The phrase “21st-century skills” is everywhere in education policy discussions these days, from faculty lounges to the highest echelons of the U.S. education system.Let me be clear: It's not about who is right or wrong and I'm not planning on standing on the moral high road because I've posted about this before. Instead, it reminds me of how education in the US works: spend money on going to conferences so that people who are not practicing classroom teachers can tell you that things look horrible and you have to do X now to save our schools. Lots of numbers and charts are flogged against the pathetic picture of the US educational system and it's high time to find some type of a messiah or Moses to lead us to the promised land or heaven or economic stability.
Broadly speaking, it refers to a push for schools to teach critical-thinking, analytical, and technology skills, in addition to the “soft skills” of creativity, collaboration, and communication that some experts argue will be in high demand as the world increasingly shifts to a global, entrepreneurial, and service-based workplace.
But now a group of researchers, historians, and policymakers from across the political spectrum are raising a red flag about the agenda as embodied by the Tucson, Ariz.-based Partnership for 21st Century Skills, or P21, the leading advocacy...
Those same conference attendees (who are in a place of authority according to the pay scale and the hierarchy) go back to their schools and start to spread the same message to the teachers in the name of being a team player. When the community asks what is being done about test scores (and mind you, it seems to be the numbers folk focus on...perhaps the fault of our press or our lack of involving our community into the real conversation of education individuals), there are solutions that involve time and money. And, in 3-5 years, another road-show rainmaker comes to town and a new presentation by a non-practicing classroom teacher and we cycle through the entire process in the hopes that "this time, things will be different."
You may not like this, but if a school really wants the standard-based movement with it's reliance on progress by numbers to work, cut out the middleperson (the teacher) and buy a lot of computers and hire a consultant and then you will have the numbers to prove that a student has mastered the material. Save a lot of money and possibly, promote the capitalistic spirit during these hard times. Students could graduate earlier and finally we'd have proof of how effective a standardized-based education can be.
If you are asking me, a classroom teacher, if I think all of this is the best thing for students, then after being a bit shocked that you've asked the person who spends most of their days with students and not with developing talks to give to lots of people for a large sum of money (oh, sorry, that's paying your for your expert knowledge), I'd probably say the following.
Probably not.
Probably not because there's more to an education to "mastering" standards and besides, to get a question correct on a multilple-choice assessment is not the most effective way to measure "mastery." In fact, the system as a whole is flawed and the one, large-scale example of this (the "Houston Miracle") was a numbers game. Remember: It didn't work as we were told and I am still amazed that many people (probably not practicing classroom teachers) still think that it is the way to go.
Which brings me back to the 21st Century Skills thing: it's business folks telling education how to do its task (because, yes I have to say it, US businesses are such models of excellence, aren't they?). Why are people who are reporting on education surprised when someone says that maybe the latest rainmaker, 21st Century Skills (with it's many-colored rainbow charts), may actually not be the answer. And maybe that's the real issue here: maybe in addressing education in the US, maybe it's not about finding "the answer."
