Mostly because I disagree that these skills have been in demand for very long. Sure, demanded by companies of their executive and management teams, but not of their regular workers (TPS report).

And there’s more to it than the working environment. These are the skills needed to be a engaged citizen, and most people don’t pick them up until during or after college.

So I guess I disagree with the premise that these have been widely taught in the 20th century.

It is more important to follow up on this other discussion point we are going back and forth on, and why something as seemingly trivial as a “branding issue” is pretty darn important.

First of all, the single most important component of student learning that policymakers have some control over is teacher quality. Researchers have identified lots of other things that matter, and plenty of things that don’t, but nothing makes as much of a difference as having quality teachers.

And this is why the “branding issue” is so important. If the skills are “new,” then the obvious path for policymakers to take is to simply explain to the current teaching workforce that they should now teach 21st century skills.

But, if these “skills” have been around for a long time, and if ed schools are already instructing teachers in them, but yet we don’t think students are being exposed to them enough, then the solution is far different. The solution wouldn’t be to have a community-wide conversation where we simply list the skills and tell teachers to “do this.” By their own account they’re already doing it to the best of their abilities. The solution would be to make efforts to increase the proportion of effective teachers in the workforce.

So, yes, how it’s branded matters. I don’t know that I quoted this aspect of Rotherham’s essay, but if you follow the link I think he makes essentially the same point.

How we add effective teachers to the workforce (and remove ineffective ones) is a conversation for another day.

Given that the teaching methods at schools like ASMSA are generally not used at other schools, it seems perfectly appropriate to refer to these skills as 21st century, since this is the century when the majority of adoption would occur.

In addition, these skills weren’t really demanded by the workforce until the 90′s, and arguing that they aren’t 21st century because they missed the mark by less than a decade isn’t practical.

But I’ll bite… how would you brand it?

If you have as hard of a time answering this question as I do, then maybe there is more to schooling than teaching knowledge. Maybe these 21c skills (or whatever you want to call them) deserve more of a place in our institutions.

@Stuart – You’re right that critical thinking requires deep knowledge, but deep knowledge doesn’t imply critical thinking. That’s like saying teaching deep grammar makes kids into great writers. It takes more than that.

And affluent kids are VERY exposed to tech tools, but poor kids aren’t. That’s why they need more of a place in the classroom, because right now, gaining technological skills is often the product of your economic situation. The achievement gap hurts all of us.

@BKisida – That’s fair. Let me re-characterize what I meant.

They aren’t new, they’re just underused.

Let me tell you where I’m coming from. I started out in a typical school system. Rural and small, but not too poor. I was taught 5-paragraph essays, formulaic Algebra, and textbook history.

Then, I went to the Arkansas School for Math and Science. I chose my projects. I learned proof-based math, I learned how to write real essays and how to use the scientific method to design experiments. In other words, I learned how to do more than follow instructions and run the formulas.

I have friends starting college now, learning 5-paragraph essays for the second time because their high schools never taught them how to analyze a concept and synthesize their thoughts. They were only taught formulas and facts.

The whole 21c argument comes down to this: is it more important to teach students how to find their own facts, or spend our time teaching the facts themselves? It’s not a black-and-white answer, but it’s clear that there needs to be more of the former. My main beef with your point, Stuart, is that you’re basically saying students don’t need guidance to use tech tools effectively.

To which I answer, “C U l8ter boi.”

“Arguing about whether or not “21c skills” are new or just new to education reform conversation”

I don’t think that’s right. They aren’t new and they aren’t new to the reform conversation either. I went to some of the public meetings in Fayetteville during the Wagner reading, and every teacher at the table told me the same thing. They were aware of these concepts and they already used them to the extent that they could.

So who actually thinks the 21st century skills are new? Well, I think the 21st century movement is banking on the idea that a lot of voters will think it sounds new and appealing.

I think the key passage is from Diane Ravitch:

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.

In other words, talking about “21st century skills” is usually a waste of time, because the kids already have more than enough exposure to modern technology and how to use Google. What they really need — the reason that schools exist in the first place — is exposure to history, science, math, etc.

As for “critical thinking skills,” such skills simply don’t exist outside of a deep base of knowledge, and giving kids that deep base of knowledge is task number 1.

Achievement gap?