Response to Ken Robinson’s “Changing Educational Paradigms”

Response to Ken Robinson’s “Changing Educational Paradigms” To what extent do you agree with Ken Robinson’s claims? In a 300-400 word response, respond to Robinson’s arguments, using everything you know about writing to inform your claims and referring to evidence either from the speech itself or from other readings and experiences. This is simply a way for me to get to know your writing, and for you all to get to know one another. Please include the word count. For your Response to at least 2 classmates : 1. Response to your colleagues should be based on Ken Robinson’s video and at least 7-8 lines for each response.. a. Ask classmates for clarification if needed. b. Ask classmates questions about Ken Robinson’s video and make (positive) comments their posts. 2. Address the two colleagues by their names. 3. Remember that as we post and interact with one another, it is crucial that we maintain a level of respect and consideration (for others). Please, there is absolutely no bullying in this class. RESOURCE: Changing Educational Paradigms Ken Robinson: Every country on earth at the moment is reforming public education. There are two reasons for this. The first of them is economic. People are trying to work out how do we educate our children to take their place in the economies of the 21st century? How do we do that given that we can’t anticipate what the economy will look like at the end of next week, as the recent turmoil is demonstrated. How do we do that? The second is cultural. Every country on earth is trying to figure out how do we educate our children so they have a sense of cultural identity so that we can pass on the cultural genes of our communities while being part of the process of globalisation? How do we square that circle? The problem is they’re trying to meet the future by doing what they did in the past. And on the way they’re alienating millions of kids who don’t see any purpose in going to school. When we went to school we were kept there with a story which is if you work hard and did well and got a college degree you would have a job. Our kids don’t believe that. And they’re right not to, by the way. You’re better having a degree than not but it’s not a guarantee anymore. And particularly not if the route to it marginalises most of the things that you think are important about yourself. So people say we have to raise standards if this is a breakthrough, you know, really, yes we should; why would you lower them? I haven’t come across an argument that persuades me of lowering them. But raising them of course we should raise them. The problem is that the current system of education was designed and conceived and structured for a different age. It was conceived in the intellectual, culture of the enlightenment. And in the economic circumstances of the industrial revolution. Before the middle of the 19th century there were no systems of public education, not really. I mean you could get educated by Jesuits if you had the money. But public education paid for from taxation, compulsory to everybody and free at the point of delivery – that was a revolutionary idea. And many people objected to it – they said it’s not possible for many street kids and working class children to benefit from public education, they’re incapable of learning to read and write and why are we spending time on this? So there’s also built into it a whole series of assumptions about social structure and capacity. It was driven by an economic imperative of the time but running right through it was an intellectual model of the mind, which was essentially the enlightenment view of intelligence; that real intelligence consists in this capacity for a certain type of deductive reasoning and a knowledge of the classics originally, what we come to think of as academic ability. And this is deep in the gene pool of public education; there are only two types of people – academic and non-academic; smart people and non smart people. And the consequence of that is that many brilliant people think they’re not because they’ve been judged against this particular view of the mind. So we have twin pillars – economic and intellectual. And my view is that this model has caused chaos in many people’s lives; it’s been great for some, there have been people who have benefitted wonderfully from it. But most people have not. Instead they suffer this; this is the modern epidemic and it’s as misplaced and as it’s fictitious. This is the plague of ADHD. Now this is a map of the instance that ADHD in America or prescriptions for ADHD. Don’t mistake me, I don’t mean to say there is no such thing as Attention Deficit Disorder. I’m not qualified to say if there is such a thing. I know that a great majority of psychologists and paediatricians think there is such a thing, but it’s still a matter of debate. What I do know for a fact is it’s not an epidemic. These kids are being medicated as routinely as we had our tonsils taken out. And on the same whimsical basis and for the same reason – medical fashion. Our children are living in the most intensely stimulating period in the history of the earth. They’re being besieged with information and calls for their attention from every platform – computers, from iPhones, from advertising hoardings, from hundreds of television channels and we’re penalising them now for getting distracted. From what? Boring stuff at school, for the most part. It seems to me it’s not a coincidence totally that the incidence of ADHD has risen in parallel with the growth of standardised testing. Now these kids are being given Ritalin and Adderall and all manner of things, often quite dangerous drugs, to get them focused and calm them down. But according to this Attention Deficit Disorder increases as you travel east across the country. People start losing interest in Oklahoma, they can hardly think straight in Arkansas and by the time they get to Washington they’ve lost it completely. And there are separate reasons for that I believe (laughter from audience).