Please watch the following TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson entitled "Do Schools Kill Creativity?" Here is a transcript for the speech.
Your job is to assess Robinson's argument. You have spent a massive portion of your life in school and so you are perfectly capable of weighing in on Robinson's ideas using your own experience as evidence. How does Robinson establish his point? Have you ever attend a class that stifled your sense of creativity? How do academic institution teach young people to become servile, complacent automatons? Or is your experience different? When have you been encouraged to express your creative, individualistic side? Do you feel as if you are free to explore your interests?
Let's not only analyze Robinson's ideas, but each others. Read your fellow commenters' words and chime in. Add a link to a releveant article and we'll respond. Get started!
Austin Lee-
ReplyDeleteThe author of the article in the link below also agrees with Robinson that creativity stimulates math and reading skills. Schools in Dallas and in other parts of the country are starting to build stronger, mandatory art programs. I agree with adding arts education to the school system, but should it be mandatory in schools? If a student is not interested in the arts, why should he take the class? Its just adding extra work on that student. The article does say that students who are more creative get better grades, but like Robinson said "Students shouldn't be forced to do anything"
http://www.edutopia.org/arts-music-curriculum-child-development
The author of this article believes that the school system does encourage creativity, but to a limit. He states that there are people out there who agree with Robinson on how education in schools restrict creativity, but many educators would disagree. Although the educators protest that children would not be able to know when their work is original without learning enough about the topic, I think that if the children learn more, their creativity level for the topic also diminishes. Instead of letting their thoughts run wild, the children will focus on the material they have learned instead.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Austin's post, I agree that students should not take the class if they're not interested in it. After all, the time they spend in that class could be spent in another class, in a subject the student actually enjoys and is skillful at.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/youre-hired/201111/does-education-stifle-creativity
-Karen Huang Period 3
I completely agree with Austin. While its great that schools are starting to recognize the importance of teaching students art and dance, schools like Stuyvesant are going about the wrong way of fixing the problem. Rather than force every student to take classes in any subject, we structure schools to be more elective oriented. By doing this we allow students to branch off into whatever they are interested in.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately there are many problems with this idea. For instance, some students would choose very little to no electives. They would not get a high school education but ,instead, be staying at home not learning. Second is that there is no job safety for teachers. As years go by, interest in subjects like computer drafting could leave too little students in regular drafting and as a result, teachers would get fired. The third biggest problem is that there is no way to easily prove all schools are teaching what they say that they are teaching as students could be taking a lot of classes that are unique to his school. Tests would not be standardized and are therefore less reliable.
http://standardizedtests.procon.org/#background
I fully agree with Robinson that education stifles creativity. To see this effect, we need look no further than our own school. In our school, there are two forces constantly at battle with each other: standardization and creativity. Standardization, supported by DOE officials, is the natural enemy of creativity. It restricts a free thinking educational environment in favor of tangible results of education. Standardized test scores are something that a official can point to as evidence of their success or failure in education. However, creativity is threatened by this system where success or failure can ride on the results of one test. Teachers must conform to the curriculum for this test in order to secure the success of themselves as well as their students. This is obviously in opposition to a productive and creative class. But how do we create a system where students can be creative in a high school? How would we grade students on “creative” subjects, such as art, music, dance, etc.? How should creativity be expanded into math and the sciences? There are many answers to these questions of course, but all of them seem to bring new problems.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to note the difference between education, and the school system. Education has never hindered creativity. Knowing about the world around us only helps to spark brilliance and creativity. But the school system we have come to accept is a much different animal. The problem lies in its rigid, unforgiving structure, which stems from its intent. The school system is aimed in filtering out the students who can succeed academically. But academic success has really nothing to do with how much one actually, learns, or understands. Academic access simply measures a students ability in retaining strenuous, abstract matter long enough to blindly spit it back out on a piece of paper. When students learn, they don’t actually learn a lot of the time. There is too much being thrown at them to properly swallow everything. So they mindlessly memorize things that have no significance to them, which they might have the slightest idea why these things are important or how they actually work. School has become just a survival zone for those who would be suitable in a company. But the problem is, not everyone is cut out for academic success, and yet children are still forced to take a part in the whole filtration process. And in the end, many more are disappointed because they were not able to succeed academically. There’s much more to life then academic ability, which sadly enough, society today doesn't recognize. It takes over 20 years for the school system to decide if children are academically successful, and if they are not it’s very hard to go in a new direction so late in life. Our creativity and passions and knacks and the entire right side of our brains are seldom recognized by society, and we often have to put much effort to make them be recognized. But all too many might not even know that their calling was art, or music, or poetry, or saving the world. Were never rewarded for our ideas and creative abilities, just our ability to listen in vain and help create a world servile to the aristocracy who value such traits to help them stuff themselves with even more money and power. Students need to be recognized for their ability to connect ideas and form new ones and take risks rather then their ability to survive in competitive, stressful, tedious system that keeps many great minds back. So don’t look at education as problem, education makes us all knowledgeable, smart, and aware people. The real problem is how schools are organized and how they really don't stand to serve the students.
