One of my favorite videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
Any thoughts?
Printable View
One of my favorite videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
Any thoughts?
I absolutely adore his lectures. He's appeared at Ted.com several times. Many good lectures there.
I agree with his analysis of school systems.
He discusses ADHD a great deal as well, and I don't think that he considers it to be an actual diagnosis, and that kids are simply being placed into the category unnecessarily. It's true that ADHD is over-diagnosed, but I think that it's a serious problem for some.
Although focus is a big part of ADHD, it's unfortunately the only part that's often talked about, whereas much of the rest of it is ignored. Such as organization and intention. But, that's another discussion.
Anyways, the simple fact is: There isn't enough creative, innovation in schools. Unfortunately, I think much of it has to do with funding.
How sad that money is being used for useless commodities and nuclear weapons programs, when it could be going into school systems and health care. I will never understand that.
Schools should be run by the elite, the best of the best from their fields, to teach the next generations, and these people should be paid accordingly-- Because it's so important, they should be paid much more than teachers are these days. It should be placed at the highest importance, along with medicine and scientific progress.
Outstanding. Probably more accurate than can be shown. Very motivating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
I agree that our education systems can do with more funding; however, I am not sure if that solves most problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by BookBeauty
Creative approach to education does not necessarily require more money in my opinion. It simply requires... A creative approach. One can do so much in a class with an empty cereal box or simply taking a stroll in the garden.
A good example of this is the interactive whiteboards in our classes. Almost all schools now have such boards in their classes and so much money was spent to have them installed. To what end? So that teachers can deliver "death-by-powerpoint" blows to the unsuspecting students.
There is so much potential waiting to tapped on within these boards but, unfortunately, the mentalities who rushed to spend thousands of pounds to install these boards fail to provide training longer than 3-hours for the staff so that they can exploit this gadget as they should.
Creativity is an approach and it comes rather cheap as it is hidden in our minds.
I suppose I wasn't specific about where the funding needs to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
It's not about the equipment, or the books, or even the school itself.
It's to pay for the teachers. They've got to be really, really good teachers, who teach because they love it, love to teach the subjects they teach, and know how to do it with creative, and critical thinking.
It all comes down to the teachers.
Sadly, not everyone can teach, and many teachers who are teaching shouldn't be. There should be an extensive interviewing process, and a 'probationary teaching period', where they make lesson plans for pretend students. :D
I think that Sir Ken Richardson is talking about a far larger top-down rethinking of the system of education than is offered by the single teacher in a single classroom doing something creative. Richardson is questioning the very means in which our schools are modeled... the old 19th century industrial/agrarian model based on the notion that the goal of public education was to churn out lot's of good little factory workers while giving these students summers off to work on the farms. He is questioning the obsession with standardized testing which has led to schools spending endless hours in test preparation: pre-tests, mock tests, analysis of the questions on past test used to drive present curriculum... teaching test taking skills rather than teaching the necessary curriculum. He is also questioning outmoded ideas such as social promotion... (moving a student along based upon age as opposed to based upon when he or she has mastered a body of skills or knowledge)... individualized learning as opposed to collaborative learning, and the elimination of almost anything not directly linked to the standardized tests on literacy and mathematics: science, history, music, art, physical education, wood-shop, computers, theater, dance, etc...
What we need to look toward are those systems that prove highly effective... especially those effective systems that operate under similar conditions of cultural diversity as we face in the US and the UK. Norway, for example, repeatedly ranks among the top systems of education in the world. Part of their success is due to the fact that the teachers are well paid and well-respected. In return, the preparation process for the prospective teacher is highly demanding. We might compare this with the US where teachers are paid well below what other professionals with an equal education might hope to receive... and "respect?" Well the current obsession of politicians in attempting to use them as scapegoats for budget shortfalls and portray them an ineffective, lazy and overpaid says much about the lack of respect for teachers in this country. At the same time, preparation for teachers in the US is in many ways a farce. Education majors rank among the lowest GPAs of any major field of study, while required courses, often taught by overworked TAs, are quite often useless and unrelated to real classroom experience. Far more time should be spent learning in the classroom with mentoring teachers.
Unfortunately, all of this is but wishful thinking. Teachers can put forth all the good, creative ideas they can. The result is negligible when the administrators, departments of education, school boards, and politicians continue to employ standardized test scores and budgets as the ultimate standard by which all decisions are made. Private schools (as a result of their ability to "cherry pick" students) and public schools in wealthier districts (as a result of increased parental education, support, and engagement... including monetary... will continue to thrive, while schools in the poorer rural districts and especially the poverty-ridden urban districts will continue to lag behind, further fueling the growing gap between classes.
That was a brilliant little lecture. I think he's really just saying what 99% of educators have been thinking for a long time now. That isn't meant to be a diminishment in any way--that he could so succinctly vocalize our concerns, angers, fears in 12 minutes is quite amazing. As educators, the truth of this video seems self-evident. I think most anyone would watch this and agree.
But here's the problem: now what? How do we actually change the system? Like StLukes points out, everything, in the US at least, is going in the wrong direction. Educators are underpaid. The trend of demonizing teachers is at an all-time high. Curriculums, whether it be at a district, state, or national level are being dictated by businessmen and politicians with agendas (that have nothing to do with educating children), and not educators. The arts are so undervalued it's mind-blowing. I hate to be pessimistic, but I don't see any way out of this hole. I mean, I think it will happen--this type of system can not sustain itself indefinitely, but it's going to take a long, long time.
