Education Does not Kill Creativity, Society Does.

                A common belief that seems to be held in many views of education is that “schools kill creativity.” In Sir Ken Robinson’s piece “Changing Education Paradigms” he suggests that the system of education present today is focused on a specific type of intelligence only. He states that the education system present in today’s society sees academic ability as having the “capacity for a certain type of deductive reasoning.” This he says is deep in the gene pool of education. Robinson seems to believe that education is the way it is simply because it is the way it has always been; it is in the “genes” of education. Robinson says that education presents one way of learning and that there is one answer. Teachers do not wish for education to be this way, but it just happens says Robinson; it is the way education has always been, and it needs reform. Robinson also suggests that the world is changing and problems are arising that need creative thinkers, and changing education is how we will achieve this. In conclusion Robinson believes that education is based on a society of the past, it ruins creative thinking and once reformed will produce children who think creatively and can solve the problems of today and the future. I disagree, while I believe educational changes will help solve current problems of today, I think that parts of today’s society must change before education as a whole changes. The specific “part” of society that must change is the belief that changing the world or solving the problems at hand is too hard, or more importantly out of reach.

                I must start by saying that some points Ken Robinson makes are undeniable; however where I disagree with him is involving the order in which changes should be made within education and society. Education caters to a certain type of thinker, and a certain type of talent. The children who get the awards and acknowledgment are the ones who remain focused, and are in sync with the way of learning present in today’s society. Children who follow directions, do what their told, and do it well are the kids with the high-school gold medal. Also the fact that the world is changing is very evident. I cannot deny hard facts like changes in the environment and the budget crisis. I also cannot deny that creative thinking would help to solve these problems and that emphasis on the arts in schools would bring creative thinking about. This all said it would seem like I am in compliance with Sir Ken Robinson, but I am not. Robinson seems to think that once education is altered, society will follow its lead. When in reality, I believe that changes and encouragement dealing with art in society will drive children to focus less on STEM subjects, and more on the arts, therefore forcing our education system to follow suit.  While Robinson believes that education makes children less and less creative as the years go on, my rebuttal is that society, not education, discourages children more and more as the years go on to follow their dreams and do big things.

                Contrary to Robinson’s belief that education today is very much based on the past, I believe that education today seems to be very much focused on the present. Robinson mentions a theory of “the gene pool of education,” basically that education is the way it is because it is the way it has been since the 18^th and 19^th century. While the needs and problems of the world have changed vastly since the 18^th and 19^th century, one way of thinking seems to persist. This way of thinking is the belief that changing the world is out of reach for most people.  It is the emphasis on simply being average. Basically the idea that, as you grow up society teaches you that the greatest thing you will probably achieve is having a decent paying job and a family. While Robinson says creativity decreases with age due to education, I say that people’s desire to use their creativity decreases with age because society slowly starts to teach them that they will not need it. For example, think about what you are going to school for right now, then think about what you wanted to be when you were a small child. Chances are they are not the same. School did not teach us that we couldn’t be anything we wanted, society did. If a child told someone they wanted to be a ballerina when they grew up and that person told them not to because it would be very hard to find jobs, and the pay would be bad, the people who overheard the conversation would be appalled. However if this conversation was happening between a teenager and an adult, it would seem completely normal. Children’s surroundings and influences, otherwise known as society, shifts how much it expects from children as their age goes up. Therefore vanishing all the possibilities that embrace the world of a young child.                                

                Robinson would suggest that education needs reform now, but I disagree. Before education is reformed, our society as a whole must change. In “Changing Education Paradigms,” a graphic of a man being told, “art! Ha-ha, you go down,” is shown to represent public education’s shunning of art. Robinson’s view is that the arts are just as important as science or math. I agree with this. Some of the most talented people that exist have no interest in biology or calculus. However, by the age of thirteen most children have probably stopped day-dreaming about being the next Beyonce, unless they are “lucky,” Because society teaches children that careers involving the arts are out of reach, or for those “lucky” people. Society also teaches children that careers like being the president are for the “valedictorian type” only. The last two presidents of the United States have both attended Ivy League colleges such as Harvard and Yale where they expect close to perfection in their students. Artistic kids who can creatively think would probably be more equipped to solve problems that the president has to deal with (this could explain why people with the thought processes of George Bush have not been so successful.)

