In the name of “21st-Century skills,” California Superintendent Jack O’Connell is trying to water down the state’s high standards, writes Bill Evers on his Ed Policy blog.
Indeed, the California standards have been judged among the best in the country by the Fordham Foundation and the American Federation of Teachers.
The superintendent says “evolving the standards” would “fully engage both students and teachers in the learning process in a way that sees both parties benefit and helps to better prepare students for success in the economy of the 21st century.”
Translation from education jargon: He wants to water down California’s existing high standards in the name of the woolly concept of “21st-century skills,” that is, communicating with each other, working in groups, media literacy, and so forth. He wants to subtract from classroom time spent on solid subject-matter content to teach these supposed stand-alone skills.
Evers was a key player in writing the math and science standards, which are considered very demanding.
Yeah, that’s what I’m finding in NC. Everybody talks a great game about preparing our students to be “21st century citizens”, but, in practice, that means a lot of “group work” – which, too often, means the most conscientious one in the group does 80% of the work, while the rest talk – I mean, “meaningfully and purposefully interacting with peers (MAPIWP)” – although, that MAPIWP sure seems to be more about TV, music, gossip, and sex (particularly who’s doing who). I constantly circulate, trying to bring the MAPIWP peeps back to the work.
Why do I do it? My school has decided that individual work is so “old school” and a mark of a BAD teacher. I tried teaching with less MAPIWP, and was given a mediocre evaluation. I’m leaving at the end of the school (at least, I’ve applied elsewhere, and am spending an inordinate amount of time praying for blessed release), so have to play ball for now.
You know what I’ve found in a 20+ year career has the MOST positive effect on student achievement?
Excellent principals and administrators.
Sure seems easier to bring in a good administrator and let them loose, than force teachers to spend 10-12 hours a week on: Professional development (not the good kind, that the teacher decides will be helpful, but the bad kind – with expensive experts brought in to explain, in very simple terms, what the savvier teachers have already learned), documentation of professional growth, re-writing lessons to hit all the buzzwords, double-checking to make sure that 50-some indicators of an effective teacher are displayed daily in their classroom, and documenting interactions with students and their parents (Did I respond to all students? Did I give MEANINGFUL follow-up? Did I correct all errors, and spend all the time each student wanted to on any and every topic – I’d still be working on 2nd week work if I did this – and yet move forward for the advanced student, and provide assistance for the ESL student? Did I make a call to home for all absences, poor performance, behavior problems, and – don’t forget – also make calls to parents about their GOOD students).
All of that is outside of school time – did I mention that the school closes their doors early at least a few days a week, and that I, with a classroom outside the main building, can’t get access to a phone or bathroom? Makes staying late a real fun time. Of course, I COULD go home and make those calls – giving students access to my home number, and – BTW – it’s a long distance call.
Sigh. It’s been a long year.
I hear you, Linda. 21st Century Skills sounds like a recipe for more B.S., more blah-blah-blah professional develeopment, more dumb jargon-usage, more misguided teacher evaluation rubrics… The California history standards are a life-raft for me in this sea of B.S. These standards give me justification for actually teaching substance –e.g. Church corruption in the Late Middle Ages, or about The Divine Comedy, Michelangelo’s David, Machiavelli… If these standards get watered down, I (and California kids) could be sunk.
In my experience, working in a group is useful only if members of the group actually know something. Otherwise, it’s just the high school version of a coffee break.
ps: Joanne, I was notified about this via twitter.
A fundamental assumption of the “21st-century-standards” people seems to be that people in time periods prior to our own enlightened time *do not* innovate, work in groups, communicate, etc. This is historically ignorant to the point of being temporal bigotry.
“Group work” is probably important to the administration for two reasons:
The bulk of the work is probably done by the strongest member(s) of the group, so the weaker students can be rated as better than they are without any need for remediating their problems. This kicks the can forward, possibly until they can be graduated.
It fits with the “social justice” orientation of the ed-schools, where everyone is expected to get the same results regardless of innate ability.
(now let’s see what the filters do to my nice list. preview doesn’t work, dangit.)
