure includes standardized curricula, measurement benchmarks, assessments and data management systems--all things that districts, states and the USDOE, plus a range of nonprofits and publishers, have invested heavily in, over the past 6 or 7 years. Re-tooling would be expensive. Much easier to write blogs scoffing at rhetoric around 21st century learning.

I have *never* seen anyone who seriously researches, writes or thinks about the future of teaching and learning who believes that content knowledge is unimportant. It's a straw man. Yet another straw man.

Before you create a caricature of me, I urge you to get your facts straight. In response to my Op-Ed titled "A repackaged education proposal" in the Globe on February 14, Linda Darling-Hammond (letter to the editor on February 20) chose to mischaracterize me as someone who thinks teaching and learning skills and content are mutually exclusive in order to set up a straw man and evade my major point on state policy. I urged Massachusetts to emphasize content, not process skills, in state standards and assessment. In contrast, Darling-Hammond would like states to eliminate state-wide objective accountability measures and in their place mandate teachers use project-based learning type strategies in all classrooms. (See her December, 2008 in Phi Delta Kappan, which was distributed at the request of a Board member to all MA State Board members in January.) I contend that this would be a step backward for Massachusetts. Specifically, my op-ed provided data from different states that have focused on process skills (now often called "21st century skills") and showed how those states’ student performance in content areas significantly declined. Darling-Hammond's response completely ignored those data. Instead, she proposed that there is no harm in assessing content and process skills together. But, she offers no data to support that claim. Why? Perhaps because she knows that education researchers haven’t sufficiently studied teaching and assessing process skills in order to determine what happens to content learning when they are assessed together. In fact, because there is so little research, Darling-Hammond wants to establish a center to investigate performance-based assessments.
Finally, her use of E.D. Hirsch's schools as an example of how "combining" content and process skills can work, misuses their excellent results. Core Knowledge schools focus their assessment on core content knowledge--and Core knowledge folks happily point out that they encourage their teachers to use of a variety of teaching strategies (not just project based learning as she implied). Which actually makes my point. Have rigorous content-based standards measured by fair and consistent assessments and allow teachers to teach. Darling-Hammond attempts to discredit my cautionary statements via name-calling and creating a straw man, a significant clue to the weakness of her argument. And you have reinforced this silliness.
The issue is about what state POLICY should be and what should be measured for accountability purposes.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Madigan

Nancy:
It IS important to ask who benefits. But ask it on both sides. What about the proponents of P21? Almost all P21 supporters are technology and professional development providers. They would have huge $ gains (in some states those funds have already started flowing to these providers). The testing industry is heavily invested in P21 and the current models--so they have hedged their bets. NEA would have tons to gain. Teachers would need to retool. Collective bargaining agreements would need to be reopened to determine new teacher evaluation measures, professional development requirements, etc. which increases the "value-added" of NEA. Plus, NEA is a huge provider of professional development--big bucks there.
Kathy
BTW: I am research scientist; a former teacher, principal and professor of ed, not a blogger and I hope not an unthoughtful person.

Dr. Madigan,

I think your argument is loaded. Wouldn't it be hard to provide school-based evidence for 21st century skills when the assessments being used are so heavily focused on a content approach? More importantly, you say all of these companies are technology providers and stand to gain a lot from an emphasis on skills. Who do you think is hiring our school graduates for with decent pay? And do you think that the skills these companies are asking for are not needed in a global economy where blue collar jobs are shipping at unprencedented rates overseas? More importantly, what good is for a student to know the capitals of all American states if they can't be critical enough to question the motives of their own public officials?