Rotherham pp16-21_2:EL Template

7/31/09

9:10 AM

Page 16

21st Century
To work, the 21st century skills movement will require
keen attention to curriculum, teacher quality, and assessment.
Andrew J. Rotherham and Daniel WillinghamA

growing number of business leaders,politicians, and educators are united
around the idea that students need “21stcentury skills” to be successful today. It’s
exciting to believe that we live in times
that are so revolutionary that they demand new anddifferent abilities. But in fact, the skills students needin the 21st century are not new.
Critical thinking and problem solving, for example,
have been components of human progress throughout
history, from the development of early tools, to agricultural advancements, to the invention of vaccines, toland and sea exploration. Such skills as information
literacy and global awareness are not new, at least notamong the elites in different societies. The need formastery of different kinds of knowledge, ranging fromfacts to complex analysis? Not new either. In The
Republic, Plato wrote about four distinct levels of intellect. Perhaps at the time, these were considered “3rdcentury BCE skills”?
What’s actually new is the extent to which changes
in our economy and the world mean that collective
and individual success depends on having such skills.
Many U.S. students are taught these skills—those who
are fortunate enough to attend highly effective schools
or at least encounter great teachers—but it’s a matterof chance rather than the deliberate design of ourschool system. Today we cannot afford a system inwhich receiving a high-quality education is akin to agame of bingo. If we are to have a more equitable andeffective public education system, skills that have been
the province of the few must become universal.
16

E D U C AT I O N A L L E A D E R S H I P / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 9This distinction between “skills that are novel” and“skills that must be taught more intentionally andeffectively” ought to lead policymakers to different
education reforms than those they are now considering. If these skills were indeed new, then perhaps wewould need a radical overhaul of how we think about
content and curriculum. But if the issue is, instead,that schools must be more deliberate about teaching
critical thinking, collaboration, and problem solving to
all students, then the remedies are more obvious,
although still intensely challenging.
What Will It Take?
The history of U.S. education reform should greatly
concern everyone who wants schools to do a betterjob of teaching students to think. Many reform efforts,from reducing class size to improving reading instruction, have devolved into fads or been implemented
with weak fidelity to their core intent. The 21st
century skills movement faces the same risk.
To complicate the challenge, some of the rhetoric
we have heard surrounding this movement suggeststhat with so much new knowledge being created,
content no longer matters; that ways of knowing information are now much more important than information itself. Such notions contradict what we know
about teaching and learning and raise concerns thatthe 21st century skills movement will end up being aweak intervention for the very students—low-income
students and students of color—who most need
powerful schools as a matter of social equity.
The debate is not about content versus skills. ThereRotherham pp16-21_2:EL Template

7/31/09

9:10 AM

Page 17

Skills:The Challenges Ahead

A S C D / W W W. A S C D . O R G

17Rotherham pp16-21_2:EL Template

7/31/09

9:10 AM

Page 18

Be careful what you give children, for sooner or l
is no responsible constituency arguing
against ensuring that students learn how
to think in school. Rather, the issue is
how to meet the challenges of deliveringcontent and skills in a rich way thatgenuinely improves outcomes forstudents.
What will it take to ensure that theidea of “21st century skills”—or more
precisely, the effort to ensure that all
students, rather than just a privilegedfew, have access to a rich education that
intentionally helps them learn theseskills—is successful in improving
schools? That effort requires three
primary components. First, educatorsand policymakers must ensure that the
instructional program is complete andthat content is not shortchanged for anephemeral pursuit of skills. Second,
states, school districts, and schools needto revamp how they think about humancapital in education—in particular how
teachers are trained. Finally, we need
new assessments that can accurately
measure richer learning and more
complex tasks.
For the 21st century skills effort to beeffective, these three elements must be
implemented in concert. Otherwise, thereform will be superficial and counterproductive.
Better Curriculum
People on all sides of this debate often
speak of skills and knowledge as separate. They describe skills as akin to afunction on a calculator: If your calculator can compute square roots, it can
do so for any number; similarly, if a
student has developed the ability to“think scientifically,” he or she can do sowith any content. In this formulation,
domain knowledge is mainly important
as grist for the mill—you need something to think about.
Skills and knowledge are not separate, however, but intertwined. In somecases, knowledge helps us recognize the18

underlying structure of a problem. For
example, even young children understand the logical implications of a rule
like “If you finish your vegetables, youwill get a cookie after dinner.” They candraw the logical conclusion that a child
who is denied a cookie after dinnermust not have finished her vegetables.