David Foster,
Great point, and I’d add, aren’t Chinese, Indian and European H1-B employees becoming the backbone of Silicon Valley, and aren’t these folks the products of traditional, direct-instruction-oriented education systems? C’mon, Silicon Valley P21 people: connect the dots! Why are you proposing for American students something radically different than what Danish and Taiwanese students are getting?
The Renaissance would not have happened if Italians hadn’t started assiduously studying the classics. These 21st Century skills advocates hope to create a new renaissance by marginalizing classics and substituting empty skills exercises that have never been proven to make smart humans –it’s all based on plausible-sounding but untested theory.
In “Dawn to Decadance” Jacques Barzun makes the point that the rigorous, conservative Jesuit education offered in 17th and 18th C France spawned the brilliant and radical thinkers Rousseau, Diderot and Voltaire. Studying quality old stuff leads to quality new stuff –but this is counter-intuitive and runs counter to America’s old-is-worthless orientation, so I’m not optimistic that we’ll come to our senses and return to mind-fertilizing traditional education.
In other words about Jack O’Connell . . .
John Rosenberg of Discriminations noted this post, which I sent him because he’s written about O’Connell before
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/11/the_supe_is_nuts_just_when_you.html
Perhaps the problem with “group work” is that very few teachers approach it with any deep understanding. Have they studied the way in which it is used in Japanese classrooms? Have they read any organizational theory (try Deming or Drucker) about ways that industry can empower front line workers to solve problems?
If we approach everything as a fad–shallow, inconsequential, an annoyance that keeps us from our real work–is it any wonder that nothing works?
Yeah, I’ve read Deming, and have read the studies of the Japanese classrooms. Unlike my classroom (and a whole lot of other classrooms in this country), kids can’t decide to:
* come in late and noisy, without books, paper, or pencil – regularly
* refuse to do any work
* curse at the teacher for waking them up
* blame the teacher for their lousy grade
When I teach well-behaved children who are actually prepared for the grade level expectations, then I expect that group work WILL be meaningful.
Linda:
Are you thinking that the Japanese are genetically superior? Or might this be something that schools have an ability to impact? (never mind, I know, its the parents fault, they were already broke when you got them)
Margo-
Not to steal Linda’s thunder, but it’s not the parents that broke them, but a society that it slowly becoming corrupt.
In your opinion, does that corrupt society draw a convenient line around schools, or are they a part of it?
“Are you thinking that the Japanese are genetically superior?”
Culturally, in their approach to education, they have the U.S. “it’s cool to be ignorant, I’d rather watch American Idol than read a good book, etc.” culture beaten hands down. So does India; so does Sinapore; among others.
Our culture, just like everything else in the U.S., is in serious disprepair at this point. And I say that as someone who loves the U.S. with all my heart.
Though their love of giant robots is a pretty funny quirk (if not one that leads to a high interest in Science and Math, at least).
“… A society that it slowly becoming corrupt.”
I would have said ’slowly’ before or around 1990. Since then, it’s been ‘very quickly’. Just look at our last several Presidents (of either party), and our last dozen Congresses (of both parties).
Margo/Mom, I suspect that for most teachers, to make groupwork work, especially in the demanding situation of a classroom, requires more than merely studying it in other schools, I suspect that it requires experts in its use to actually teach the teacher how to do it, by modelling skills, being able to answer questions, and being able to provide specific feedback about how the teacher is doing.
There may be some teachers who for whatever reason in their past have learnt enough relevant skills to be able to teach in groups effectively merely by studying other efforts, but it strikes me as a complicated skill, a bit like driving except that a full-on classroom environment is even more distracting. I wouldn’t expect most people to be able to drive merely by watching other drivers and reading some theoretical books, some actual practice with an experienced driver is required. Teaching – similar just more so (okay, on the other hand, a minute’s inattention is probably not going to kill the teacher unless they work at a *really* rough school, but on the third hand a teacher who is struggling with new skills can result in their students losing a year’s worth of learning).
In other words, in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.
