[The Dude]

Sir Ken Robinson


YouTube - Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?



It's 20 mins long, but the time flies by....


I was passed this link earlier on today, I think I might be watching a few more of the TED videos before the night ends.

[AgentCool]

I completely agree. Science subjects are constantly promoted in the media as being 'superior' to the arts at every level of education but, for the most part, they simply do not permit creativity and many people forget that without creativity, science wouldn't even exist. As Einstein once said, "imagination is more important than knowledge".

To give a personal example, a few years back I started on an undergraduate course in Computer Science but I quit it in frustration after only a few months. The reason I did this is because I've never done anything in my whole life which restrained creativity to such an extent. One piece of coursework we were given involved copying a ten page article in your own words. We were explicity told we would be penalised if we added any of our own opinions, ideas or research to the work. It was so pointlessly tedious that I simply could not bring myself to do it.

After this, I moved to a BA course which would be considered by most to be 'inferior' but I found it infinitely more challenging and intellectually stimulating than the BSc course and I'll never regret doing it regardless of whether or not employers are less impressed with it.

[Steven]

I think it depends on the balance struck in reality between the curriculum and individual freedom

From my experience maths and science(s) are more liable to be strictly adhering to Government guidelines, but in other subjects like English there was a leeway, just that you have to be able to show where you are coming from otherwise back on the path you go

[orpheus]

Originally Posted by AgentCool

To give a personal example, a few years back I started on an undergraduate course in Computer Science but I quit it in frustration after only a few months. The reason I did this is because I've never done anything in my whole life which restrained creativity to such an extent. One piece of coursework we were given involved copying a ten page article in your own words. We were explicity told we would be penalised if we added any of our own opinions, ideas or research to the work. It was so pointlessly tedious that I simply could not bring myself to do it.

That does sound tedious, but you'd be surprised at how much creativity there can be in Computer Science/programming. In some ways it's more of an art than a true engineering discipline. There's a lot of scope for imagination and creativity in designing good software.

[eric pisch]

The school system has changed radically over the last 10 years, in the UK they have become exam factory's chasing performance ratings. Education is done in such a way as to promote exam results, creativity, free thinking are not required

most kids leave now leave having sat about 16 exams, they start taking them in year 9 now ...

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by eric pisch

The school system has changed radically over the last 10 years, in the UK they have become exam factory's chasing performance ratings. Education is done in such a way as to promote exam results, creativity, free thinking are not required

most kids leave now leave having sat about 16 exams, they start taking them in year 9 now ...

Eric, having taught in secondary education for the last 15 years, I do not recognise much of this.

Exam results have always been important, and league tables have been with us far longer than a decade.

For many subjects - certainly for mine - free thinking is a necessity if you want the highest grades.

Steve W

[CH_Peter]

I watched the new last night and was baffled by two kids doing 16 and 17 GCSE's. Has the school week become nearly twice as long as when I did 10? And what's with A*? We could "only" get A grades, so I am surprised to find that 17 years on, I have become more stupid.

Anyway, I have see the OP's video before and found it interesting, but having no experience of the education system for over 10 years, can't really comment on schools today, but certainly, at university, the ability to learn and repeat facts was secondary to being able to understand, analyse and discuss topics.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by CH_Peter

I watched the new last night and was baffled by two kids doing 16 and 17 GCSE's. Has the school week become nearly twice as long as when I did 10?

Usually this involves doing subjects which will get you two or more GCSEs. Some GNVQs are worth four!

Originally Posted by CH_Peter

And what's with A*? We could "only" get A grades, so I am surprised to find that 17 years on, I have become more stupid.

GCSE passes at Grade A have increased in number. I can't speak for the whole country, but at my school there's been a change in the aspirations of the pupils and their parents. At the same time we've seen the impact of OFSTED. You used to get a lot of "I don't teach to the exam, I like to give the kids a rounded education" claptrap used as an excuse for not teaching rigorously. That's not totally gone, but it's less common.

