American Voters Speak on Job Skills: Oh, Please, Just Shut Up

On November 3, 2004, 59,054,087 Americans cast their presidential votes for George W. Bush. On November 4, 2004, the front page of the London Daily Mirror showed a picture of a smirking George W. Bush and asked, "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" Three years later, surveying the rubble and ruin of what once was the United State of America, one finds the question even harder to answer. In any case, that presidential result should give one pause before one puts a great deal of stock into some conclusion endorsed by the American voter.

Still, in October 2007, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills announced that in a survey, most American voters don't think that our public schools are giving kids the 21st century skills they need. This little piece of idiocy could be dismissed out of hand except that the Partnership has many heavy hitters from industry -- Apple, AT&T, Cisco, Dell, Intel, Microsoft and even the National Education Association and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It appears to matter not that whatever their genius at their professions, Apple's Steve Jobs, Intel's Craig Barrett and Microsoft's Bill Gates (and lately, Melinda, too), have been consistent whiners about schools and when discussing education have said some of the dumbest things in history (see, "Dumb and Dumber, the Gateses on Parade" on this blog).

The immediate questions that come to mind -- or certainly should come to mind -- are "What constitutes a 21st century skill?" and then "Who gets to define such a skill?" The answer to the first question is "nobody knows" and the answer to the second question is "The Partnership for 21st Century Skills." Futurist Ed Barlow told the Industrial Asset Management Council in October, 2007 that 80% of the jobs our current kindergartners will hold as adults don't exist yet. This, I submit, makes it a bit complicated to prepare the kids for them. You would think Barrett and the others would see this: Barlow also said that 90% of Intel's products at the end of a year didn't exist at the start of that year.

Among the skills listed by the Partnership are "Ethics and Social Responsibility." Excuse me? These are areas only now emerging as cogent to the 21st century? "Self-direction?" Yoo-hoo, David Riesman pointed to this in 1950 -- The Lonely Crowd. "Critical Thinking" and "Problem Solving" also number among the 21st century skills. I suppose it is boorish to point out that without further context and elaboration, both of these terms are wholly meaningless. Back in the 1960's some psychologists announced that they wished to produce "content free problem solvers." That goal is now viewed as absurd. Problem solving always occurs around some content and people who are superb at writing software to solve some statistical problem might be awful at dealing with human beings in an organizational setting (see, Jobs, Gates, and Barrett, above). It might be important to think outside the box, but the contours of the box differ hugely from situation to situation. Jaime Escalante, the inspiration for "Stand and Deliver," was unable to reproduce his L. A. success when he moved to Sacramento, in large part it appears, because the situations were so different.

All this begs a larger question: Is job preparation what schools should be about? I have argued, and continue to argue, no. I have written here and elsewhere about even conservative school reformers now coming to the realization that the old time notion of the well-rounded person, the person who has received an education that includes a healthy dose of the liberal arts, is an appropriate goal for the 21st Century. They have realized that a narrow focus on job preparation is inadequate. Steve Jobs, Craig Barrett and Bill Gates all emerged in reaction to their educational situations. Such people will always emerge at unexpected times and in unpredictable ways -- who the hell could have predicted the Sixties from the Fifties? The schools should not be restructured around these people in an attempt to reproduce them.

Comments

[ebreimer]

There are plenty of good reasons to ignore Jobs", Gates", and Barrett"s commentary on education reform. For starters, their respective companies sell educational technology so they have a business interest in focusing education reform on technology. But to dismiss them because of the false assumption that they aren"t well-rounded ignores a ton of evidence that suggests the opposite. In many ways, Gates, Jobs, and Barrett are poster boys for the notion that technical skills (and even a technical education) are not enough to be successful (even in a technical field). Gates is socially awkward and people think that he is a poor communicator, but his forte might be written communication and one-on-one interaction. Jobs and Barrett are gifted public speakers. Jobs in particular is a masterful salesman and could have been a millionaire selling something besides technology.

