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::

One way of dealing with errors is to have friends who are willing to spend the time necessary to carry out a critical examination of the experimental design beforehand and the results after the experiments have been completed. An even better way is to have an enemy. An enemy is willing to devote a vast amount of time and brain power to ferreting out errors both large and small, and this without any compensation. The trouble is that really capable enemies are scarce; most of them are only ordinary. Another trouble with enemies is that they sometimes develop into friends and lose a great deal of their zeal. It was in this way the writer lost his three best enemies. Everyone, not just scientists, needs a good few enemies.

If you don’t want to take advantage of my attacks, whatever my motivation, it’s your loss.

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.

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:

Students can read original documents, hold mock trials, conduct research on the Internet, write essays, interview people, take field trips, read biographies, on and on. The possibilities are endless for creative teaching. Every one of the so-called “21st-Century skills” could be brought to bear while learning about important events in American history.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:

We think that skills such as creativity, communication, critical thinking, and others should not be in competition with content; instead they should be integrated into a comprehensive, rigorous curriculum.

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:

A common standard is the skeleton of learning, not all the flesh. It outlines the core skills and knowledge that young Americans need to acquire …

[Emphasis mine]
http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/index.cfm?issue=472#a5025

You still haven’t identifed any person who wants “content only”.

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

Amidst much of the haggling over 21st century skills, we often forget why the two sides disagree. It’s not that those thought of as “against” 21st century skills don’t think they’re of any value. Quite to the contrary. 21st century skills—adaptability, critical thinking skills, ability to manipulate new media—are all good things for students to learn.

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:

But the children of illiterate parents depend greatly on our schools to teach them the basics like reading, writing, and arithmetic, and to expose them to history, literature, and the arts.

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:

Mr. Kay, read very carefully: No one is arguing with you. Yes, children need skills and solid academic content. Roger that. Message received. The problem, Mr. Kay, is that your plan shows a curious lack of academic content. Saying content is important is not enough. You actually have to deliver it. Where…is….the….content?

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.

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.

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.