The Partnership for 21st Century Skills is an important tool for the reform of our education system. We need to get every school in the country involved and excited about the "4 Cs." However, they run into the same problem that every other type of education reform is also facing. It is coming from a top-down approach. It is easy to tell a district or a state, "these are the skills that you should be enforcing. Now go and do it." Trying to get the states to implement these standards is much more difficult.
E.D. Hirsch Jr. is the founder of Core Standards, the organization behind Common Core, a set of standards for education. He was quoted in a USA Today article that 21st Century Skills are an "ineffectual use of school time." He goes on to call P21 "a fragmented approach with uncertain cognitive goals." His points are valid, and there is a concern that the depth of Common Core and the requirements of 21st Century Skills would not be able to coexist in the current school system.
Yet Massachusetts, where I live established 21st Century Skills as a "high-level, state-wide priority" in 2008 and adopted Common Core on July 21, 2010. In fact, thirteen of the fifteen states (Maine and South Dakota are the two exceptions) considered P21 Leadership states have adopted Common Core standards. We now have two initiatives, that consider themselves irreconcilably opposed, being thrust simultaneously on our students and teachers. There is no way to succeed in this situation. But since our budget is being cut, maybe no one will notice.
I do not live in a state where 21st Century Skills have been adopted; how has that changed your curriculum and daily lesson plans? Was it a sudden change, or a slow gradual change? Did your state/district provide any financial support?
ReplyDeleteKuuipo
Everyone has a plan for fixing education. When did education become so broken? Probably since everyone has a plan for fixing it. This sounds like the chicken and the egg argument. Having state education mandates that make requirements without any financial means to supporting them is silimar to waiting for a rooster to lay an egg.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: if this is such a good plan than why have only 15 states sign on?
Kuuipo,
ReplyDeleteTechnically, there was no change. The state said "we should do this." Then everything stayed the same.
Suzi,
Personally, I think it is a good plan. I don't know if P21 has been as aggressive in promoting themselves as Common Core has been.
Each and every initiative will eventually fade away without significant standards reform and funding. One will replace another and the cycle will continue. It sounds like P21 is already being replaced with Common Core in your state. Policy makers are keenly aware of the funding requirements for any initiative. They are unwilling to make changes in the standards when funding is clearly not available. I see no real solution to the technology deficiency in today's schools. Schools with a significant tax base will thrive and those without will continue to fall further behind the technology curve. Initiatives will not help those in need. Grants and corporate sponsorships will not be enough to close the gap left by under supported programs endorsed by the states.
ReplyDeleteDavid
Things come and things go. We all realize that there is never enough money to meet the needs of all our students. I will suggest combining resources with Career and Technology classes. There is some extra funding there, not much but everything helps. See what you can do to share supplies.
ReplyDelete