Tracy:
I think you are absolutely right. Group work (speaking as a social worker who spent a good bit of time “doing” group work with kids) is complex, and requires study as well as practice. This is a very different argument from the argument that group work just means that the smart kid does all the work. It also supports that notion that kids won’t just “get it” (that is the ability to collaborate, learn cooperatively, as stressed in 21st century skills) as many people who want “content only” would suggest.
I was a bit flippant above, for which I apologise, but this content vs skills thing has gotten a bit tiresome (we really need both), and I really rail against the suggestion that it must necessarily result in watering down curriculum. Yes–there are folks who want to water down the curriculum (at least for certain kids)–and would love to be able to point to some fluffy projects and poster or feelings report as “teaching 21st century skills.” I think that we have to be on guard against this (through responsible assessment and accountability), just as we need to be on guard against the fact-crammers who claim to be “teaching to the test.” Both are dangerous–simply in different areas.
VS–you answered my question (again–I was being flip) about genetic superiority in terms of cultural beliefs. This is my point. Schools are a powerful agent of tranmission of culture–whether they believe/accept that or not. It is a great error for schools to see themselves as in some way operating “counter” to some prevailing (and inferior)culture that exists “outside.” This is not healthy for developing minds (or so Bronfenbrenner and Erikson seemed to think)–nor do I think it generally realistic. Unless I am mistaken, teachers, principals and administraters, when the final bell rings, leave whatever island they may think that they have created and return to the general culture. They are us, we are them, and I can just about guarantee that someone from Japan or Singapore (a really multicultural society BTW) sees far more commonalities than differences across the American populace vis a vis culture.
I don’t know if we are slowly becoming corrupt (remember the robber barons? stealing land from native Americans? destruction of African American communities and Jim Crow post Civil War?) or if there has always been a see-saw between what is possible and what is right. I think we have a reform moment available to us right now. But we can’t wait for the right kids, the right parents, or even the right teachers. We are it, and it’s up to us. We have to learn how to work together. Maybe if we can learn how teachers and parents can work together, we can teach it to our kids.
A little late coming to the party but I would like to point out that there’s nothing particularly new about the struggle of the public education system to avoid any standards of measurement.
A good part of the rationale for the passage of NCLB was the wide-spread perception of the failure of the state-level accountability schemes and the desire to avoid measurement is observable all through the public education system. Grade inflation, portfolios, the avidity which both fads and unmeasureable qualities are seized upon all have in common that they make measures of accountability either difficult or impossible. “21st-Century skills”, given the vagueness of the definition, looks to be more of the same.
This is a very different argument from the argument that group work just means that the smart kid does all the work.
I think what Linda F was saying was that her experience is that in practice the smart kid does all the work when group work is used. After all she said “which, too often”, not “all the time”.
It also supports that notion that kids won’t just “get it” (that is the ability to collaborate, learn cooperatively, as stressed in 21st century skills) as many people who want “content only” would suggest.
Who are these people who want “content only”? Can you provide some names? I haven’t run across any and I am curious as to what their arguments are.
As for fact crammers who claim to be teaching to the test, do you really think they are as dangerous as teachers who avoid teaching any content? If you teach facts, at least the kids are learning something more than bad art skills (I had a really good graphic design teacher at high school, who made me realise what a waste those art projects were through primary school, because he could provide good feedback on the quality of my work.) I don’t have any data to hand one way or another, but it seems a strong claim that you are making here.
Tracy:
Check out the Core Knowledge website (click the link to your right). They are all about the content and have been quite active in leading the charge against “21st century skills.” Their presumption is that good teachers are already doing all that 21st century calls for, and that if enough content is piled up, kids will automatically become critical thinkers (I am surprised that Robert Pondisco has not popped in to take part in this conversation). Checker Finn at Fordham is another (click on flypaper to the right). His group attacked Ohio (actually they were quoting Cor Knowledge) for placing the terms “core content” together with “21st century skills” on a chart that demonstrated the direction for reform in Ohio schools. They termed the two incompatible.
I am less familiar with Bill Evers. But there is no shortage of ideologues spreading the word that teaching 21st century skills is an attempt to destroy (water down) rigorous content.