The “real world” looks categorized to someone looking in on it from high school or college. We are taught the concept of A+B=C. For example, if someone likes math, they go to school for math and become an accountant. The majority of people don’t see how to adjust that formula to work for them, because society has proved to the majority that the formula is not meant to be molded, therefore categorizing people into strict groups based on their interests. The way the world is now there is an illusion that artists must be the best in their field; they must be brilliant to succeed in art; that a passion for art does not get someone very far. This is a result of said categorization. The only artists people hear about daily are the ones who became famous. No one hears about people who loved art and used their creativity to start an original business or solve a problem within an organization. This way of thinking leads to discouragement and the shunning of artistic talent. If we start linking these categories within society together children will get the idea in their head that they can achieve many things including solving the problems of the world today. There is no big check list that society needs to adhere to in order to accomplish this task. A series of small changes made by every individual is necessary to build the bridge between these various categories. Encouragement is one thing that is necessary. Children look up to the people surrounding them, and when offered encouragement children feel like they can accomplish great things. Another idea, dealing specifically with art, is the broadcast of art connecting to all different forms of life other than the physical side. For example, here in Buffalo we have the Albright Knox Art Gallery. It is a wonderful place for the arts; they hold events on Friday nights, and public tours frequently. However, when looking at their upcoming schedule, they have many lectures about art whether contemporary or modern, but nothing out of the ordinary. Instead of the typical art gallery, a step forward could be having speakers come in who illustrate how they used art in a new way, a creative way. Speakers who, like I mentioned before, have used their artistic mind to succeed in other aspects of the field. If children went to see a lecture on that subject instead of the same guided tour, also known to children as “30 minutes of daydreaming, or talking to your buddy,” it might just leave a lasting impression. The frequency of small changes like this, I believe would make a world of a difference, especially in the life’s of artistic thinking children.         

While I firmly believe that ADD and ADHD do not fit into a category, these attention disorders are one more thing the people in society try to push into a small confined space. Robinson himself has a specific view on these disorders and he brings them up in “Changing Education Paradigms.” He elaborates on how kids are taking dangerous medications to get them through education. “We are getting our children through education by anaesthetizing them,” he says. This means that instead of “waking them up,” we our putting our children “to sleep.” “We are deadening them to what’s going on.” Basically he is suggesting that children, who take medication for ADD/ADHD, are doing it to get through school. Being diagnosed with ADD myself, I see where Robinson is coming from. There were times I questioned the medication prescribed for ADD, but the advantages it has had for me out shadow those times greatly. There was no sense of being “woken up,” when I was off my medicine. I was unmotivated and sometimes felt useless. Also, contrary to what Robinson would assume, I felt my creativity was far more plentiful when I took my medicine. However, if I were to believe this was everyone’s experience with Attention disorders I would be falling victim to this categorization I have been speaking of. One thing I have learned about ADD over the years is that it cannot be categorized, and it is a very complex disorder. My sister has had the complete opposite experience with medication for ADD. It was a negative experience for her, and she stopped taking it. I have also read over blogs with people sharing negative and positive experiences. This is evidence that like careers and interests, ADD and ADHD cannot be put into a category either. Nothing is black and white.

