Hyperbole, Money and Bureaucracy, Oh My!

Call me a skeptic, but I couldn't help but find myself disenfranchised with the Partnership for 21st Century Skills website. To me, the organization seems like an over-reaching entity full of hot air.

Let's start with the Partnership's founder, Ken Kay. Mr. Kay is the founder and CEO of Washington, D.C.-based E-Luminate group. A visit to the company's website, found here, reveals that E-Luminate is a for-profit company that helps its clients conduct business with education programs, school districts, states, etc. Check out this enlightening text, taken directly from E-Luminate's site:

 "Do you have a sales and marketing strategy that aligns with the agenda of the new Administration? Are you in need of a mesage that will help you take advantage of stimulus dollars? If you want to work with a D.C. insider, contact us."

Great. My question is this: Does the Partnership for 21st Century Skills exist to help America's students and schools perform better and reach new heights, or does it exist as a way to help E-Luminate's clients make more money by selling goods and services to the education sector?

I noticed on the Partnership's website that its founding members include AOL Time Warner, Apple Computer, Cable in the Classroom, Cisco Systems, Dell Computer, Microsoft, National Education Association and SAP. Most of these members are large corporations that gain direct financial benefits by marketing themselves to the education sector. In fact, Mr. Kay's firm, E-Luminate, is essentially a marketing agency that helps companies such as these attract the attention of school corporations and educational policy wonks.

Now, let me state that I don't necessarily see corporate involvement in education as evil. America's education system is in distress, and it could greatly benefit from some of the business world's ways. At the same time, I have found that education, in general, is clouded by layers of bureaucracy. Often, policies are set not based on what is best for students, but on which well-funded lobbyists make the best sales pitch or have the most influence.

Again, this is admitedly a skeptical view. But that's what I was left with after my first glance at the Partnership for 211st Century Skills website. It sure seems like hybperbole to me. For example, the site repeatedly boasts its mission of serving "as a catalyst to position 21st century readiness" and advocating "for 21st century readiness for every student." But, really, what does that mean? It sounds like glossy, yet intenionally ill-defined, talk to me. The kind of talk that sounds good and makes people say 'Yeah, great idea, we should support that,' even though they don't fully understand what they are supporting.

Perhaps I missed something, but I did not really find anything on the Partnership's site that led to a greater understanding of 21st century skills or the issues surrounding them. Again, I found a lot of talk about how important it is to advocate for 21st century skills. My best understanding is that the Partnership hopes to see what it calls the "four c's" (critical thinking and problem solving, communication, collaboration & creativity and innovation) get as much attention in schools as the traditional core subjects of Math, English, Science, etc. But what I do not see on the site is a plan for helping school districts achieve the increased funding levels they would need to make widespread, meaningful curriculum changes. Nor do I see any plans and funding that would get teachers the additional training they would need to better incorporate technology and the other tools that would be needed to place more emphasis on the four c's. It mentions a three-day professional development affiliate program in New York City ... How many schools can afford that? Mine can't. Our corporation just closed four of its 13 elementary schools due to budget shortfalls.

What surprised me most about the site is that it manages to say so much, yet say so little at the same time. What I mean by this is that it appears very ambitious. But when you get down to the nuts and bolts, I simply do not see where anything is happening in the classroom as a direct result of the Partnership's efforts. Perhaps I am entirely misguided. I hope I am, because I do think education needs more input and collaboration from business and civic leaders. Companies like Apple and Dell are stocked with brilliant minds who could make a major difference in education (and may perhaps even work in the field if it paid better!). But the Partnership appears to be seeking to define and implement more standards, which I believe will add another layer of bureaucracy and lead to more teachers simply hyper-focusing on particular areas and tests.
For example, I have copied and pasted this from a PDF available on the Partnership's site:
 So, does this mean the Partnership hasn't yet been able to define what a 21st Century School of Education looks like? Perhaps its "vision paper" (another white paper ... will it lead to results in the classroom) will shed some light on the matter!

"The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

(AACTE)

include 1) a consensus definition of “21C-SOE: 21st Century Schools of

Education”, and 2) specific steps and recommendations on the federal,

state and local levels that will help guide the creation of 21st century

schools of education. http://www.aacte.org/"is partnering with P21 to generate a vision paper that will

As you can see, I obviously disagree with a lot of what I found on the site. My differences are philosophical: I believe tax money should be used by the schools wherever the funds are most needed. In some schools, that may mean more emphasis on math or science. In others, it might be a focus on the arts. In just about every school, teachers need ongoing training and there needs to be a substantial investment in technology. But instead of all this educational propaganda, let's first focus on simply getting the technology in schools and getting the educators properly trained. And let's also get realistic about what is happening in American schools each and every day, where creativity isn't exactly as lauded as one might think. Just take a look and the lengthy list of books and paintings that many school boards have banned. Students are often encouraged to be creative so long as their creative expressions fall into a somewhat strict zone. As a Kindergarten teacher, I don't have that problem. My students work creatively by drawing, coloring, sharing stories, etc. But I know plenty of high school teachers who cannot teach some of the best literary works on the planet, or cannot dissect some of the world's finest art ... because the school board has determined these works are inappropriate.

When that is the reality, how in-depth can an elementary or even high school teacher go when talking about global problems and how to solve them?

As for something on the site I do agree with, it would be this statement from the Partnership:

"A profound gap exists between the knowledge and skills most students learn in school and the knowledge and skills they need for success in their communities and workplaces. To successfully face rigorous higher education coursework, career challenges and a globally competitive workforce, U.S. schools must align classroom environments with real world environments ..."

In the end, what this all means to me as an educator remains to be seen. If my state adopts the recommendations and policies of the Partnership, then I'll one day be performing even more assessments and perhaps even tests (though that's doubtful at the level I teach). As to how it will impact myself and my students in the future, I'm not sure the Partnership will have a profound impact. I think the real impact is going to come through school districts finally recognizing and accepting that the aforementioned gap between "school skills" and "workplace skills" exists. When that happens, the curriculum is going to face an overhaul and there will be greater emphasis placed in many areas, such as technology. However, this can't happen until the funding is in place. Moreover, these changes will not erase the importance of core subjects such as English, math and science. These are the essential building blocks to any education. Teachers at other levels will likely have a different take on the matter. At the Kindergarten level, though, my time is really occupied teaching life skills, social skills, reading, writing, early math. I'm laying the foundation that others will build upon.