The Simpsons had a great episode Sunday night. Brian tells me that after a few rough seasons, The Simpsons are “back,” and after this episode I’m inclined to believe him.  You should watch the whole episode if you have the time, but if not here are a couple of my favorite scenes:

1. “21st Century” education – watch from about the 7:40 mark until 9:50
2. Skinner can’t just fire a teacher – watch from 18:20 until 20:30

The hip new teacher, Tufts degree in hand, who uses his iPhone to text the kids that their homework consists of twittering and friends them on Facebook got me thinking about 21st century education again.

What are some of the leading voices in education saying about 21st Century Skills? Last month NationalJournal.com had an interesting piece where they asked this very question. I find the responses of Diane Ravitch and Andy Rotherham particularly interesting. These two left leaning ed policy gurus, Ravitch worked in both the H.W. Bush and Clinton education departments and Rotherham was a domestic policy wonk for Clinton, downplay the importance of the bluster, hype, and corporate marketing that is the 21st century skills movement.

Both of these experts reach the same conclusion concerning the newness of 21st Century Skills.  Rotherham writes:

I’ve been among the skeptics of a lot of what masquerades as 21st Century Skills. The whole construct of “new” skills seems to me to reek of contemporary flattery and miss the point that none of these skills are actually new. What’s new today is the need for universality: In other words, in the past elites in society (our society and others throughout history) had these skills while the masses generally did not. Today, by contrast, our commitment to a more equitable society as well as the demands of our economy mean a deliberate effort must be made to ensure that all students learn how to think, analyze, problem-solve and so forth.

Rotherham goes on to point out that “Thinking that these skills are ‘new’ rather than thinking that they are simply ‘more necessary’ leads to different remedies.” That’s some crucial advice for districts that currently have the adoption of 21st century skills on their agendas. You can find the full text of Rotherham’s comments here.

Diane Ravitch’s take on the topic is especially scathing, especially when she notes that the movement has the potential to be a cash-cow for peddlers of products marketed to enhance 21st Century learning:

The notion of “21st century skills” is a fiction. There are no such skills. Every single skill listed as a “21st century skill” has been in demand long before the 21st century, in some cases for many centuries.  Most of what is now proposed–whether critical thinking skills or working in groups–has been an integral part of the progressive education movement since the early years of the twentieth century. Anyone knowledgeable about the history of American education would recognize most of these skills as another manifestation of progressivism (see Lawrence Cremin’s The Transformation of the Schools or my own Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform). In reality, the so-called 21st century skills are no more than an echo of the ideas that have dominated our colleges of education since the early twentieth century.  I have elsewhere (http://blog.commoncore.org/?p=88) suggested that the schools should emphasize such 19th century skills as love of learning, the ability to think for oneself (individualism) and to work alone (initiative), the ability to stand alone against the crowd (courage), and so on.  The board of P21, the organization that promotes this alleged movement, is top-heavy with representatives of the major technology companies, suggesting at least to me that the movement will end up noted as a lobbyist for selling more hardware and software to the schools. But even the idea of information literacy is not new. Schools have already spent billions on equipment from these same companies (and others that have since disappeared).  Our children are not deficient in skills or in computer literacy; they know better than their parents how to use computers to access information. Unfortunately what they lack is the knowledge with which to evaluate the information they so easily access.  They are deficient in knowledge; they are deficient in understanding of history, civics, science, geography, foreign languages, the arts, and literature. Anyone who has seen Jay Leno’s street interviews (his Jaywalking interviews) has observed the profound ignorance that Leno encounters when he meets young people and asks them questions about the most basic ideas and facts of history, civics, and geography. Those he interviews–who seem to be mainly in their early 20s–laugh about their ignorance; they think it is funny that they know so little of the world. They do not lack thinking skills or computer literacy. They lack knowledge.   The 21st century skills movement, like so much else that we are now doing in education, will plunge us even deeper into our present morass of happy ignorance.

I have been surprised that more liberals have not spoken out against the 21st century skills movement. One of the main goals of the movement is, as articulated by Tony Wagner, to make our kids more attractive drones so they will be employable by corporations. Liberals should be at least a little uncomfortable with the corporate backing the movement has gotten.