As a music teacher, comments like this never fail to make me worry about one day losing a music program: "Inevitably, putting a priority on skills pushes other subjects, including history, literature, and the arts, to the margins. But skill-centered, knowledge-free education has never worked." (Ravitch). I do agree that schooling needs to look different in the 21st century, however I think the advocates for 21st century skills implementation can take it to an extreme. For example, "Every aspect of our education system -- preK-12, postsecondary and adult education, after-school and youth development, workforce development and training, and teacher preparation programs -- must be aligned to prepare citizens with the 21st century skills they need to compete." (Mathews). Why every aspect? Aren't there as least SOME things in traditional education that still hold any weight? I really don't think my education was that bad at preparing me for the 21st century that every aspect of it needs to change.
If schooling is supposed to "prepare students with skills and knowledge," as Professor Bigsby said, then why is there a push to seemingly neglect the knowledge part. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with most of the blogs that I've read. Everything in moderation seems to be agreed upon. I don't have a problem with new things being implemented, but not by abandoning everything about the way things have been done in education thus far.
I don't believe there is a push to neglect knowledge. Can we teach 21st century skills, like collaboration, communication and problem solving or can we only give our students quality practice at it? Can you really teach a student to sing at Carnegie Hall quality or can you only develop the skills that the student has so that they have the confidence to perform and more importantly, love what they do?
ReplyDeleteContent happens to be the "stuff" that teachers use to provide students practice.