Curriculum,
teacher expertise,
and assessment haveall been weak links
in past education
reform efforts.
Without this familiar context, however,the same child will probably find it difficult to understand the logical form
modus tollens, of which the cookie rule isan example. (If P, then Q. Q is false.
Therefore, P is false.) Thus, it’s inaccurate
to conceive of logical thinking as a separate skill that can be applied across avariety of situations. Sometimes we failto recognize that we have a particular
thinking skill (such as applying modus

E D U C AT I O N A L L E A D E R S H I P / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 9

tollens) unless it comes in the form ofknown content.
At other times, we know that we havea particular thinking skill, but domain
knowledge is necessary if we are to use
it. For example, a student might havelearned that “thinking scientifically”
requires understanding the importanceof anomalous results in an experiment.
If you’re surprised by the results of anexperiment, that suggests that yourhypothesis was wrong and the data aretelling you something interesting. But tobe surprised, you must make a prediction in the first place—and you can only
generate a prediction if you understandthe domain in which you are working.
Thus, without content knowledge weoften cannot use thinking skills properly
and effectively.
Why would misunderstanding therelationship of skills and knowledge
lead to trouble? If you believe that skills
and knowledge are separate, you arelikely to draw two incorrect conclusions. First, because content is readily
available in many locations but thinking
skills reside in the learner’s brain, it
would seem clear that if we must choose
between them, skills are essential,
whereas content is merely desirable.
Second, if skills are independent ofcontent, we could reasonably conclude
that we can develop these skills throughthe use of any content. For example, if
students can learn how to think critically about science in the context of any
scientific material, a teacher should
select content that will engage students(for instance, the chemistry of candy),
even if that content is not central to thefield. But all content is not equallyimportant to mathematics, or to science,or to literature. To think critically,
students need the knowledge that iscentral to the domain.
The importance of content in thedevelopment of thinking creates several
challenges for the 21st century skills

Rotherham pp16-21_2:EL Template

7/31/09

9:10 AM

Page 19

r later you are sure to get it back. —Barbara Kingsolver
movement. The first is the temptation toemphasize advanced, conceptual
thinking too early in training—anapproach that has proven ineffective innumerous past reforms, such as the“New Math” of the 1960s (Loveless,2002). Learning tends to follow a
predictable path. When students firstencounter new ideas, their knowledge isshallow and their understanding isbound to specific examples. They need
exposure to varied examples before theirunderstanding of a concept becomes
more abstract and they can successfully
apply that understanding to novel
situations.
Another curricular challenge is that
we don’t yet know how to teach selfdirection, collaboration, creativity, andinnovation the way we know how toteach long division. The plan of 21st
century skills proponents seems to be togive students more experiences that will
presumably develop these skills—for
example, having them work in groups.
But experience is not the same thing aspractice. Experience means only thatyou use a skill; practice means that you
try to improve by noticing what you aredoing wrong and formulating strategies
to do better. Practice also requires feedback, usually from someone moreskilled than you are.
Because of these challenges, devisinga 21st century skills curriculum requires
more than paying lip service to content
knowledge. Outlining the skills in detailand merely urging that content betaught, too, is a recipe for failure. We
must plan to teach skills in the context
of particular content knowledge and totreat both as equally important.
In addition, education leaders must
be realistic about which skills are teachable. If we deem that such skills as
collaboration and self-direction are
essential, we should launch a concerted
effort to study how they can be taught
effectively rather than blithely assume