Margo/Mom,
I haven’t been able to find any statements by Checker Finn at Fordham, but here is one from the Flypaper blog by another blogger:
post by Stafford Palmieri
I can’t find the post you refer to as them putting Ohio on the same graph. This is not to say that it doesn’t exist, another possible explanation is my search skills. But are you possibly referring to this post: http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2009/01/re-more-on-21st-century-skills/?
To quote from this one:
Admittedly this post was written by Emma Partin, not Finn again. But
last time I checked, reading, writing and arithmetic were skills.
For some reason the Core Knowledge blog is down for me at the moment (keep getting a server 403 error), but I’ve read it in the past and I don’t recall any of them saying they wanted content only. And they deliberately say the opposite, at least in the Google cached version. For example to quote from the cached version:
I think you need to practice your reading comprehension skills if you think that these are people advocating “content only”.
“But there is no shortage of ideologues spreading the word that teaching 21st century skills is an attempt to destroy (water down) rigorous content.”
You are changing your argument here. Your initial argument was that there was a bunch of people who wanted content only. The argument that the 21st Century Skills movement is an attempt to destroy rigorous content is quite a separate one from people advocating no content at all.
Many people, including me, have attacked the 21st Century Skills movement on various grounds. That doesn’t mean that anyone has attacked it on the basis that they want content only.
Tracy:
Here’s the specific I referred to on Flypaper: http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2009/02/reforming-education-with-blinders-on/
I recall reading the blip that you cite re: it’s not content or skills (and I think that was Pondisco). It’s hard to reconcile with the other statement that you can’t put 21st century skills together with core content. It’s also hard to reconcile with other statements that indicate that critical thinking is the merely result of learning a lot of (the right) content. One additional barrier that Core Knowledge faces when evaluating Ken Kay’s organization of 21st century skills is that Kay is open to the questions of what content the skills are to be combined with. CK is not (they have already defined the “right” content). So–because Kay can see the skills being incorporated equally well into CK or the existing content standards of Massachussetts, or California, or any other state–he is open to attack.
I agree, both Flypaper and the Fordham website are not as easily searchable as I would like. But Finn is pretty clear regarding his point of view on 21st century skills and their potential harm to content in this recent editorial on National Standards: http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/index.cfm?issue=472#a5025
It’s hard to reconcile with the other statement that you can’t put 21st century skills together with core content.
My reading of that link is that the author was referring not to 21st century skills in general, but to the vision promoted by The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. If you click on the link around the words “21st century skills”, you get to:
People are saying blatantly that they favour both skills and content. In that context, any statements about 21st century skills strikes me as referring to the specific programme, not to an objection to skills at all.
It’s also hard to reconcile with other statements that indicate that critical thinking is the merely result of learning a lot of (the right) content.
Who are these people who you think are indicating that critical thinking is merely the result of learning a lot of content? And can you please link directly to the statements that you think indicate said views?
So–because Kay can see the skills being incorporated equally well into CK or the existing content standards of Massachussetts, or California, or any other state–he is open to attack.
Anyone making an argument is open to attack. Seeing which arguments can stand up to the strongest evidence that can be mustered against them is the best way I know of for identifying which arguments are most likely to be true, at least in those cases where mathematical proofs are not available.
Again, yes, Finn is pretty clear on his view of 21st Century Skills, note capitals, he is referring to a speicific progrmame. But I can see nothing in that editorial in which he says that he wants content only, which I will remind you is your original claim. To quote from the very editorial you linked from:
[Emphasis mine]
http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/index.cfm?issue=472#a5025
You still haven’t identifed any person who wants “content only”.
Sorry for double post.
Tracy:
It is difficult to summarize a conversation that have been going on in a number of places in recent months. It is true that Ken Kay has been trotted out at the spokesperson for 21st Century skills in a number of places. He is the head of a collaboration of a number of states interested in defining a number of “skills” (for lack of a better term) that have been identified by American businesses as being qualities that they are looking for (and find lacking) in both graduates and in state standards and education systems.
