Skip to main content

A Response to Diana Senechal

In the latest issue of the AFT publication, American Educator, Diana Senechal writes a lengthy cover article that criticizes progressive reformers and proponents of 21st Century Skills.

While I agree that skills such as communication, creativity and collaboration have been around for centuries, including this one, I also believe that whether using oral tradition, a stone tablet, quill and ink bottle, pencil and paper, a typewriter, or blog, students need to learn how to communicate their thoughts and ideas with the tools available to them.

I have been assisting with a 21st Century Literacy course in our district the last two years, and involved with a group looking at how the Partnership for 21st Century Skills might work in Minnesota as well. Last year, I cringed when the parent advocate for P21 here told a group that these were, "non-academic skills." To me, they are important skills used by students to demonstrate understanding of the core curriculum, not separate from the curriculum. I also believe that schools exist to develop life-long learners, not solely to develop competitors in the global workforce.

In her article, Senechal states:
When the frenzy over 21st Century skills passes--and it will--students will see that their opportunities depend largely on their knowledge. Many will graduate with blogging experience, but those who can write a strong essay on a Supreme Court case will be better prepared to enter the fields of history, law or journalism. Many will have online science portfolios, but those who have studied calculus, have read parts of Newton's "Principia," and can prove Kepler's second law (for example) will be much better prepared to study physics at an advanced level.
Why does this have to be an either/or proposition?!!

Wouldn't a student who blogged about their views on the Supreme Court case, and had to defend their ideas with actual lawyers commenting on the blog be better prepared than someone who wrote the essay only for the teacher's eyes? What if that electronic science portfolio were created to demonstrate their understanding of Newton's Principia and Kepler's second law?

Earlier in her article, Senechal states that "we should pursue perfection in curriculum and pedagogy." I heartily agree! What I disagree with is her claim that "when states and districts heed reformer's calls for technology in all grades and subjects, this leads to situations where teachers must use the technology in class, whether or not it serves the lesson well."
She seems to be saying that if schools are not implementing technology and reform correctly, then we should stop doing it! Perhaps instead, we should work with them to get it right!

Technology and Curriculum are both best served, when they are intricately connected with one another. One of my former colleagues and mentors, Greg Utecht, used the example of the Minnesota Twins TC baseball hat as a metaphor for this. "If you had just the "T", it could represent Texas, Toronto, Toledo, etc. If you had just the "C", it could represent Cleveland, Chicago, California, etc. However, when you combine the two, there is no question that you are talking about the Minnesota Twins. So too with best practice with Technology and Curriculum. If you are doing technology for technology's sake, you will not see good results. If you are creating curriculum without technology, you will falter. It's when you combine the two, that you see the greatest return!"

Senechal's advocates for the teacher to "give stimulating and substantial lessons" and for students to "absorb the material." I say that students should learn by actively engaging with the material, whether imparted by the teacher, the textbook, or the online resource in the palm of their hand. Teachers don't have to "give up intellectual authority in the room," but they should also acknowledge that a tool like "WolframAlpha" might have more! They can still be co-learners! Let us not ignore the tools of the present if they enhance the rigorous learning of our students. As John Dewey, said so many years ago, "Let us prepare students not for the world of the past, but for their world, the world of the future!"

Carl Anderson has some further thoughts on the article here, and here . In a comment, he adds another sad aspect of the article worth noting:
The problem is, I fear the piece was chosen because many of those unsubstantiated claims, poorly argued points, and transparent biases are a reflection of a large percentage of the union membership. The piece screams "status-quo" while her other work seems not to. The problem with this is, the American Educator was sent to each union member's home while the work she has done that lives up to a higher academic standard does not. The union is essentially, by making this their cover story, supporting writing of this low level of academic integrity and supporting the biases behind it. What impact will this have? How many teachers will read this and not question its logic? Where is the other side of this argument given space in this publication? Daniel Willingham is hardly an author with views far from Senechal's.
I hope those who read the article recognized this!