 Although Robinson’s commentary on GillianLynne is inspiring, I do not think it proves his point that children with Attention Disorders should not be medicated. Lynne had an attention problem in school. When her mother took her to the doctor, the doctor told Lynne that he had to speak with her mother alone. When they left the room they turned the music on and watched Lynne. She began to dance, and the doctor simply said, Gillian is a dancer, put her in a dance school. She went on to choreograph plays such as Cats and The Phantom of the Opera. Robinson tells us this story to prove the point that medication for someone who has ADD/ADHD is the wrong answer. I do not think it proves Robinson’s point. What it does prove is that not every child with a focus disorder should take medication, and that knowing when or when it is not necessary is vital and should not be taken lightly. Not every child with an attention disorder should go to a dance school or a school for the arts either. Every child with a learning disorder should understand what their options are, and what it is they would like to do and do it. If dancing makes a child happy, they should dance and if being focused on school makes a child happy, they should by all means be focused on school. Because similar to how some people love to dance but can’t without training, children with focus disorders might be great at painting but dream to be a scientist; and the help they might need, such as medication should not be taken from them simply because it is not for everyone.

Education does need reform as Sir Ken Robinson suggests. A stronger emphasis on the arts eventually does need to occur in schools. However, reforming society’s ways of thinking must happen first. Once society realizes how art can be helpful in creative thinking and problem solving, then developing talent in the arts within the school will be on everyone’s agenda. Again, it is not education that kills creativity; it is society that makes us simply not want to use it. Children would be more inclined to use their creativity consistently if they were able to see the connections art has with many forms of life and work other than strictly painting or dancing, etc. So the first step to altering society is the realization of the connection of art to everyday life. Second, is society giving children a consistent image of possibility within the world. For example, With these two steps a creative person who used to think being a CEO at a huge company involved just good grades, luck and hard work, will now see it as involving their creativity to solve problems and get good grades, hard work, and most importantly they will see it as possible. People will focus more on the arts and creativity that is needed to perfect success, once society shows people its usefulness and shows children that they can be more than average; therefore teaching the majority of people to build their own formulas for success. Whether that success is being a pharmacist or being the next president.           

Societies Reformation before Educations

                                A common belief that seems to be held in many views of education is that “schools kill creativity.” In Sir Ken Robinson’s piece “Changing Education Paradigms” he suggests that the system of education present today is focused on a specific type of intelligence only. He states that the education system present in today’s society sees academic ability as having the “capacity for a certain type of deductive reasoning.” This he says is deep in the gene pool of education. Robinson seems to believe that education is the way it is simply because it is the way it has always been; it is in the “genes” of education. Robinson says that education presents one way of learning and that there is one answer. Teachers do not wish for education to be this way, but it just happens says Robinson; it is the way education has always been, and it needs reform. In conclusion Robinson believes that education is based on a society of the past, it ruins creative thinking and it needs to be changed.

                                I must start by saying that some points Ken Robinson makes are undeniable. Education caters to a certain type of thinker, and a certain type of talent. The children who get the awards and acknowledgment are the ones who remain focused, and are in sync with the way of learning present in today’s society. This is a fact, I have lived this. I have sat in a classroom while the teacher has made fun of my work. I have sat in award assemblies watching the same three kids walk up to the stage receiving award after award. I am not the only one. Kids who follow directions and do what their told, and do it well are the kids with the high-school gold medal. This is solid evidence that cannot be argued.

                                Robinson suggests that the way school is now is very much based on the past. He mentions a theory of “the gene pool of education,” basically that education is the way it is because this is the way it has been since the 18^th and 19^th century.  I disagree. To me, education seems to be very much focused on the present. Education sculpts children who are capable of doing the jobs that society needs to maintain itself. More specifically, I believe that education is not to blame for creativity being lost rather the society and culture of the world today is at fault.                           