There were recently some lengthy discussions on Core Knowledge (which has appointed itself the keeper of content). Their website doesn’t appear to go back far enough to capture anything in the previous month–at least I couldn’t get there. Much of this sprang up following a debate that pitted several folks (Diane Ravitch, I recall was one) on one side and Ken Kay on the other. They were very critical of the ideas presented in P21–not only because of a presumed association with people who might want to eventually sell educational products, but because the ideas presented in P21 were lacking either because they had little inherent value, or did not specify any “content” connection.
One discussion, from Bridging Differences is found here: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2009/03/21st_century_skills_accountabi.html#comments. One frequent contributer, Diana Senechal is also listed on the Core Knowledge website.
However, the comment regarding the foolishness of trying to place core content and twenty-first century skills at the heart of an educational reform plan (which was first published on the Core Knowledge blog and then trumpeted to the world by Fordham) referred not to P21, but to twenty-first century skills–including creativity, collaboration, innovation, critical thinking, as outlined by the Governor.
Sandra Stotsky has recently spoken in several places (Ohio, California) against the inclusion of such things in state’s content standards–because they will “water down” the standards. Also under attack (don’t ask me where I read it–I cannot recall at the moment and don’t have time to go searching for it) is the focus on PISA scores–as PISA tends to assess some of these higher order skills through looking less at specific bodies of knowledge than the ability to use knowledge to solve problems. This is disturbing to people who think like Hirsch (the founder of Core Knowledge) who believe that the role of schools is to disseminate a “core” of “common” knowledge (determined through survey of “literate” people to see what things they all know) which seeks to identify the American culture (Hirsch had a recent editorial in the NY Times in which he suggested that curriculum ought to have all kids reading the same stuff–and rather than test on the ability to understand a “new” piece of stuff, to test the “comprehension” by testing on these “commonly” used texts. That’s one way to go–not everyone agrees). A focus on how knowledge is used not only moves up on Bloom’s Taxonomy from “knowing” to things like “understanding” and “applying,” but a focus on higher order thinking tends to diminish the focus on simply “knowing” a pile of specific stuff. One might use geometry to solve a problem–or one might use algebra. One might draw on Darwin, or Erikson, or Churchill or Jefferson (or Friedan or Angelou or Dionysus).
I agree with most of these folks that there is always a danger of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. I am more worried about the NEA signing on to P21 than I am HP or Dell. It’s a slippery slope to what Linda F. describes, where circling the chairs adds up to collaboration and group work. If this kind of mush justifies a move away from rigor in content (regardless of who the official arbiters are), they we will have only returned to the kind of wasteland that we had (in too many places) prior to standards.
Margo/MomIt is difficult to summarize a conversation that have been going on in a number of places in recent months.
It may be difficult. But it strikes me that when you summarised said conversation as ‘many people who want “content only”‘ you had to ignore numerous blatant statements of those people where they openly said that they supported skills. Even often in the articles you yourself linked to. I think the difficulty here is that you are reading their statements through particular ideological blinkers that want to see these people as fools who can be easily dismissed.
In other words, you have no support for your assertion that there are ‘people who want “content only”‘.
There were recently some lengthy discussions on Core Knowledge (which has appointed itself the keeper of content).
I notice you provide no support for your assertion that Core Knowledge has appointed itself the keeper of knowledge. I suspect this has as much support as your assertion that there are ‘people who want “content only” – none at all.
but because the ideas presented in P21 were lacking either because they had little inherent value, or did not specify any “content” connection.
Why are you putting the word “content” in quotemarks?
One discussion, from Bridging Differences is found here: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2009/03/21st_century_skills_accountabi.html#comments. One frequent contributer, Diana Senechal is also listed on the Core Knowledge website.
And to quote from this:
I also note that you have not attempted to support your assertion that there are people who are indicating that critical thinking is merely the result of learning a lot of content.
I notice you supply no evidence to support this assertion.
Also, your assertion that creativity, collaboration, innovation and critical thinking are twenty-first century skills rather misses the fact that they were also 20th century skills, 19th century skills, 18th century skills and so forth back to at least the 21st century BC. Why oh why do people keep calling them 21st century skills as if there was something new about them? I have no objection to schools teaching creativity, collaboration, innovation, critical thinking, but I do think that labelling them “21st century skills” indicates a serious lack of critical thinking. And if you can’t think critically yourself, how can you teach it or even recognise whether or not it is being taught?