that mandating their teaching will resultin students learning them.
Better Teaching
Greater emphasis on skills also has
important implications for teacher
training. Our resolve to teach theseskills to all students will not be enough.
We must have a plan by which teachers
can succeed where previous generations
have failed.
Advocates of 21st century skills favor
student-centered methods—for
example, problem-based learning andEven advocates of student-centeredmethods acknowledge that thesemethods pose classroom management
problems for teachers. When students
collaborate, one expects a certain
amount of hubbub in the room, which
could devolve into chaos in less-thanexpert hands. These methods also
demand that teachers be knowledgeable
about a broad range of topics and areprepared to make in-the-moment decisions as the lesson plan progresses.
Anyone who has watched a highly effective teacher lead a class by simultane-

We don’t yet know how to teachself-direction, collaboration, creativity,and innovation the way we know
how to teach long division.
project-based learning—that allow
students to collaborate, work on
authentic problems, and engage withthe community. These approaches arewidely acclaimed and can be found inany pedagogical methods textbook;
teachers know about them and believe
they’re effective. And yet, teachers don’t
use them. Recent data show that most
instructional time is composed of seatwork and whole-class instruction led by
the teacher (National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development Early
Child Care Research Network, 2005).
Even when class sizes are reduced,
teachers do not change their teachingstrategies or use these student-centeredmethods (Shapson, Wright, Eason, &Fitzgerald, 1980). Again, these are not
new issues. John Goodlad (1984)
reported the same finding in his landmark study published more than 20
years ago.
Why don’t teachers use the methods
that they believe are most effective?

ously engaging with content, classroom
management, and the ongoing monitoring of student progress knows how
intense and demanding this work is. It’sa constant juggling act that involves
keeping many balls in the air.
Part of the 21st century skills movement’s plan is the call for greater collaboration among teachers. Indeed, this is
one of the plan’s greatest strengths; wewaste a valuable resource when we don’t
give teachers time to share theirexpertise. But where will schools findthe release time for such collaboration?
Will they hire more teachers or increaseclass size? How will they provide thetechnology infrastructure that will
enable teachers to collaborate with morethan just the teacher down the hall?
Who will build and maintain and edit
the Web sites, wikis, and so forth? These
challenges raise thorny questions about
whether the design of today’s schools is
compatible with the goals of the 21st
century skills movement.
A S C D / W W W. A S C D . O R G

19Rotherham pp16-21_2:EL Template

7/31/09

For change to move beyond administrators’ offices and penetrate classrooms,
we must understand that professional
development is a massive undertaking.
Most teachers don’t need to be
persuaded that project-based learning isa good idea—they already believe that.
What teachers need is much morerobust training and support than theyreceive today, including specific lessonplans that deal with the high cognitive
demands and potential classroom
management problems of using studentcentered methods.

9:10 AM

Page 20

evaluate what is or is not being accomplished in the classroom. Fortunately, asElena Silva (2008) noted in a recent
report for Education Sector, the potential exists today to produce assessmentsthat measure thinking skills and are alsoreliable and comparable between
students and schools—elements integral
to efforts to ensure accountability andequity. But efforts to assess these skills
are still in their infancy; education faces
enormous challenges in developing theability to deliver these assessments at
scale.

Devising a 21st century skills
curriculum requires more than paying
lip service to content knowledge.
Unfortunately, there is a widespread
belief that teachers already know how to
do this if only we could unleash themfrom today’s stifling standards andaccountability metrics. This notion
romanticizes student-centered methods,
underestimates the challenge of implementing such methods, and ignores thelack of capacity in the field today.
Instead, staff development planners
would do well to engage the bestteachers available in an iterative processof planning, execution, feedback, andcontinued planning. This process, alongwith additional teacher training, will
require significant time. And of course
none of this will be successful without
broader reforms in how teachers arerecruited, selected, and deselected in aneffort to address the whole picture of
education’s human capital challenge.
Better Tests
There is little point in investing heavily
in curriculum and human capital
without also investing in assessments to
20