Bracey never points out the most ironic fact. Gates and Jobs were college drop outs and their respective high schools did not provide the hi-tech education or the job skills that Gates and Jobs are demanding. Instead, Bracey continually portraits these men as being one-dimensional geeks, narrowly focused on technology. In the case of Gates, that is an insult to all geeks. In the case of Jobs, that is simply not true.

[ebreimer]

I actually agree with the spirit and the ultimate point that Gerald Bracey is making, but in this very article he makes some profoundly foolish statements.

For example:

Problem solving always occurs around some content and people who are superb at writing software to solve some statistical problem might be awful at dealing with human beings in an organizational setting (see, Jobs, Gates, and Barrett, above).

First, there are many problem solving frameworks and paradigms that are entirely independent from the content of the problem.

But, the real blunder is the suggestion that Bill Gates might be the type of person who is superb at writing software but awful at dealing with people in organizational settings. You just have to do a tiny bit of research to see that Bill Gates" resume hasn"t included programming for 20 years. Gates most notable work in programming include a BASIC interpreter and MS-DOS, both of which are neither original nor well-written. Gates" success (as well as Jobs" and Barrett"s) may come entirely from their ability to manage and manipulate people in very complex organizational settings.

[ebreimer]

It is easy to mistake Bill Gates" awkwardness as lack of communication skill, but even people who have written scathing biographies about him say that Gates is a masterful communicator and manager. Ever hear Steve Jobs speak? You would think he was Apple"s top salesman, not some geek whose technical skills landed him in the driver"s seat. Jobs, Gates, and even Barrett are poster boys for the notion that you need more than technical skills to rise to the top even in a technical enterprise.

Gerald Bracey says that these men are anomalies; that it"s rare for people who are narrowly focused on technology to be so successful. Thus, we should not pay much attention to people like this when considering education reform. But this is where I think Bracey is wrong. First, these men may be very well-rounded. Second, possessing technical skills and having an interest in technology is yet another aspect of being well rounded. But there are people (perhaps Bracey) who always associate these qualities with people who are one dimensional.

We should be wary of what Gates, Jobs, and Barrett have to say about education reform; Not because Gerald Bracey dismisses them as being narrowly focused on technology; But because these men may ultimately be looking out for the best interest of their companies and not U.S. students. Apple, Microsoft, and Intel all sell educational technology. Is it coincidence that the leaders of these companies are interested in focusing education reform on technology and skills related to their enterprises?

What gets on my nerves though is this suggestion that a focus on hi-tech skills is somehow an affront to a fundamentally-sound education (like a liberal-arts education). Why do we have to choose between a liberal arts education OR a hi-tech education? Why can"t we choose both? I want both for myself and for my students.

[bracey]

A short comment for maddogbitesback and a longer one for NWReader.

I've heard forever about the kids who can't make change. I've never met one. And I've tried to trick many a cashier by giving inappropriate amounts of money.

NWR: That's a very limited and trivial definition of problem solving. I'm thinking more of what Einstein said: "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research." One of the best experiences I had in graduate school was watching smart people try to solve problems they didn't know the answer to. How do kids learn to think? How does their thinking change as they grow? What is the nature of sex differences in cognition (if any)? What is the role of genes vs. experience in intelligence?

I don't think problem solving and critical thinking are separable.

Bracey

[JohnWilson]

So, there is a major national advocacy campaign, apparently strongly supported by public sentiment, to ensure students are equipped with such traditional liberal arts goals as high level thinking, analysis, life long learning, media literacy, and communications skills. One would expect an educator advocate like Gerald Bracey to be leading the charge. But, no, there is a wrinkle, it turns out these very skills also match the competencies employers have identified as the coins of the realm in the 21st century economy. Yes, it in an age when new jobs are unpredictable and careers evolve constantly, the kind of education teachers have long valued, is also the best possible career preparation. Some might call employers" recognition of this serendipitous. Bracey takes a different tack. Apparently in his mind these skills are now suspect because corporate America is embracing them.

