Tech Task #3: Media Response

Video: Ken Robinson says: Schools Kill Creativity

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Key points of the video:

  • Children have an enormous capacity to be creative but in education we do not encourage it.
  • Kids take a chance and if they don’t know they still take a chance at it.
  • “If you are not prepared to be wrong you will never come up with anything original”
  • By the time they have become adults most kids have lost that capacity.  They have become frightened of being wrong.
  • We do not grow into creativity we grow out of creativity.
  • Education is developed on a 2 level hierarchy.
    1: The most useful subjects for work are at the top.
    2: Academic ability
  • We know three things about intelligence.
    1: It is diverse, we think in all different ways.
    2: dynamic: interactions of human brain, interactive, creativity comes from                 the interaction of others.
    3:distinct.
  • We have to rethink the way we approach education.
  • We have to educate the whole being.  We plant the seeds.

Discussion:

I agree with Ken Robinson and his idea of our education system.  The point that struck me the most is the idea that our education system is developed on a two level hierarchy. It is interesting to note that the areas where we are encouraged to be “creative” in our classrooms always revolve around our core subjects.  In Saskatchewan we are allocated a certain amount of time for our subjects.  (The link provided shows the document from the Ministry of Education.)  At the top we have 560 minutes for ELA followed by Mathematics with 210 minutes. Surprisingly we have Arts Education with 200 right behind.  In High school we have ELA with the most, again, with 5 credits and then Arts Education has only 2 subject credits required. My point is to show that Ken Robinson is correct in assuming that our education system is also the same as many other areas of the world.  I do feel that because of how our system is rooted we do need to follow this, but perhaps we can bring ways of creativity into those core and “fundamental” subjects.

Secondly, Ken Robinson talks about academic ability as the other piece of the hierarchy. He suggests that a student being passionate in a subject like dance, music, art, or sport will not get you anywhere; is what our education system is teaching us and as a result we lost our ability to be creative.  We, students, know that we have to do well in areas like math, ELA, and certain sciences in order to even apply into university.  We have begun to open up more places for the arts but that is not what many institutions promote.  We need Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Engineers, etc.  We do not need artists, dancers, athletes, etc.  I disagree with this very much but I do feel that there is more of a push and focus on titles rather than a pursuing a passion.  Some individuals passion is to be academic but for many it stems much further than that.  We can be artistic, athletic, and creative but many take that to a different level where they have to pursue academic.

I can see the potential for argument in many of my statements but I want to be clear that I agree in pursuing creativity but I do feel that it can be pursued in combination with academic.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s