Recently I found out about something called T.E.D. (Technology, Entertainment Design)

 

TED describes itself as a “group of remarkable people that gather to exchange ideas of incalculable value”. Its lectures cover a broad set of topics including science, arts, politics, global issues, architecture, music and more.

Source: Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_%28conference%29

They podcast bits from their conferences (you can get them through: the TED website, YouTube and iTunes ) which is great because they have all sorts of great speakers.

 

The bit I’m really interested is part that was brought to my attention which is the video by Sir Ken Robinson

 

 

 

Source: TED

He talks about educating the creativity out of children and how the education system is really only there to fulfil the needs of one specific set of people, which was originally the industrialists. This is of course true of most things, that is that they are only there to serve the purpose of one set of people usually to the detriment of another group. For example the fact that

History is always written by the victor

This is demonstrated by the view held by the majority of people that the USSR was wholly to blame for the Cold War. This is of course is not true and there are equally as many points that can be made on the subject of how the USA was responsible.
(OK so this example is a bit abstract and off subject, but it is supposed to demonstrate the fact that things are often one sided and ignore the other possibilities)

Many would argue that this is a necessary evil and that there will always be those things that will suffer and those which are advanced on the back of this. For example if we did encourage dance in the curriculum would the academic subjects suffer, and if they did (as is likely to happen as there are only so many teaching hours available, something has to give) is this not just unfair on those who are academically gifted.

However this is not the point of Robinson’s argument. His point is that we in fact are not giving any of the children a chance as we, as a race, are stifling the natural creative urge present in everyone. It is not about whether or not people are good dancers but that they are not willing to find out as they are too scared of being judged or because dancing is unimportant.

So the problem is not at all fixed by making everyone dance instead of focusing on academic subjects however. The only way to fix the problem is to allow students to do everything available and encourage them in all of these until they naturally make their own decisions.

This can however create it’s own problem in that you have to decide the point at which you face these children with the hash social realities; that while they may enjoy dancing they do have to do their maths and languages and have a basic understanding of them as this is what society requires and we are not going to change this overnight. Further the problem that if you don’t do this will you end up with a situation like that with ‘new maths’ in the UK (which has ended up with much of a generation requiring tuition as adults) where people do not have the skills required.

Of course the balance is what is key, you must be able to expose people to these social norms without crushing their ability to be creative. This has a lot to do with how people are taught and more importantly the extra circular activities made available to them. What has to be established along with this is that it is expected that people take part in at least one activity, be that sport, community service or charity work of some kind, scouts or cadets, drama or whatever. The problem is that these activities are not always available, whether that be at school or elsewhere or their parents work makes it impossible to go and this surely must be where the problem lies.

These are also the problems hardest to solve, along with those problems of money (especially the amount allocated to state schools). We can however make organising these activities easier by reducing the amount of red tape surrounding doing anything with children.

In the UK you have to be CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checked before working with children. For those of you not aware of the issues surrounding this:
Although this may seem like a very good idea ther are problems, for each activity you do you have to separately checked and you can be banned from working with children for many reasons (unrelated to children); that is not to say that I think the idea should be scraped (it shouldn’t), merely better executed.

This has led to many people who may have previously organised activities not bothering due to the added hassle not only caused by this but by endless risk assessments and health and safety. Again these seem like good ideas but when for example you have to have a certificate to step more than two steps up a ladder it can start to get annoying.

There are again two sides to this. In the position of the parent giving the care of their child over to someone else you feel reassured an have peace of mind knowing that there have been checks done and that the risk has been minimised at all points. However in the position of the volunteer organising the activity on top of their normal working week this may well be enough to mean you do have enough time (or patience) to organise the activity.

Now obviously the parents side has won out (quite rightly I think most would say, it is certainly true that their are far more arguments in favour of the parent position). But it does raise a difficult question, on this basis whose job is it to provide children with activities that nurture both their creative and academic traits? Is it schools which require more resources and flexibility allowing them to do what they want or parents working to provide as best they can for their child.

It would certainly seem that although parents have an important role to play schools, seeing children all day five days a week, are often in a better position. Immediately we hit another and possibly the biggest problem with the whole system. Who decides what children are taught (and therefore how much emphasis there is on more creative subjects)?

There are several groups:

• Parents – All parents want some different for their children but children have to go to schools and as much as the teaching should be tailored individually to each student for teaching to work they must all be work from the base.
• Teachers – Although most would say they are the best people to educate children what qualifies them above anyone else to decide what children should and shouldn’t be taught
• Politicians – This is the way it is at the moment (in the UK they decide the National Curriculum) but again they, really, are no more qualified.

Any and all of these groups need to take many things into account and consult many different groups including all of those above (yes, and the politicians they do hold the purse strings).

So this leaves us with no real answers really just question:

How do we teach children those things they need to know (to ‘fit’ social norms) whilst still encouraging creativity (throughout their life) and who are the best people to decide how this should be done? Discuss.

Trackback URL