ReplyDelete-Adam Aharoni pd. 3
I disagree with Adam.
ReplyDeleteWhile people call out that schools preach memorization, isn't that the student's fault?
Some schools blindly give students formulas, rules, and notations without a clear understanding of the subject matter. However, other schools, such as this one, do give the necessary groundwork to truly understand the underlying reasons and causes for those formulas. Also, the point of a holistic education is exactly to let students find their calling, which, in my opinion, is very overrated. There has never been a novel prize winner who knew calculus from the womb.
In addition, students aren't trained to be servile. They're trained to develop critical thinking skills. Listening to a teacher isn't servile; however, fighting someone who is trying to help one is. Why go to school? If the point of going to school is to mindlessly memorize facts and figures, couldn't I do that better at home? Yes. But that's missing the point entirely.
Schools reward those who study and punish those who don't. However, instead of thinking about the similarities to company life, isn't that similar to life in general? Everyone has to work to make a living. That doesn't need to be in a corporation. Go to the woods and relax. What happens? One starves and dies. It's only natural that work pays off.
A fundamental issue of attacking schools is the issues themselves. They are very nebulous. How can creativity be measured? Is it by producing art or seeing patterns in math? And why is the boy who looks at the chapters ahead any more servile than the boy who writes sonnets?
Heebong Kim PD. 3
Everyone is born with the ability to be creative. However, does school kill that creativity? It can, but not necessarily, and definitely not always.
ReplyDeleteWhether creativity is stifled or inspired depends not on the school, not on the class, but on the instructor. Yes, many students grow up accustomed to standardized testing and filling in bubbles on a scantron. Robinson makes a good point in saying that as people progress through school, they become more and more scared of getting the “wrong” answer. They become afraid of being judged and therefore hold on to their curiosity, afraid of asking a question that may seem “stupid.” Although schools often encourage students to think “outside of the box,” more often than not, they’re forced to do the opposite. Some classes inspire more creativity than others, such as English class as opposed to a math class. However, instructors hold the power to inspire creativity in their students.
Elementary school teachers can nurture the developing minds of their students and inspire curiosity and creativity by encouraging different kinds of answers, instead of making such clear distinctions between “right” and “wrong.” They can have free-writes where students can write about themselves or anything they want to. School doesn’t always kill creativity because there are teachers who inspire creativity, teachers who realize that learning isn’t preparing for standardized tests or perfecting certain skills. Learning is about enhancing the capacity to think, and be creative, skills we are all born with.
Adam makes a good point when he says that there is a difference between education and the school system. This article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/line-dalile/a-dictator-racing-to-nowh_b_1409138.html?page=2 - carries that idea a bit further by saying that people are focusing so much on standardized testing that they are forgetting the purpose of education. Many students memorize facts for a test, take the test, and then forget all of that information a few years later. One quote that I particularly like from the article is that “education isn't about facts being stored in our minds so that we can get tested on them. Education is the beauty to nurture creativity, to fuel curiosity and to create a well-rounded person.” We’re often so carried away with the goal of earning good grades with the aim of getting a high-paying job in the future that we lose the true meaning of learning.
-Angela Sun Pd 8
My stance on school is similar to Robinson's argument in that school is a somewhat limiting factor to creativity. It sounded very familiar when he said that there is a hierarchy in the subjects we are taught in school, up top is Math and English, then Humanities and Arts. The fact that college admission is heavily determined by SAT scores, which tests kids in oh look at that, Math and English does not compensate for the lack of humanities and art ability of students. This article http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jun/23/creative-writing-tests-sats-review also shows a test that 11 year olds take that teachers are against because they found that the test just wants answers that meet the requirements and do not show the kid's creative abilities.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am very interested in learning about environmental science, and want to major in this because I truly find a passion there. It's one of those classes where I don't mind reading the textbook and I don't fall asleep while doing my homework. I am fortunate enough to be taking a class in school that will help me learn more about this field, and am doing rather well. However, when I go home every day, a debate starts between me and my parents about how much time I should spend on each subject's homework. Why? Because school requires me to take 4 years of math, and without math, I can't be an accountant or be successful or get a job according to my overly obsessive dad. Like Robinson said, we base our ranking of the most "useful" subjects based on whether we can get a job in that field or not. My dad says that there's no future in environmental science, what you're just going to pick up garbage? That's the response I usually get, when this topic surfaces. He gets this idea from common perspective of the world. A misconception I'd say. From Robinson's speech, I remembered him saying that Al Gore credited the whole environmental movement to Rachel Carson, the fact that I remember who she is surprised even me, because I learned about her from my enviro. class awhile back. And when I say a while back I mean probably 2 months ago, which isn't that long, but compared to the amount of things I've "digested" from other classes, and regurgitated back onto a piece of paper and had forgotten like Adam described as "mindlessly memorizing" is remarkable. My APES. class is an elective and I agree with what Karendeep said about Stuy being more elective oriented. That would be lovely, because frankly I've learned more in my elective classes that IIIII choose than in any other class. It just doesn't stick with me because of my lack of interest. Why does school have to determine what is necessary for me to learn and what is optional? What, they don't think it's a necessity to learn how we're destroying the world and what we can do to fix it? What is the point of excelling in Math if you don't have a clue how to live sustainably?