He implies that somehow the Partnership advocates teaching these skills content-free. As a matter of fact, if he had taken the time to visit the Partnership"s website, www.21stcenturyskills.org, he would have discovered materials jointly produced with all the major educator content area groups (i.e. math teachers, English teachers, science, etc.) that map out how one would teach these subject areas by use of these skills. Educators know that incorporating these skills into content areas improve the overall quality of instruction, which is why all the major content area education groups have been such enthusiastic partners in this initiative.

Bracey then asks: "Is job preparation what schools should be about?" However, the real question for him is"Should we reject high quality education because it also happens to equate with demonstrable job preparation? He should take some solace that much of our public policy clearly prods schools away from these skills. Education driven by cost-conscious standardized tests is not likely to produce these competencies. And the "dumb" voters he cites, who support these skills, have yet to fully influence those they elect. Focus group, find voters believe our current public policy is stifling students" creativity and thinking by focusing so narrowly on single answer exams.

[MamaBird62]

I agree with maddogbitesback and NWReader. Too many students lack critical thinking skills as our culture increasingly "dumbs down." The decrease in time spent reading for pleasure among teens and young adults is one more indicator of that trend. If you know someone in that age group and can influence their behavior, get them to read, and then discuss the book with them!!

[realitytrumpsbull]

1 word: Digiteach.

It's inexpensive, it's effective, it's scalable,
it can be time-flexible. The standard-issue
K-12 concept is outmoded, expensive, unaccountable, with digiteach the parents
can track, peer review and study groups can
help, you could save money on school buildings
transportation and public safety. Where there's
a will, there's a way. Doesn't even have to be
the Microsoft way.

[realitytrumpsbull]

When 'education' amounts to socialization
and social promotion and 'early leavers'
and whatever other pedagogical cop-out you'd
care to attach to the liberal-industrial
complex, there, well, that's why Xiangxieu
is getting that job, and not your kid.
China doesn't play.

[NWReader]

I have to argue with your basic premise. There are specific job skills that schools can teach; critical thinking and problem solving. These are taught most effectively using a classic, liberal arts approach.

Problem solving is, in fact, a specific skill, which can be taught. I know, because I was taught how to solve any problem, regardless of the content of the problem, in 1995. Here are the steps:

1. Define the problem. What is broken? What doesn't work? Be specific as as you can: one subject, one verb.

2. Gather facts about the problem. What are the conditions in which problem occurs? Does it happen all the time or sometimes? At what time does the problem occur? Did the problem just come on, or has it been that way for a while?

3. What has changed? We don't notice a problem until it happens to us, usually after some change in life, technology, accident, event, etc.

4. What can be used to test your theory?

5. What's different and what's the same, in the test situation?

6. With the answers to these types of questions, you can start to narrow in on a likely cause of the problem.

7. Test your theories, tweak the situation, and when the problem is solved, you're done.

Critical thinking is much harder to teach, of course, because it requires input from the student, but if Socrates could manage it, I think we can too.

[deweycounts]

take a look at the job forecasts:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm

According to our own research, out of seven million new jobs projected from 2004 to 2014, only 28.5% require a high school or college degree. A mere 7.1% require graduate level schooling.

[maddogbitesback]

A good education is a preparation for life. Having a job is part of life. So yes education should prepare kids for jobs. Why else would they go to school and learn to read and write. Why wouldn't you just hand them a hammer and nails and a shovel. I can't imagine dealing with someone who can't make change. And unfortunately a lot of kids can't make change. They can't read a newspaper and analyze what they have read. They should know their constitutional rights and they should know what the names of countries are and where they are. They should understand interest and compound interest. They should be educated for life and that means educated for a job. Simply attaching nut A to screw B doesn't help anyone to understand the purpose of the job and so the job may result in many nuts being attached to screw C.