In this humorous yet highly convincing talk, Ken Robinson emphasizes the fact that current education systems squelch creativity rather than foster it, hindering original ideas and potentially revolutionary solutions to problems of the future.
The first bit of irony is that the purpose of school, of public education, is to prepare people for a future which not a single person can possibly know anything about. This was Robinson's point at least. And while it's perfectly true, it also does well to mention that as school-aged children are the future, the way we educate them directly influences the future. The future is not independent from human's influence since we intentionally shape the world around us to suit our needs. But I suppose what he is saying is that we need to change the way we teach children so that they have the appropriate tools to solve the global problems which we are currently creating for ourselves.
Robinson also points out that school kills creativity by making incorrectness the worst possible thing. Young children are not afraid to be wrong; public school teaches them out of this. And one can't possibly think of original ideas if they are afraid of being wrong. Beyond that, from personal experience, I can say that a fear of being wrong prevents me from even admitting that I don't understand something because I'm afraid of judgment form the other students: is anyone else not understanding this? Will I sound stupid if I ask and it turns out I'm the only one who doesn't know the answer? Then what will my teacher think of me? This is the attitude public school has imbibed in us. Red is even viewed as a negative color because of the fact that many teachers correct (and therefor mark incorrect answers) in red.
I thought it was a very interesting point that education started during industrialization, when people needed to learn maths and sciences in order to get a job. This dictated the subject hierarchy which is still the foundation of public education today: first math and language, then the social sciences, and then only art at the bottom. There is a definite stigma against the arts. Anyone will tell you not to major in art because there're no jobs in the field, and art majors are stereotyped quite heavily by other college majors. However, although Robinson argues against it, I tend to agree that there is not much future in art as a profession. One can only be a very successful artist if they are one of the best and become quite famous. The sciences and technology-related fields are still in the highest demand as we continue this technological revolution. But maybe Robinson is saying that there would be a future in art as a profession if only it wasn't so stigmatized and was actually encouraged in school. However I still feel that, when it comes down to it, jobs in technology are still going to be in greater demand than those in entertainment. Although there is an ungodly amount of money generated by entertainment, it's controlled by comparatively few.
That being said, I make no qualms with Robinson's argument that public schools suppress and eventually destroy creativity. But what sort of incredible revolution of education would be required to accomplish such a feat as inspiring creativity? Grading systems can't completely go out the window. And objective subjects are still a necessary part of one's education. Perhaps this is a pessimistic view, but I find it highly unlikely that the education system will change any time soon. It's been embedded too deeply into our culture. As Robinson said, education goes deep with people, as deeply as religion or money.
This blog is based on a TED Talk by Ken Robinson: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
No comments:
Post a Comment