I feel like the only chance I've gotten to express my creativity is once all the core subjects are out of the way. After my schedule has been filled with the classes I'm required to take, then I can see if my elective will fit into a free. Or if I don't have a project in history due tomorrow, then I can stay afterschool for the rowing club. It's under the conditions that these more "important" subjects come first, and then you have to create time, or use your free time to do extraneous stuff that people consider has simple hobbies that are not as impressive as those "core" subjects.
-Kim Choi Pd 8
Robinson uses specific examples and humor to smoothly demonstrate his point. I have attended class that stifled my creativity and this was during a boring history class taught by a monotonous teacher. I feel that we now have more ways to choose which academic institution we are placed in. For example, at Stuyvesant High School, our curriculum places more emphasis on mathematics and science as opposed to Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School, whose curriculum explores the arts. I have taken a few art classes throughout middle and high school so far which have, to some extent, encouraged me to express my individualistic creativity. With all the extracurricular clubs and electives my school has to offer, I still feel that I need greater exposure to a wider variety of interests.
ReplyDelete-Douglas Chan Period 8
I believe that students should be able to express themselves in whatever activity they enjoy regardless of whether or not it is related to academics or the arts. Society dictates that students should be educated in "secure" fields such as science and mathematics because the knowledge gained can be applied to almost any career whereas music and dancing do not guarantee a secure future. Of course no one can ensure that you will have a job because you studied chemistry in school but people are against students pursuing jobs as dancers or musicians because they are afraid that if the students are unsuccessful, they will have nothing to fall back on. This idea makes sense but students should still be given an opportunity to experience the arts if they plan on continuing in that path.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that Stuyvesant's view on education isn't perfect. It is unfair to force students who hate art or music appreciation to take the class. However, see this from the perspective of a student who has never had the opportunity to take computer science and that was the only thing he or she will ever excel at but because the school does not offer the course, the student goes through high school without a passion. What if that dancer in the TED video did not meet that doctor? She would have gone through life as a nobody and her talents would have been wasted. By exposing us to other fields of study, Stuyvesant is trying to make us well rounded students.
Although our school provides us with a wide range of classes, the teachers themselves limit our creativity. Once we enter the classroom, some of our rights are stripped from us, such as the freedom of speech. We are not allowed to criticize the assignment the teacher has given us or communicate with our peers on matters that we think are important rather than the class topic. Instead, we are forced to rigidly follow the directions and rarely are allowed to incorporate what we feel is important. When given a problem, we are taught how to resolve it, and from then on, we must solve all other problems the same way. This mentality remains with us throughout our lives. We do not explore new ideas; instead, once we find something that works, we plant ourselves down and refuse to accept anything other than what we believe.
- Andrew Goh, Period 8
Well, Austin mentions that if a student isn’t interested in art, he/she shouldn't take the class; that it's just adding extra work on the student. But what if a student isn't interested in math or sciences? Why don't people consider those subjects as extra work? I'm terrible at science; it's always just been like that. The work hasn't gotten more difficult or anything but I discovered that I just don't do well in the subject. Although I have no interest in the field, I'm still forced to take the classes at school and bring down my average with it. The thing with learning is that there's a lot of memorization. Students learn to memorize something for a test, then forget once they don't need it (like Angela mentioned). In the long run, this means that students aren't learning at all.
ReplyDeleteWhen finding creativity in school, it depends on the subjects. With arts and English, it's easy to be creative in class. However, when it comes to math and science, it's quite difficult to be creative, isn't it? Where is the creativity in math?
Although I don't believe that I'm a "servile, complacent automaton" exactly, I don't feel as if school is letting me be individualistic. In school, most people aim to do well, and that's the common goal. There's really nothing more than getting good grades. As Stuyvesant is Stuyvesant, I'm sure there's someone here who actually loves to learn, but that person isn't me. I'm not coming to school to enjoy myself; I'm here because I have to, in order to succeed in life.
As of now, I have no idea what career I'm aiming for. Because of this, I don't know which classes I should be taking. There are a lot of jobs I want to take, but the fear of not being successful and not earning enough money is holding back. In this school, most electives are related to the science field. I took forensics, which was super fun, but I doubt I'm going to be a forensic scientist. In fact, I don't think I want to have anything to do with the science field. However, Stuyvesant is more or less gently pushing me in this direction, and I feel overwhelmed, not wanting to pursue this type of career but at the same time, not knowing what else I can do.