21st Century Skills

One of the most basic truths about the school business is that there are always those who are absolutely sure about what public schools should be doing. They represent that phenomenon that religious writers refer to as enthusiasm, a "rapturous inspiration, an overly confident or delusory belief."

It is a sign of our foolishness as a species and also of our innocence that we are capable of embracing very different and even contradictory enthusiasms over time. The key is never to be too precise or too coherent about the logic of one's enthusiasm, neither the first premises, nor the called-for practices, nor the ultimate purposes. If one has been at it long enough, he or she could have been an enthusiast for the open classroom, for going back to basics, for whole language, for self-esteem, for school choice and vouchers, for the standards movement, for professional learning communities, and so on.

Another key is that the enthusiasm must be, in some obviously recognizable way, pertinent to the current situation, just enough so that people can immediately and easily see the connection between what is, what's needed, and what is being proposed.

Lately we have heard many cries from many sources that public schools should be giving students "21st Century skills." Conceptually, this phrase is a disaster: No one could possibly give a clear, coherent explanation of what it means. This vagueness is part of the attraction for people who traffic not in careful thought but in slogans.

It may be a conceptual disaster, but politically it's effective, for who could argue against students leaving their K-12 experience with anything less than those skills appropriate and necessary to leading a successful life in the 21st Century?

But what are those skills? I wonder what the answer to that question would have been in 1911. Would anyone alive 100 years ago have been able to imagine, to predict the explosion of innovation and creativity that has occurred during the last 60 years? Most people in 1911, if asked to define "20th Century skills" would have described those skills necessary to factory work.

We have every reason to believe that the process of innovation and creativity will only continue to produce a rate of change the specifics of which are impossible to predict.

The second problem with "21st Century skills" is that it assumes that the only important thing --- or, at least, the most important thing --- is skill, the ability to do something.

This emphasis on doing is both deeply modern and deeply American and it has served us well. But the emphasis on doing has often led to a neglect of knowledge, clear thinking, and wisdom.

It isn't just that "21st Century skills" is mere cant; it's that it ignores what is really important --- the acquisition of knowledge, the development of understanding, the training in how to think, and the careful evaluation of the perennial questions in order to acquire wisdom.

Circumstances change but human nature does not change. However the circumstances of the 21st Century change --- and there is every reason to believe that those circumstances will continue to change drastically --- human beings will still need what they have always needed: the ability to evaluate, to make judgments, to make informed, principled decisions.

Rather than embracing the current enthusiasm, those of us who are involved in schools should be asking, "How can we best help students learn to lead fully human lives?"

(Here is an expression of the more conventional view: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinberg-education-20101225,0,3381488.story )