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.
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.