Sir Ken Robinson
I couldn't make it to Sir Ken Robinson's lecture at the Community Arts Center on Wednesday but after I heard several people raving about it, I became determined to find more information about him. Amidst my search, I found a lecture of his in its entirety at
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
I also found several snippets of lectures on Youtube.com like the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mddD1yGREKQ&feature=related
and more:
http://vodpod.com/search/browse?q=sir+ken+robinson
Anyway, part of the reason why I was so interested in finding information about him is because none of the people who were excited about his lecture could relay any concrete ideas of his for education reform. They were all excited, they had been entertained, and they kept talking about the importance of creativity but they couldn't articulate exactly what is wrong with the education system and how we can change it.
After watching several videos of him talking, I now know why: He's a great speaker, he's hilarious, he's very intelligent, he's a good storyteller, but he never, as far as I know (and part of my motivation for this post is that I hope people prove me wrong) communicates specific problems or specific solutions.
I'll take one of his statements and consider it: He argues that schools should treat creativity as important as literacy.
Every English teacher I know encourages kids to write. As a matter of fact, I just substituted for a language arts teacher at a middle school in Williamsport and she has the kids reading a short story by Ray Bradbury (The Whole Town's Sleeping) and then writing their own tale. What is creativity if it's not encouraging kids to write and teaching them them techniques that can improve their output? There were no constraints on their task besides "the content must be appropriate." The kids were free to be, and encouraged to be, as creative as they wished. My memories of schooling don't contradict this experience. I was consistently encouraged to write short stories in high school English classes. My high school (in South New Jersey), even though it was poor and mismanaged, had a creative writing class, three computer graphics courses, and a career art track.
He mentions that kids' talents are being squandered and that their gifts should be nurtured earlier and allowed to flourish more. While there may be some truth to the fact that some parents discourage their kids from the arts due to the dearth of economic opportunity is such fields, I find it hard to believe that schools repress kids' talents. Teachers that I know whole-heartedly encourage students to refine their gifts and to become the best artists they can be. Teachers are proud when one of their kids excels in anything, schools as well. If students have the slightest interest in any subject, their interest is cheered because it engages them with something other than video games, each other, or themselves regardless of whether they're fascinated by dance or science.
Now, at a time when budgets are shrinking, promoting creativity may be necessary because we all know that the arts are the first to be cut when money's short. But I would argue that history, science, math, and literature give students the necessary tools they need to be effectively creative. Without this core of knowledge, what are kids making art about? All writers and artists I know are amateur scientists. They've got an extensive interest in things and what things are made of.
Robinson says the current education system is made to train children to be professors and that this path isn't the right one for every kid. Both are true. School is geared towards making every child an academic and this path is erroneous. However, the answer doesn't lie simply in making them more creative. What about making them handy? What I mean is: aren't carpentry and mechanics just as important in solving this problem? And carpentry provides kids with a path that gives them enough material knowledge to be great artists and skills that can make them money.
I don't want to ramble on for too long here. My main point is that Robinson's language is hopelessly bogged down in vague notions of "creativity." What I want to know is what exactly he wants teachers to do differently than they are now. Or what exact changes should be made in the educational system besides "focusing more on creativity."
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
I also found several snippets of lectures on Youtube.com like the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mddD1yGREKQ&feature=related
and more:
http://vodpod.com/search/browse?q=sir+ken+robinson
Anyway, part of the reason why I was so interested in finding information about him is because none of the people who were excited about his lecture could relay any concrete ideas of his for education reform. They were all excited, they had been entertained, and they kept talking about the importance of creativity but they couldn't articulate exactly what is wrong with the education system and how we can change it.
After watching several videos of him talking, I now know why: He's a great speaker, he's hilarious, he's very intelligent, he's a good storyteller, but he never, as far as I know (and part of my motivation for this post is that I hope people prove me wrong) communicates specific problems or specific solutions.
I'll take one of his statements and consider it: He argues that schools should treat creativity as important as literacy.
Every English teacher I know encourages kids to write. As a matter of fact, I just substituted for a language arts teacher at a middle school in Williamsport and she has the kids reading a short story by Ray Bradbury (The Whole Town's Sleeping) and then writing their own tale. What is creativity if it's not encouraging kids to write and teaching them them techniques that can improve their output? There were no constraints on their task besides "the content must be appropriate." The kids were free to be, and encouraged to be, as creative as they wished. My memories of schooling don't contradict this experience. I was consistently encouraged to write short stories in high school English classes. My high school (in South New Jersey), even though it was poor and mismanaged, had a creative writing class, three computer graphics courses, and a career art track.
He mentions that kids' talents are being squandered and that their gifts should be nurtured earlier and allowed to flourish more. While there may be some truth to the fact that some parents discourage their kids from the arts due to the dearth of economic opportunity is such fields, I find it hard to believe that schools repress kids' talents. Teachers that I know whole-heartedly encourage students to refine their gifts and to become the best artists they can be. Teachers are proud when one of their kids excels in anything, schools as well. If students have the slightest interest in any subject, their interest is cheered because it engages them with something other than video games, each other, or themselves regardless of whether they're fascinated by dance or science.
Now, at a time when budgets are shrinking, promoting creativity may be necessary because we all know that the arts are the first to be cut when money's short. But I would argue that history, science, math, and literature give students the necessary tools they need to be effectively creative. Without this core of knowledge, what are kids making art about? All writers and artists I know are amateur scientists. They've got an extensive interest in things and what things are made of.
Robinson says the current education system is made to train children to be professors and that this path isn't the right one for every kid. Both are true. School is geared towards making every child an academic and this path is erroneous. However, the answer doesn't lie simply in making them more creative. What about making them handy? What I mean is: aren't carpentry and mechanics just as important in solving this problem? And carpentry provides kids with a path that gives them enough material knowledge to be great artists and skills that can make them money.
I don't want to ramble on for too long here. My main point is that Robinson's language is hopelessly bogged down in vague notions of "creativity." What I want to know is what exactly he wants teachers to do differently than they are now. Or what exact changes should be made in the educational system besides "focusing more on creativity."
1 comment:
First, I think the reason he SKR didn't reveal a method to apply to his observation, the reason he didn't give an answer, is simply because the lecture was a lengthy plug for his new book "Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative."
Second, he doesn't argue that math, science and history are bad.He says they are necessary, and in fact I believe he mentions scientists and mathemeticians describing their processes as being paralell to artistic processes.
What he is saying (and what I was excited about outside the CAC when I saw you) is that the MODEL of education we are following is wrong. Most interesting was the statistics he gave that showed creativity falling as pragmitism rose. Standardized testing and the educational body are designed to control, filter, and organize, not promote and insipire.
No doubt students are encouraged within the school system to create and I'm sure no one has a problem with that. The problem is the educational system's main focus is to promote the capitalist venture we started with the industrial revolution and leaves little time for self-exploration and discourages "deviance," all the characteristcs we value and love about art.
Thanks for the beautiful review by the way. Your writing is amazing.
Post a Comment