By George Manthey

I’m not sure why I should be surprised, but I am when I learn that teaching critical thinking, analytical and technology skills – as well as teaching students to be creative and collaborative – has become controversial. There seems to be a bit of a backlash against such skills, often called 21st century skills. The concern is that if such skills are emphasized, it will be at the expense of core content.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced in late September the Obama administration’s commitment to re-authorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (NCLB in its current reiteration). When he said, “We need to agree on what’s important and how to measure it or we will continue to have the same old adult arguments – while ignoring children,” he may not have been talking about the 21st century skills advocates vs. those who emphasize explicit, well-sequenced content, but he could have been.

A panel discussion of these issues, sponsored by Common Core, was held earlier this year. This forum focused on the work of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21), which is based in Tucson. Their work was sharply criticized by Daniel Willingham, E.D. Hirsch and Andrew Rotherham, according to Education Week (“Backers of ‘21st-Century Skills’ Take Flak,” by Stephen Sawchuk).

21st century skills not “all-purpose muscles”

Willingham argued that “it is content itself that allows individuals to recognize problems.” Hirsch observed that such 21st century skills are not like all-purpose muscles that can be applied in any context. Rotherham expressed concern that these efforts have “the potential to be an intervention that’s the weakest in schools that have to be the strongest” (schools serving low income populations).

Ken Kay of P21 countered that such skills actually transcend the debate. He said, “There’s no question from the beginning that our work has been built on the premise that skills and contents support each other, and the notion that you have to choose between this is a false dichotomy.”

For me, it’s hard to think of a century in which it wasn’t important to think critically as well as be analytical, creative and collaborative. Imagine a prehistoric group on a hunt for food that did not employ this kind of approach. You’d have to imagine it, because such a society would not last.

Of course, neither would a society that thought it could hunt for game by only being analytical, creative and collaborative, without any knowledge of the habits of the food source. Knowledge and skills seem always to be requirements.

I find it hard to believe there could be a debate about which might be more important. In fact, hearing efforts to make such a distinction remind me of my commitment to adopt a new ideology – that of the radical moderate.

California assessment system emphasizes “knowledge”

A mini version of this discussion took place within ACSA as the Assessment and Accountability Task Force met to create recommendations to improve California’s assessment and accountability system. Many on the task force lamented the emphasis on “knowledge” in California’s almost entirely multiple-choice response assessment system. Others noted that what students know is as important as what students can do.

Although the final recommendations have not been determined, I have a hunch they will evoke both the need to be clear about what students should know and equally clear about how students will be deeply engaged in that knowledge. Such is the way of the radical moderate.

George Manthey is assistant executive director, ACSA Educational Services.