This gives one side of a skills/content discussion couched in terms of 21st century learning. Instinctively I don’t like the title, though I am not sure why. Also I am not sure this hasn’t fallen into an either/or approach, but I think this provides some thoughtful discussion.
The core of the opposition to what are being called “21st century skills” is contained in the following argument: “Cognitive science teaches us that skills and knowledge are interdependent and that possessing a base of knowledge is necessary to the acquisition not only of more knowledge, but also of skills. Skills can neither be taught nor applied effectively without prior knowledge of a wide array of subjects.”
In response, I pose this question to the defenders of this 'base of knowledge', “why is a common core necessary for the teaching of skills, and why is testing of that core necessary.” And specifically, “the question isn't whether skills can be taught in isolation, but rather whether they must be taught in the context of some common base of knowledge and whether students ought to be tested on the basis of that knowledge.
Moving Forward 
Leave a Reply