What about 22nd Century Skills?

Sounds funny, right?  Silly, even.

Tonight in my Ed Policy class, we were discussing how we were going to attack our class project.  The basic idea is that we are going to look at both “Strickland’s plan” (which I doubt he had all too much to do with), Reforming Ohio’s Education System for the 21st Century, and “Obama’s” (same logic applies) Race to the Top program in order to try to untangle the web that created ideas such as these and expand the conversation with those that may have been left out of said conversation (like teachers or parents).  This is going to be a messy task without, I’m sure, a clear end result.  It’s a noble goal though I think, on the part of my professor, to try to sort it out a bit for/with those who might benefit or be harmed (or both or something else entirely) by these types of policies.

We were trying to pick out areas in the plan that could be a focus for our research and this notion of “21st century skills” came up.  My professor thought we might try tracking down where and when this term began to appear, what it means, how it is being used in different ways by different groups, why it appears to be a favorable term at this point in time, etc.  So, as a result of my lack of television this week, I spent the evening digging and I found quite a bit of interesting information.

For starters, what are “21st century skills”?  The consensus seems to be that they are skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, creativity and communication.  What do these particular skills have to do with the 21st century?  Well, some, like the Partnership for 21st Century Skills argue that the world is now undergoing “exponential change,” which requires a merging of content with these more critical skills.  The argument seems to be that the world is changing quickly, particularly if you look at technology, and this means that rote learning will be less necessary.  Instead, we need students that can analyze, synthesize and be creative.  Of course, others argue that these skills are no different than skills that were emphasized by Aristotle in ancient Greece or the “life adjustment movement” in the 1950s and “outcome-based education” in the 1980s.  Still others argue (and with whom I disagree most) that this movement, is simply a distraction from “real learning” which invariably involves lots of standards and testing (shudder).  These skills however, wrapped up in a new package, are now typically tied explicitly with the economy, which may be where the difference lies.  This is clear in both Strickland’s plan and Obama’s program.

From the Strickland plan:
“Help students develop the 21st Century skills our business leaders look for in people they hire: creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving (as well as communication and collaboration, media literacy, leadership and productivity, adaptability and accountability)”

From Obama’s announcement regarding Race to the Top:
“I am absolutely confident that if I do my part, if Arne does his part, if our teachers do their part, if you do yours, if the American people do theirs, then we will not only strengthen our economy over the long run, and we will not only make America’s entire education system the envy of the world, but we will launch a Race to the Top that will prepare every child, everywhere in America, for the challenges of the 21st century.”

So, why are these skills important now (even though they are not different)?  They are important because we are afraid that we won’t be a superpower for much longer.  We educate students, not for any intrinsic value (like pleasure or wonder), we only educate students so that they may participate in the global economy.  Students = future workers.  Period.  As such, the schools turn into places of competition instead of public good.  We start to think that businesses might be better suited to run our schools, even if their bottom line will always be… well, their bottom line (and NOT the benefit to students or society).  This is called neoliberalism, free markets to the extreme; private is always better than public.  My friend, Michael Apple, really hates how this concept is being applied to schools.  He says:

“Most major corporations are anything but democratic.  In many ways, they are more totalitatian than is admitted openly.  Thus, jobs are cut ruthlessly.  Profits are much more important than the lives, hopes, and well-being of employees who have given their working lives to these organizations.  In general, no level of profit ever makes these jobs secure; profit must be constantly increased, no matter what the cost to families and employees.  One must question if this is the ethic we should be introducing as the model for our public institutions and our children” (p. 16, Educating the “Right” Way).

This is an important point because the rhetoric surrounding “21st century skills” has much to do with businesses having a say in schools producing students that they would want to hire.

When I googled “21st century skills” most of the links were to organizations selling technology services to schools.  Several other links were directions on how to teach “21st century skills” without serious discussion about what this term really means.  The first link, of course, was to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills‘ website, which seems to be where this idea really took off in 2002.  The partnership, curiously (or not), is between the US Department of Education, the National Education Association (teachers’ union) and SEVEN businesses (including Apple and Dell).  We must think then, that this term may have proliferated in large part because of the possibility these companies saw for profit (Who will buy our products?  Who will work for us in the future?  How does this idea benefit the bottom line?).  That, coupled with the perception of newness and the oft-repeated notion that our schools are failing the country, can make for the creation of a discourse that lacks substance, but leads national and state-wide “reform” efforts.  Scary.

For class tonight, we also read a chapter from The Role of Research in Educational Improvement by Schwartz and Kardos (2009) on the disconnect between research and policy.  One argument that the authors made was that policymakers and the public want nice, simple, easy to implement, answers and those don’t really exist.  Even a term that has slipped into our consciousness, a term as palatable as “21st century skills,” is part of a complex, messy, tangle of interests, practices, discourses and power networks.  There are no easy answers.  Onward…