                                Robinson would suggest that education needs reform now, but I disagree. Before education is reformed, our society as a whole must change. Robinson speaks about how the arts are being lost in education. He argues that the arts are just as important as science or math. I agree with this. Some of the most talented people that exist have no interest in biology or calculus. However, society has interest in people who do have interests less involved with the arts. Society needs the reform that Robinson is suggesting that schools need, before those schools get the reform. Education now is focused on teaching kids the necessary things needed to succeed in the real world. Unfortunately the real world does not cater well to a large population of artists. The way the world is now, artists must be the best in their field; they must be brilliant to succeed in art. A passion for art does not get someone very far. This is because Society is still focused on “The American Dream.” The majority of people want a big house, a white picket fence and a dog. To get there, they must learn what is held important in society, what will get you good, high paying jobs; this often having to do with math and science. My aunt had a degree in graphic design. She had a high-paying job for a while, but it became too much to handle with having kids, and needing time to do other things. After years she found another job that paid next to nothing as a graphic designer. She was great and what she did, but it did not support her. She is now back at college earning a different degree.  

Robinson might argue that we do not know what the economy will look like in five to ten years. While Robinson is correct about that, one could bet that society won’t have a drastic need for artists. This is because society is not changing. The same things that were important fifty years ago are still important now. The most important thing to us is getting a job and providing for a family. I am not saying I agree with this view, only that this view is the common one. If artists commonly succeeded in the real world, and made a good living, chances are schools would focus a great deal more on these programs.

ADHD, is also brought up in Robinson’s “Changing Education Paradigms.” He elaborates on how kids are taking dangerous medications to get them through education. “We are getting our children through education by anaesthetizing them,” he says. This means that instead of “waking them up,” we our putting our children “to sleep.” “We are deadening them to what’s going on.” Basically he is suggesting that children, who take medication for ADHD, are doing it to get through school. This is false. The reason many children are taking medication is to be focused just like any other peer in their classroom, they want the same fair chance that any other person without an attention disorder has. Why is it important to be focused? This again leads back to the demands of society. They don’t want to be focused just to get through school; they want the benefits of getting through school successfully. If a child wants to grow up and live somewhere other than the street or a small apartment, society teaches them they better do well in school, and they better go on to college. Education is simply a reflection of society. Change society and you will not have to work to reform education, it will change on its own. Society puts pressure on children, not education.

In a different piece by Ken Robinson he talks about the story of Gillian Lynne. Lynne had an attention problem in school. When her mother took her to the doctor, the doctor told Lynne that he had to speak with her mother alone. When they left the room they turned the music on and watched Lynne. She began to dance, and the doctor simply said, Gillian is a dancer, put her in dance school. She went on the choreograph plays such as Cats and The Phantom of the Opera. Robinson tells us this story to prove the point that medication for someone who has ADHD is the wrong answer. Although this is an inspiring story, I do not believe it proves Robinson’s point. Not every child with an attention disorder will go on to be as successful and lucky as Gillian Lynne was. Taking the medication away from kids with ADHD is not the answer. That will just leave children unfocused and determined to be something that they might not have a chance of being. This is not a pleasant thought, but unfortunately the truth of today’s society. For example, out of the thousands of trained ballerinas who aspire to join the New York City ballet only about 10 a year make it into the company. Robinson would argue that this does not give education the right to steer creative children away from following their dreams. I agree with this. I wish that every child who aspired to be a ballerina could be, but again in today’s society the chances are slim. Society today is too money-driven to focus enough attention to the arts to create more job opportunities in that field. Only once society stops and appreciates the value of art, will creative children get what they deserve, in life and in education. Until then medication for ADHD at least gives children a fair chance at being successful in other fields.

Education does need reform as Sir Ken Robinson suggests. However, reforming society must happen first. Reforming education at this point in time would be unproductive. In today’s society the education process present, is needed. What needs to happen currently is the change in society. The importance of the arts in today’s society is waning. People need to appreciate the value of art in everyday life. Once this happens, schools will naturally adjust. Education is simply the process needed to be successful in the world. When the world changes what it wants, education will change what it teaches, and what it puts emphasis on. Not understanding this fact will lead to wasting time reforming education. Reforming education at this point in time would probably lead to unemployment and children handicapped to achieve success. If chances are made to reform society, education will also reform. Education is the shadow of society, so changes in society will help to put creativity on the list of important things, and education will also put creativity on the list of important things. Therefore, I conclude, that education is not a product of the past, it is a product of the here and now, and the sooner we change society, the sooner we will change education and enable the world to flood with creativity and success.           

