Robinson here. If he's right, do we even really know what we've even missed in terms of the possibilities of our own existence, societies, etc., or are we limited even in THAT analysis due to the industry/univ. professor producing "education?" It's hard to address something you can't realize, especially when its the ostensible truth. I guess you have to sense it by its absence? Thus, where is "creativity" located? And where ISN'T it? How does "education" play a role in that?
I don't really buy his assertion that primary and secondary schooling is set up to push students into academia. In the US at least, it's really designed to throw people into the workforce.
Depends on what levels you're at, I think. I remember - not being of an academic family - thinking my High School didn't do enough to prepare me for life w/o college.
Of course you could say that it doesn't really prepare you well for college, at least top colleges. I think the main problem with public education is that you take three very different educational aspirations (vocational, academic, and creative) and keep them together far too long. That's why I don't fully agree with what he's saying; obviously there's a significant portion of children who truly are creative, but they need to be identified and stratified early on so their talents don't go to waste. But if we change our school system into something where creativity is emphasized most heavily, we'll have a drain on students who are really built for academia.
The biggest gripe I have with it is that I don't think anyone under the age of 18 could possibly know what they want to do with their life. Realistically, you might have a general idea of what you like but that's not always a great indicator of success or enjoyment. Education should be more personally specialized. But, it never can be. The sheer volume makes that an unlikely possibility.
Do we piss off and harm an entire generation in the hope of finding another Einstein (who also disliked academia)? No, of course note. That would be suicidally stupid (and was tried in a few places in the 70s with poor results). School is also not designed to drive people into the workforce. Hell, I was in law school for 3 years and almost none of what I learned applies to my job, despite the fact that I work as a lawyer. And the better the institution, the more academic it is. The assumption obviously being that if your horizons have been broadened, you shouldn't need to sweat the details. I agree with that, too.
I was referring primarily to primary and secondary education, which is what I figured Robinson was referring to.
It's starting too. Due to NCLB, it's starting to get to the point where I can barely teach lit solely for the appreciation of literature... for the pieces themselves. I have to find non-fiction articles about the literature and create ACT-style questions about those. More and more often, I have administration and even other teachers saying things like, "Studying Shakespeare isn't going to get them into college." The students are starting to believe that too, as they're overhearing it and think that they're being cheated out of a good test score if they do things other than work on test prep. I need to read the article from the first post to comment on Ken Robinson, but the direction that education is going probably does not lend itself well to creativity.
But that's not teaching to get the students jobs, that's teaching them to pass a test/get into college. Those aren't synonymous. I suppose you could argue that getting a diploma is the same as getting a job and those tests need to be passed, but then the solution would be to give out more diplomas. Someone with a diploma isn't any more magically able to do good work by virtue of having taken English Lit than someone without one.
The books aren't used as an end in themselves. Rather, the focus is on developing basic comprehension skills and developing the ability to write passably.
I thought I had read - this was years ago - that English majors (I don't know if that drilled down into English lit specifically, but I'll offer it anyway) performed best in law school...is that true at all/still the case?
Back to the thread topic - Robinson submits that he defines creativity as "the process of having original ideas that have value." Does anyone agree with that definition, and, more centrally, what does this board think about the notion that education dismantles whole swaths of that process? I agree with Robinson that education is not for creativity; that creativity is as important as literacy (not more important, AS important, as in they both have HUGE value, over the short, mid and long term); and that the vast majority of kids are creative as a natural state of being - maybe because they have to be? - and that something, mostly having to do with our processes of "education," strips them of original creativity and tries to substitute "approved creativity," the latter being the safe mimicry out of which we ought be astonished authentic creativity emerges at all.
It seems logical. But, if you're asking me what strips creativity more - television, video games, or education. I'm not picking education. While retooling the way we educate may be a good idea, it might not do much good in the long run.
"Education" in this framework is so broad as to lose any meaning. It draws stark divisions between creative work and education that I find intellectually unsatisfying, because education/literacy/etc is what allows people to discover how to evaluate and convey the ideas they have. The idea of some innate "creativity" that lies outside of "training" whether it be in writing mechanics, artistic tradition, etc. is completely erroneous IMO. Even when people aim to rupture and discard those mechanics and traditions, knowledge of them is vital for their creativity to truly make a difference. This is the story of creativity across numerous disciplines, from jazz to painting to fiction to academic writing. In most cases, those that make the most vital creative interventions are those that know, through various forms of training, the established norms. I have no idea what the difference between authentic creativity and approved creativity might be. I will say, for original ideas to have purchase, they have to speak to an audience beyond the self. Now, it's perfectly valid to ask whether current educational trends at different levels of education are accomplishing the goal of allowing people to create and to test their original ideas, but using a framework that puts education and creativity at loggerheads is not the way to do this.
What you're saying here makes it sound as if you don't believe in the belief of inherent intelligence. That's probably not the case, but it does sound that way. I think it's possible for someone to not be "educated", yet be highly intelligent. They might not be common but those people do exist. And, by "creativity", I think the author means "ability to solve problems w/o using prescribed methods". In that form, creativity comes from experience. My concern is: "are kids being exposed to the real-life implementation through experience, or are they memorizing and regurgitating facts?" Based on that, and English Lit degree could hold just as much value as anything else. It provides an opportunity to analyze many different experiences and do so liberally.
Sure. But if they are unable to convey their ideas (which is what education at its best aims to do) what difference do they make? Look at someone like Malcolm X (leaving aside any of the allegations that his autobio was exaggerated), he obviously was highly intelligent before he went to prison, but it was only after he educated himself in prison, both on his own and through prison ed programs, that he was able to reach anyone beyond personal contacts. Which is where he gets into educational policy and pedagogy, which are rife for a variety of different criticisms depending on the level of education we're talking about. The problem may be our narrow definition of education, based as it is around institutions and "problem solving," (which seems a weird definition of creativity) rather than some innate conflict between education and creativity.
Very true. Although, I think it is easier to learn to articulate fluently [through speech and writing] than it is to formulate your own opinions amidst what someone has drilled you to believe. But, like you said, the problem may be our narrow definition of education.
Nope. I teach juniors and seniors in high school and we are very much under the power of NCLB. Our reading and math scores are the only components viewed by NCLB though.
Fair enough; maybe Robinson's analysis is simplistic in that maybe "creativity" requires "education" to go beyond simply being an internal dialogue...to become externally, socially relevant. Then I guess the question is "is education in its current form - and historically - celebrating only certain forms of creativity, or not? If so, how do we examine that? Is it possible to conceive of forms of education that are valuing of things substantively to entirely different than that which we (1) typically experience ourselves (2) expect in our immediate futures particularly as the institution of education allays our fears of an unstructured/unknown world?