Is the 21st Century Skills Movement a passing Fad?

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” F. Scott Fitzgerald, author of the American literature classic The Great Gatsby.

In two articles published by the Washington post entitled “The Rush for 21st Century Skills” and “The Latest Doomed Pedagogical Fad: 21st Century Skills” respectively, Jay Matthews argues that the 21st Classroom Movement, peddled by Ken Kay of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills and like-minded educational gurus, is an annoying nuisance at best and a waste of time at worst. Matthews falls victim to what Jay Collins and Scott Porras, in their New York Times best-selling book entitled “Built to Last” call “the tyranny of the OR”. To put it simply, the “Tyranny of the OR” suggests a black and white, either/or approach to an issue. In other words, it must either be a fad or an irrefutable truth. It’s either 100% right or 100% wrong. In reality, it’s probably neither. Students must be given the skills to succeed in this Brave New Wired-Global Village. Yet critics of the 21st Century Movement make some valid points. For example, the 21st Century skills pedagogical framework is neither a passing fad nor a new, revolutionary approach. As Matthews and others have pointed out, at least some skills that pass for 21st century skills have been around since Ancient Greece. Among other things, teachers have been using Bloom’s taxonomy to make sure they were teaching higher order skills since the 1950s. For example, Matthews writes “I see little guidance for classroom teachers in 21st-century skills materials. How are millions of students still struggling to acquire 19th-century skills in reading, writing and math supposed to learn this stuff?” He goes on to write that the 21st Century movement “…is the all-at-once syndrome, a common failing of reform movements. They say changes must be made all at once, or else”. He’s right of course. Too often, and this is worse in underfunded schools, teachers are given crash courses in the shiny new theory and very little realistic training in how to implement “on the ground”. Teacher’s College, like so much of university education, is long on useless theory and short on practical relevance. For example, my undergraduate teaching degree mandated a course in the History of Education in Canada but did not even offer an optional course in classroom management. The professional development workshops I attend are too often long on theory and short on implementation resources. We learn about the need for new assessment pedagogy (called Growing Success in Ontario) but are given little paid time to think about and develop courses of study and unit plans that incorporate its principles. In Ontario, Matthews might ask “When are teachers going to be shown, using practical examples from their disciplines, how the new curriculum expectations rolled out in 2014 are to be implemented while incorporating 21st Century methodology and skills outcomes? It takes time and resources to switch over from the way “we’ve always done it.” Matthews statement about teachers receiving little guidance includes the woefully inadequate curriculum documents and Ministry support given to private schools. The question is not so much “Must we change?” but “How can we change?” Will we give teachers the tools, training, and time to do what they are fully capable of doing?