This week in my Alternative Curriculum class we were asked to watch the TEDx Talk by Sir Ken Robinson about schools and creativity. I've been a big fan of TEDx Talks for a long time, so I have watched this talk many times before. We were then asked to post our thoughts on a discussion board. I have decided to post a version of my response here too. So here we have it:
I've watched Ken’s talk a few times, although every time I get something new out of it. I have always agreed with his idea that schools kill creativity, and that we let children believe that if they’re not good at Math or English then they’re not smart. However, we’re getting better at helping children find something they are good at (this is where Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences has helped us see and understand intelligence differently). The problem is that, there's still not enough 'wiggle room' for those students can't operate and achieve success in the traditional school environment. When we started year 12 we were presented with one possible option after high school and that was to go to Uni. I have some very intelligent friends who dropped out of school in year 11 because the system and structure didn’t work for them. I think if school provided more creativity and flexibility they would have been more likely to finish.
I think Ken is completely right when it comes to creativity and how it should be considered as important as literacy or numeracy. What has really struck me watching this talk this time is his point about the value of degrees and how in the future they’ll be worthless… I have wondered about that for a really long time. I believe that everyone should be educated, and we know that having a higher overall level of education for the population as a whole is good for society. However, what happens when everyone has a degree? And then when there aren't the jobs for those degree types? Perhaps if people are encouraged to be creative they will have skills to be more adaptable with what they have learned and apply it in other fields.
My second thought was about medicating children who have behaviours which aren't considered 'normal' (ADHD etc.)… If we find how that child thinks, learns and works best, maybe we can change their attitude towards school. Ken uses the example of a very successful dancer who as a student couldn't sit still in class. Her mother thought that there was something wrong with her child and took her to see a doctor. On the doctors advice she enrolled her child in dance school where she excelled. These days I think doctors would be likely to prescribe medication in a similar case. I guess this is where we can use what we know about multiple intelligences, and how to adapt our lessons for these students. I think (and worry) a lot about how we will educate those students who just don’t seem to fit into the standard system.
I’m going to put two links here to two videos I like to watch when I’m thinking about all of this stuff. One is very short about the concept of the studio school and the other is a talk by an 11 year old home-schooled boy:
https://www.ted.com/talks/geoff_mulgan_a_short_intro_to_the_studio_school
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h11u3vtcpaY
I've watched Ken’s talk a few times, although every time I get something new out of it. I have always agreed with his idea that schools kill creativity, and that we let children believe that if they’re not good at Math or English then they’re not smart. However, we’re getting better at helping children find something they are good at (this is where Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences has helped us see and understand intelligence differently). The problem is that, there's still not enough 'wiggle room' for those students can't operate and achieve success in the traditional school environment. When we started year 12 we were presented with one possible option after high school and that was to go to Uni. I have some very intelligent friends who dropped out of school in year 11 because the system and structure didn’t work for them. I think if school provided more creativity and flexibility they would have been more likely to finish.
I think Ken is completely right when it comes to creativity and how it should be considered as important as literacy or numeracy. What has really struck me watching this talk this time is his point about the value of degrees and how in the future they’ll be worthless… I have wondered about that for a really long time. I believe that everyone should be educated, and we know that having a higher overall level of education for the population as a whole is good for society. However, what happens when everyone has a degree? And then when there aren't the jobs for those degree types? Perhaps if people are encouraged to be creative they will have skills to be more adaptable with what they have learned and apply it in other fields.
My second thought was about medicating children who have behaviours which aren't considered 'normal' (ADHD etc.)… If we find how that child thinks, learns and works best, maybe we can change their attitude towards school. Ken uses the example of a very successful dancer who as a student couldn't sit still in class. Her mother thought that there was something wrong with her child and took her to see a doctor. On the doctors advice she enrolled her child in dance school where she excelled. These days I think doctors would be likely to prescribe medication in a similar case. I guess this is where we can use what we know about multiple intelligences, and how to adapt our lessons for these students. I think (and worry) a lot about how we will educate those students who just don’t seem to fit into the standard system.
I’m going to put two links here to two videos I like to watch when I’m thinking about all of this stuff. One is very short about the concept of the studio school and the other is a talk by an 11 year old home-schooled boy:
https://www.ted.com/talks/geoff_mulgan_a_short_intro_to_the_studio_school
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h11u3vtcpaY