More A grades means a greater need to tell who has a good A or a great A.

Steve W

[Miyazaki]

IMO the national curriculum is what is stifling creativity.

Funnily enough this was brought in during the 80's by holier-than-thou's in the OP's video.

Have we come full circle? How about these nobs butt out and leave the teaching to those that actually practice it?

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by Pecker

At the same time we've seen the impact of OFSTED. You used to get a lot of "I don't teach to the exam, I like to give the kids a rounded education" claptrap used as an excuse for not teaching rigorously. That's not totally gone, but it's less common.

I don't really understand what you are saying there Steve. Would you care to elaborate please?

[krish]

Originally Posted by AgentCool

Science subjects are constantly promoted in the media as being 'superior' to the arts at every level of education but, for the most part, they simply do not permit creativity and many people forget that without creativity, science wouldn't even exist. As Einstein once said, "imagination is more important than knowledge".

Have to completely disagree with you there (and Einstein would be turning in his grave ) but imagination, creativity and critical thinking are all crucial to the work of a science/engineering student (undergrad and especially postgrad/PhD) or professional (though not really repetitive technician type jobs).

Without that you really would be unable to satisfactorily pursue a research or design project, or even basic lab experiments and drawing conclusions, discussing, and considering future work. It's certainly not painting by numbers and imagination/creativity is not limited to producing a work of art. Professional scientists and engineers are required to "think out of the box" - whether its a civil engineer designing a new bridge, a chemical engineer designing a new cleaner process, or a forensic scientist trying to extract DNA from some delicate material when they only have once chance to get it right.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Miyazaki

I don't really understand what you are saying there Steve. Would you care to elaborate please?

Aye.

It really miffs me off when people complain about 'teaching to the exam', as if that were a bad thing.

Teaching to the exam is only a bad thing if pupils are not examined on what is important. Take the driving test. It hopefully looks at people's driving skills on a real road, whether they can drive safely, reverse, etc. So, teaching to the exam is a good thing. If the driving test was to drive backwards blindfold through a flock of sheep, then teaching to the exam would be a bad idea.

In my opinion, it's the job of HoDs to find an exam board which offers a course/assessment structure which examines pupils on what is important. You then teach to that exam.

For the last 8 years I've insisted on doing courses with no coursework - exam only. You still get RE teachers who refuse to teach GCSE, as they want pupils to explore their individual blah blah blah - they're usually just crap teachers who are afraid of being found out for what they are.

Sorry - my little rant.

Steve W

[Philly112]

I graduated in 1982. With A and O levels the previous few years. And subjects were always taught to the exam. It's always been like that. Can't really see how it could be otherwise. If there were more generalised teaching, then the exams would just be 'more generalised exams'.

God, when I sat my Chemistry finals, the only revision I ever did was trawling through past papers.

Phil

[Jay]

Originally Posted by eric pisch

most kids leave now leave having sat about 16 exams, they start taking them in year 9 now ...

That's not new to me, I had to take exams in year 9 and that was over 10years ago.

They were called SATs

[Jay]

Originally Posted by CH_Peter

And what's with A*? We could "only" get A grades, so I am surprised to find that 17 years on, I have become more stupid.

Again A* is not new, they were around over 10 years ago.

If 17 years ago the A* wasn't used then it was implemented shortly after.

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by Indecisive Jay

Again A* is not new, they were around over 10 years ago.

If 17 years ago the A* wasn't used then it was implemented shortly after.

I sat GCSEs in 1996 and there was A*s then.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Miyazaki

I sat GCSEs in 1996 and there was A*s then.

I done them in 1994, having A*s made no difference to me as I was nowhere near getting one

I meant though that they were around over 10years ago

[Pecker]

A* was implemented for GCSEs in 1994.

Pupils beginning their A2 in September will be able to obtain an A* at A Level for the first time.

Steve W