First of all, Ngugi's experience was somehow similar to Korean colonial one. Japan tried to abolish our language and culture but it didn't succeed. It was like cannon from Ngugi's article. Koreans defied their violence and confronted to die. Therefore we can keep our language and tradition. Koreans still look down Japanese style accent with a strong backlash to Japan's invasion. Japan knew language was the means of the spiritual obtainment. However it didn't make the perfect conquer because of its external pursue like physical and brutal violence.
Secondly, after independence from Japan, Korea didn't have a right to deal by itself. Several country discussed Korea's issue like Ngugi's country. The slow and deep invasion started in the name of help. We have a different version of colonialzation. Unlike Japan's occupation, we did't have a strong resist. Without notion, we got into America's culture occupation. US runs a tight ship of economy and politics in Korea. I don't deny the necessity of English in the world. The spread of English is one of tools to colonize the world.
Lastly, English is just a langage to communicate. However, it is more than that in Korea. Good at English doesn't mean he is good at everything. I think Ngugi's article gives me a chance to reckon recent English fever. Power is very brutal and greedy. People who have power keep their power forever with controlling the world. We are still oppressor without noticing.
The last six months has seen the publication of several reports touting the indispensability of 21st-century skills to students. Why the sudden concern, and what are the prospects for addressing it?Surveys of business people report that high school and college graduates enter the workforce without needed skills, especially the ability to think creatively, to work in teams, and to show ingenuity. Such surveys should, of course, be taken with a grain of salt, as there has likely never been a time that the business world has thought that the American education system prepared students to suit business interests. More telling are other reports and books detailing changes in the skills required for most jobs. Our economy is generating fewer jobs in which workers engage in repetitive tasks throughout their day (e.g., assembly line work) and more information-rich jobs that present workers with novel problems and that require analysis and teamwork.
Can we get more specific in defining 21st-century skills? One can take two stances. Elena Silva, in her Education sector report, says that the many definitions have at their core the ability to “analyze and evaluate information, create new ideas and new knowledge from the information.” In short, the skills are not new, but they take on a new urgency in the 21st century. A report from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills also emphasizes the importance of creativity and critical thinking, but adds new knowledge to the definition. It includes global awareness, media literacy, information literacy, and other new content.
I can’t imagine many people would disagree with these goals, however seriously (or not) you take the idea that a primary goal of schooling is to prepare students for the workplace. No one needs to be exhorted about the importance of teaching students to think critically or to analyze information. Close observers of education have been concerned about students’ lack of deep understanding since the late 19th century, and the wider public has been aware of the problem since the publication of Joseph Mayer Rice ’s scathing articles that appeared in The Forum in 1892.
But these 21st-century skills require deep understanding of subject matter, a fact that these reports acknowledge, albeit briefly. As I have emphasized elsewhere, gaining a deep understanding is, not surprisingly, hard. Shallow understanding requires knowing some facts. Deep understanding requires knowing the facts AND knowing how they fit together, seeing the whole. It’s simply harder. And skills like “analysis” and “critical thinking” are tied to content; you analyze history differently than you analyze literature, a point I’ve emphasized here. If you don’t think that most of our students are gaining very deep knowledge of core subjects—and you shouldn’t—then there is not much point in calling for more emphasis on analysis and critical thinking unless you take the content problem seriously. You can’t have one without the other.
A third report, written by a task force organized by the State Board of Education in Massachusetts has gotten less press than the other two, but it is the one worth reading. Massachusetts has shown itself capable of significant achievements in education through careful planning. Massachusetts does see to it that most students gain good content knowledge. Their students rank at or near the top in core NAEP tests. When Massachusetts educators contemplate new plans, their track record of success ought to make us listen carefully.
And indeed, the plan is an impressive start. The task force has thought through what a new emphasis on 21st century skills will mean for four key aspects of the system: (1) teacher training, (2) state standards, (3) assessment (4) accountability. Most impressive is the level of specificity found even in this relatively brief and early-in-the-game report. For example, the report includes five recommendations for teacher training and professional development, including the creation of online “hubs” at which teachers exchange information, curricula, success stories, and so on.
The report also makes the sensible suggestion to start modestly. Initially not more than five districts will seek to implement the task force’s recommendations fully, and another ten schools in other districts will be stand-alone models.
Clarion calls for more attention to 21st-century skills brings to mind a familiar pattern in the history of education: pendulum swings between an emphasis on process (analysis, critical thinking, cooperative learning) which fosters concern that students lack knowledge and generates a back-to-basics movement that emphasizes content, which fosters concern that student are merely parroting facts with no idea of how to use their knowledge, and so on. In calmer moments, everyone agrees that students must have both content knowledge and practice in using it, but one or the other tends to get lost as the emphasis sweeps to the other extreme. To watch a successful balancing act, keep an eye on Massachusetts.
Photo Credit: (Top) Scott Maxwell/Fotolia