The adaptable mind has merit. It effectively describes the possibilities of a mind which has breached the threshold of automaticity in multiple disciplines and can readily engage in meaningful, understandable communication within those meaningful disciplines.  A few are able to curiously surf across a broad range of topics choosing whichever piques their interest and diving in to converse with the subject matter experts in a meaningful way.  In its own way, this is a narcissistic look at how a tiny minority of human’s can effectively operate.  The vast majority of human beings do not operate in this manner.

One error or misrepresentation of fact that I noticed was the statement that human history largely began after the agricultural revolution.  Written human history largely came to be known after the agricultural revolution but oral history preceded written history by millennia.  Given that empathy was where the producer ended, it is surprising that the accomplishments of our hunter-gatherer forebears were not given some small connection to our present day selves. (after all what is 12-15000 years in the span of millions of years of evolution).

What the creator of this piece had no interest in doing was revisiting the foundational steps of arriving at the state that s/he currently resides.

How does this piece relate to the debate between the “back to the basics” and “the creative, discovery learning approach”  ? 

Firstly, the term “back to the basics” is very much a misnomer today.  It really should be “forward to achieve automaticity” in all subject matter. Without demonstrable automaticity, no virtuosity is possible. For those unfamiliar with the term - refer to ( http://www.learninginfo.org/automaticity.htm ) .  Once one grasps this fundamental, one realizes that virtually any serious methodology for learning anything is aligning itself more and more with the steps to achieve automaticity. 

The prevailing ideology that dominates the bulk of North American Public School education is almost diametrically opposed to automaticity.  Why !  It is relatively simple.  The effectiveness of the bulk of teaching methodologies would be transparently obvious within an automaticity framework and thus the educators would be quantitatively accountable.  Currently, quantitative accountability is politically very incorrect unless you want to be the best you can be, then you can pursue this goal using systematic methods that get you to automaticity at your own cost.

If you don’t have time to watch the clip, the proposed “21th Century Skills” are curiosity, creativity, initiative, multi-disciplinary thinking, and empathy.  Realy?

We stand on the shoulders of giants.  Creativity is only useful after achieving expert performance. Curiosity is useful only after developing literacy and learning skills to see what others have discovered.  Initiative and empathy needs to be yoked to understanding and real-world knowledge.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t celebrate when kids develop these “21th century skills”.  We should applaud a second-grader who is curious about material that he has mastered, and cheer if he takes the initiative to investigate further.  But without the mastery, it is just childish posturing.

The valuable meta-cognitive skills are Growth Mindset - the understanding that mistakes are a necessary step to learning, and Mindful Practice - the systematic building of skills through reflection and drill.  But our modern teaching methods teach exactly the opposite.

There will always be work that only requires opposable thumbs, however precarious.  That may be the future for kids whose parents can’t backfill these “21th Century Skills” with tutoring in math and science, quiet time for reading, and support for developing excellence in something useful.

These dreamers are talking about 21st century skills?  Hello, what skills?  don’t they understand what skills are?

Frank I really like your assessment here. I have also taken to calling for a “Forward to Fundamentals approach” to education.  There was a very interesting presentation that Australian professor, Stephen Dinham used several years ago at a conference in Melbourne.  This is where I found that reference, and I find it very apropos.  His presentation also touches on where education made their fatal mistake in assuming progressive ideology should trump systems that have been in place for a millennia. 

The only way our kids can move forward, is first by achieving automaticity.  Until that occurs, there’s no point in discussing a brighter future for them.