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 18th and 19th century. While the needs and problems of the world have changed vastly since the 18th and 19th 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.