Carl Anderson said…
The Senechal article purports to be a critical look at P21 but in reality it is a slap in the face to teachers doing any kind of technology integration or constructivist teaching in their classroom. Thanks for helping me put my thoughts on this matter into perspective.
clasigmund said…
If you think today’s teachers exhibit elements of technophobia, try on for size these quotes that we imagine might have been spoken in the past…

“Students today depend too much on hand-held calculators.” (Anonymous, 1985)

“Ballpoint pens will be the ruin of education in our country. Students use these devices and then throw them away. The American virtues of thrift and frugality are being discarded. Business and banks will never allow such expensive luxuries.” (Federal Teacher, 1950)

“Students today depend upon these expensive fountain pens. They can no longer write with a straight pen and nib, (not to mention sharpen their own quills). We parents must not allow them to wallow in such luxury to the detriment of learning how to cope in the real business world, which is not so extravagant.” (PTA Gazette, 1941)

“Students today depend upon store bought ink. They don’t know how to make their own. When they run out of ink they will be unable to write words or ciphers until their next trip to the settlement. This is a sad commentary on modern education.” (The Rural American Teacher, 1929)

“Students today depend too much upon ink. They don’t know how to use a pen knife to sharpen a pencil. Pen and ink will never replace the pencil.” (National Association of Teachers, 1907)

“Students today depend upon paper too much. They don’t know how to write on slate without chalk dust all over themselves. They can’t clean a slate properly. What will they do when they run out of paper?” (Principal’s Association, 1815)

“Students today can’t prepare bark to calculate their problems. They depend upon their slates, which are more expensive. What will they do when their slate is dropped and it breaks? They will be unable to write!” (Teachers Conference, 1703)

The times, they are a changing.
Unknown said…
As I said above, technology for technology's sake is not worth pursuing. Just look at the fountain pen! ;-)
Anonymous said…
Good points. I'm coming a bit late onto this conversation, but that's because I was composing my own 4500-word response to her piece. She actually responded shortly after I put mine up. Her comments are interesting.
Anonymous said…
I thoroughly agree with Mike Walker's analysis of the Senechal article. These things are not an either/or proposition.
Dan McGuire said…
The American Educator seems to be making a habit of pooh-poohing this new fangled thing called technology. In the issue after the one in which Senechal's appeared, Dan Willingham offers up another cautionary tale regarding technology and learning. It would seem that the AFT is sadly living up to what many of its detractors like to say about teacher unions- that they're all about the maintaining the status quo.
I hope to see that change, soon.

Popular posts from this blog

Educon 2.1: Panel Discussion on Educational Change and Reform

The Sunday panel moderated by Andy Carvin, National Public Radio , focussed on Education Change. The panel included: David Bromley -- Regional Director, Big Picture Schools Chris Lehmann -- Principal, Science Leadership Academy Marc Mannella -- Principal, KIPP Philadelphia Bette Manchester -- Former State Educational Technology Director, Maine Gary Stager-- Executive Director of the Constructivist Consortium Mike Wang -- Executive Director of Teach For America Greater Philadelphia January 29-31, 2009 Educon 2.2 announced Save the Date!! Here is a clip from the session . Carvin asked each on the panel give an "Opening Statement". What does School Reform Look Like now that we have a new President in the White House. Lehmann -"I am hopeful", That data driven decision making recognizes that the best data we have on our students is the work that they do in the classroom every day. Mannella -Explained that KIPP schools fundamental belief that "All of us WILL Learn

Nos Chemins vers la paix: Award Winning Video!

Valley View Middle School French Imersion teacher, Heather Palmer created this award winning video, Nos Chemins vers la paix , for the Tel.A.Vision " Vision For America " Contest. Photo and video editing at Powered by One True Media , allows students to create videos that share their vision for the future. Heather wanted to use this video to promote the Wiki she and her students created for "6 Billion Paths to Peace." On the wiki, Palmer states: Our project was inspired by the program " Six Billion Paths to Peace ", an initiative of the Shinnyo-en foundation. We like the challenge the program offers us: commit to making a difference in this moment, in this day, in this lifetime! Palmer received her award last week at the National Service Learning Conference, in Nashville, TN. Way to go, Heather! NOTE: A few weeks ago while looking at the copyright free music available on the site, I notice a cover of the "Spin

Notes on EduCon 2.1 Opening Panel Discussion: What is the Purpose of School?

The "Official" opening to Educon 2.1 featured a panel discussion on "the purpose of school" at the Franklin Institute. Panel Members included: Joel Arquillos -Executive Director of 826LA (Writing workshops) -his boss has now started “ Once upon a School ”, a program paring classroom teachers with adult community members. Dr. Molefi Asante -Professor, African American Studies, Temple University (1st African American Studies program in U.S.) Kendall Crolius -Founding Partner, The Sulevia Group, also affiliated w/Heifer International Jeff Han -Founder, Perceptive Pixel and inventor of the Multi-Touch Screen (iPhone users were genuflecting in his presence!) Prakash Nair -Co-Founder, Fielding Nair International- Archetects and Change Agents for Education Dr. Steven Squyres -Principal Investigator, Mars Exploration Rover Mission Diane Castelbuono Deputy Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education PA Department of Education Moderator-Frederic Bertley -Vice Pr