Also under attack (don’t ask me where I read it–I cannot recall at the moment and don’t have time to go searching for it) is the focus on PISA scores
Uh-huh. You claimed that there existed ‘many people who want “content only”‘, when I asked you for the names of such people you provided names for which I promptly found blatant statements that they favoured both contents and skills, you provided links, I found clear statements in those links of support for skills as well as contents. Now, you expect me to believe your unsupported assertion that there are people attacking the focus on PISA scores, even though you yourself have said that you have forgotten where you read this?
I believe you made this assertion up out of thin air. I believe the reason you can’t remember where you read it is that you never did read it in the first place. There may be people out there who are attacking the focus on PISA scores (and if so I think this is a good thing, if PISA scores should be focussed on, the best way I know of to find that out is to see how well arguments in PISA’s favour stand up to determined attacks), but given your past record, the mere fact that you claim it rather raises my Bayesian probability that such people don’t in fact exist at all.
In other words, pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.
This is disturbing to people who think like Hirsch…
Another unsupported assertion.
A focus on how knowledge is used not only moves up on Bloom’s Taxonomy from “knowing” to things like “understanding” and “applying,” but a focus on higher order thinking tends to diminish the focus on simply “knowing” a pile of specific stuff.
Yes, the number of things you can focus on at any one time is limited. This is implicit in the definition of “focus”. So what?
Well, Tracy:
I don’t see a lot of point in continuing this conversation. You have your mind made up and are bothered by any evidence to the contrary. It is besides the point, in my opinion, whether the group of skills is called 21st century, or blue skills, green skills or rock making skills. The people who have chosen to call them that have reasons grounded in the need/utility for those skills in a global economy–one hallmark of the 21st century.
My suggestion would be–if your interest is in knowing more about content (placed in quotation marks above because there has also been considerable discussion about what is content–again, this was in a Core Knowledge blog–if you are interested you might contact them for the text of those conversations that are no longer available) and the possible relationship to those things frequently referred to as 21st century skills, you might want to spend some time doing your own research. You might want to read Hirsch, Stotsky, Ravitch, perhaps others.
That is, if your interest is in exploring the subject. I rather suspect, from the delight you (to my eyes) take in attacking every response I have made to your questions, that your interest is more in playing gotcha games. Personally, I can get hooked into play (hoping that someone is as interested as I am in the actual matter of the discussion)–but I’m bored with it now–I cede the field to you.
Margo/Mom, thanks for answering my question as to why you put the word “content” in quotemarks.
As for the rest, you are the one who, in deciding that various people were part of that group of the ‘many people who want “content only”‘, ignored clear statements to the contrary by said people. I have no idea how you believe that me reading Hirsch, Stotsky, Ravitch will prevent you from making such similar mistakes in the future. It strikes me as far more likely that if you want to stop making such mistakes, you’re going to have to do some work yourself. All I can do is query and try to make you justify your assertions.
I disagree with you about how we name the group of skills, critical thinking, collaboration, innovation and creativity. Words are how we communicate abstract ideas with each other. While language is always changing, there still is something there that allows us to imperfectly transfer ideas from one head to another, and within English there is a remarkable degree of consistency about what some words mean. In particular, I think calling those skills I listed above “rock-making” or “21st century” is misleading in that they imply that they are somehow special to “rock-making” or the “21st century”.
That is, if your interest is in exploring the subject. I rather suspect, from the delight you (to my eyes) take in attacking every response I have made to your questions, that your interest is more in playing gotcha games.
My motives are irrelevant to the question of whether your assertions are right or wrong. Even if I was entirely motivated by sweetness and light you would still have been wrong in saying that there are ‘many people who want “content only”‘. And of course the advantage of having someone who is trying to play gotcha games is that it forces the victim to really up their standard of evidence. To quote Georg von Bekesy::
If you don’t want to take advantage of my attacks, whatever my motivation, it’s your loss.