Bell Hooks template

The general argument made by Bell hooks in her writing, Essentialism and Experience, is that experience is an important aspect of fully understanding a subject. More specifically she argues that with the differentiation of people's experiences there can not be one common way of teaching or learning a certain subject. She writes that "exclusions that stipulate, for instance, only women can understand feminine experience, only Jews can understand Jewish suffering," can be dangerous and misleading. In this passage Bell Hooks is suggesting that it is important to have your own experiences because it can make understanding and explaining of a topic more thorough. In conclusion, learning is best when you have your own experiences, and your own experiences can help others to understand certain topics also.
 
In my view she is right because people do learn best from experience. More specifically, I believe that direct examples and experiences help people learn more than just theory. For example, sometimes people do not change their behavior until something happens that makes them, opposed to just hearing they should change their behavior.

Fantasy peer Review

It was definitely something new writing a review on a classmates piece of writing. I tried to be critical but I think I'm naturally inclined to like my peers pieces of writings. I find it a lot easier to judge my writing than other people's. I am looking forward to seeing what my peer reviews say however. Looking back on what I wrote I'm not quite sure how good my piece of writing was. It was really hard for me to think of the theme I wanted to write about. I had an idea clear in my head, I just hope it came through on paper, If not I will have to revise more than planned. I do like the idea of peer reviewing, because you almost get a sense of what you would think about your paper, if it wasn't your paper, if that makes any sense... Assignment #3 was definitely a challenge for me, but it was also fun to write and I'm curious to see what people thought about it in class today....and nervous!

Literary Genres

When I looked up literary genres I was surprised to read definitions of the ways of writing that we are to use for assignment number three. I think it would be really interesting to use a fable or a fairy tale to show the privileged standpoint of my peers and me as students. It would be difficult though. It would be easy to write a bibliography, or a non-fiction paper on this subject, but my guess is that too many of those have already been written. I think it will be fun to take a topic so straight forward and turn it into a fairy tale. I'm interested to see how it pans out. Here is a list of some genres I found...  http://www.bsfcs.org/forums/green/Literature/Genres.htm

Essentialism

Bell Hook's Essentialism and Experience, shows her view and an opposing view of "essentialism and experience." Through reading this piece essentialism seems to be the experience's a person has due to which marginalized group they happen to be a member of. For example, white male's have different experiences than white female's, black female's have different experiences than white female's, and so on. Essentialism seems to suggest that our race and gender effect our experiences therefore effecting who we are as people, and how we think and act. Hook's opinion seems to be that there is a privaleged experience in some class rooms. She says that white male's sometimes, without trying, suggest that their experiences and way's of thinking are priority. I wonder if that is true about essentialism. Do we as people think that our experience's and ways of thinking, due to who we are, are better than other's? I know I have met many who seem to believe that. Ofcourse, many people do not portray this view on purpose. From early age's I think people have essentialism surrounding them. People are trained to think that their experiences are important, which they are, but maybe we lack the realization that this is uniform for all people. As the experiences that are formed based on the gender and race of a singular individual are important, so are these particular experiences for every different human being. The important thing about essentialism I think is to let it improve your intellect, without it becoming your intellect.       

Peer Review

I really enjoyed the peer review we did in class last week. I just finished editing my "second-first draft" and i felt that i had good help and ideas to benefit my paper. I really tried to focus on, shifting the structure of my paper opposed to just changing around a few words. Im hoping that i did a good job on the re-write without changing my overall message. I definitely used the ideas my peer reviewers gave me and i am very content with my paper. I guess i will have to see how class goes tomorrow!