The first challenge is the cost.
Although higher-level skills like criticalthinking and analysis can be assessedwith well-designed multiple-choicetests, a truly rich assessment system
would go beyond multiple-choicetesting and include measures thatencourage greater creativity, show how
students arrived at answers, and evenallow for collaboration. Such measures,
however, cost more money than policymakers have traditionally been willingto commit to assessment. And, at a time
when complaining about testing is anational pastime and cynicism about
assessment, albeit often uninformed, ison the rise, getting policymakers tocommit substantially more resources to
it is a difficult political challenge.
Producing enough high-quality
assessments to meet the needs of asystem as large and diverse as U.S.
public schools would stretch thecapacity of the assessment industry, andincentives do not exist today for many
new entrants to become major players

E D U C AT I O N A L L E A D E R S H I P / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 9

in that field. We would need a coordinated public, private, and philanthropic
strategy—including an intensive
research and development effort—tofoster genuine change.
Substantial delivery challenges also
remain. Delivering these assessments ina few settings, as is the case today, ishardly the same as delivering them atscale across a state—especially the larger
states. Because most of these assessments will be technology-based, most
schools’ information technology systems
will require a substantial upgrade.
None of these assessment challenges
are insurmountable, but addressing
them will require deliberate attention
from policymakers and 21st century
skills proponents, as well as a deviationfrom the path that policymaking is on
today. Such an effort is essential. Why
mount a national effort to change
education if you have no way ofknowing whether the change has beeneffective?
A Better, But Harder, Way
The point of our argument is not to saythat teaching students how to think,work together better, or use new information more rigorously is not a worthy
and attainable goal. Rather, we seek tocall attention to the magnitude of thechallenge and to sound a note ofcaution amidst the sirens calling ourpolitical leaders once again to the rocky
shoals of past education reform failures.
Without better curriculum, better
teaching, and better tests, the emphasison “21st century skills” will be a superficial one that will sacrifice long-term
gains for the appearance of short-term
progress.
Curriculum, teacher expertise, andassessment have all been weak links inpast education reform efforts—a factthat should sober today’s skills proponents as they survey the task of dramatically improving all three. Efforts toRotherham pp16-21_2:EL Template

7/31/09

9:10 AM

create more formalized common standards would help address some of thechallenges by focusing efforts in acommon direction. But common standards will not, by themselves, beenough.
The past few decades have seen great
progress in education reform in the
United States—progress that has especially benefited less-advantaged
students. Today’s reformers can build onthat progress only if they pay keen
attention to the challenges associatedwith genuinely improving teaching andlearning. If we ignore these challenges,
the 21st century skills movement risks
becoming another fad that ultimatelychanges little—or even worse, sets backthe cause of creating dramatically more

Page 21

Skills and knowledge
are not separate,
but intertwined.
powerful schools for U.S. students,
especially those who are underserved
today. EL
References
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Loveless, T. (2002). A tale of two mathreforms: The politics of the new math and
NCTM standards. In T. Loveless (Ed.),
The great curriculum debate (pp. 184–209).
Washington, DC: Brookings.
National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development Early Child Care
Research Network. (2005). A day in thethird grade: A large-scale study of classroom quality and teacher and student
behavior. Elementary School Journal, 105,
305–323.
Shapson, S. M., Wright, E. N., Eason, G., &Fitzgerald, J. (1980). An experimental
study of the effects of class size. American
Educational Research Journal, 17, 141–152.
Silva, E. (2008). Measuring skills for the 21st
century. Washington, DC: Education
Sector. Available: www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/MeasuringSkills.pdf
Andrew J. Rotherham is Cofounder andPublisher of Education Sector and writes
the blog Eduwonk.com; arotherham@educationsector.org. Daniel Willingham
is Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia and the author of Why
Don’t Students Like School? (JosseyBass, 2009); willingham@virginia.edu.

A S C D / W W W. A S C D . O R G

21