And then we lump all of that in with the underpaid, under-appreciated, overworked teacher in a classroom of 30+ kids who simply don't give a **** (and, as the video shows, not unreasonably so). The desire to help is battered down by the feeling of powerlessness. I do not know one female teacher who has not admitted to crying due to her job, and I suspect most male teachers would admit the same if they had the balls too (I did a couple times just during ST, and I was in a good school).
Bah! It's just frustrating!
I guess one thing I didn't experience was the crappy college courses for future educators StLukes described (not saying it isn't so--I'm sure it is). The education and English program at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville is quite amazing. We often discussed a lot of the issues brought up in this video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Yes, a complete overhaul in the system would be wonderful, but is impractical. Ironically, there must be a more "conservative" approach (conservative as Burke meant it). Changes have to happen bit by bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
As a teacher, I agree that there are restrictions placed on me by both bureaucratic and economic situations, but that does mean I cannot, nor have not benefited from Sir Ken Robinson.
I came across his work just before going into Teacher's College, both his lectures on TED and his book "The Element." The key message of his work is to treat students like people, not cogs. Is it a new point? No, not really. But he really grasps on to a practical point. And that is that people are fueled by desire, and everyone has creativity in some way (it may not be "artistic" but it is there). So teach to that. I am very up front with my students about this: I try to stress that yes, in my English class we are going to read Shakespeare, but the point of this is not so you can be an expert in Shakespeare, or because I know all of you will go to university to continue to study Shakespeare, but I encourage my students to find from Shakespeare what it is they are passionate about, because it just might be there. This is the key problem with the secondary school system: teachers teach only so that students can go to university. And students propel this problem because it has been so internalized.
So it has very little to do with the system: it is what an individual teacher can do to help his/her students realize that school is not a holding pen until they are released into more school. But rather is a place where students can explore their passions free of risk (or at least should be allowed to)
I recently came across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education
I think it sounds quite ideal.
Yes, a complete overhaul in the system would be wonderful, but is impractical. Ironically, there must be a more "conservative" approach (conservative as Burke meant it). Changes have to happen bit by bit.
A nice thought... but is it really any less impractical than a major overhaul to the entire system? What Ken Richardson is pointing out are the major flaws in the system. What you do in you one classroom is not going to change that in the most minute of ways. Richardson, for example, raises the issue of "social promotion"... the belief that the majority (all) children learn at the same rate and thus all should be in this grade studying this subject at this age. Obviously, this is not a reality... and there needs to be a way of addressing this... placing children in classes that address where they are at in terms of skills and knowledge. Right now there is a push toward developing something akin to the IEP for all children. But this is pure insanity. I already face the reality of classrooms numbering 40+ students in which some 12 have IEPs addressing learning disabilities and another 4 or 5 have IEPs addressing severe emotional or behavioral issues... on top of the "normal" students whose reading abilities in an eighth grade class may range from a 1st grade level to an 8th grade level. The notion that a single teacher can or even should juggle such an array of abilities is absurd and has nothing to do with what is best for the child and everything to do with what is the least costly.
How do you, in your single classroom, get around the continual demands for pre-testing, practice testing, testing, testing, testing when such is dictated from above? How do you deal with the fact that music, art, physical education, wood-shop, computer, dance, theater, etc... are continually the first things to be cut from the curriculum when budgets get tight?
Your children are reading Shakespeare. Mine are lucky if they are not at least three or four grade levels behind in their reading abilities. I suspect that you are not teaching in one of the more "challenged" school districts in poverty-ridden rural or urban America. Funding (economic situations) are not a major part of the problem. Tell that to a teacher in a school where 100% of the students fall under Title 1, where library books in the science section predict that one day we'll land on the moon, where there has been absolutely $0 allotted for the teachers in music, PE, art, etc... , where there might be three of 4 computers in a room for 40 students... only one or two of which work. Tell that to a teacher in a school district where shootings and killings are almost expected... to the point that the press largely ignores it. Not far from here, five students were shot in a well-to-do suburban district. Within 15 minutes the story had made Reuters, CNN, CBS, NBC... even NPR. The next day the governor flew to town and ordered all the state flags hung at half mast. The previous week, in the urban district I teach in several students were shot and killed. There was almost no report of it outside of the local paper. One student, at my school, was present at the shooting; he saw his friend killed and the shooters took several shots at him. The next day he was in school... no therapists... no grief counselors. No flags at half mast.
I suppose I am fortunate in two ways: no, I am not teaching at a school with the same socio-economic strains that you seem to be experiencing (though there are some cases of it) and my province's ministry of education is not as forceful with testing. With the exception of 30% of the term's marks set aside for final project/essay and an exam, teachers have freedom to design their courses how they will (usually agreed upon by the department).
That being said, I have taught classes where the students are not at the reading level appropriate for Shakespeare: I was just using him as an example to demonstrate a point. Not all classes have to study Shakespeare. Or, as in one case, I teach Shakespeare using the film versions primarily and supplementing it with the text - stressing that the stories (which students usually love), and characters are far more important than the language.
What can one teacher do in the face of a broken system? I would say a lot. If we take a sweeping generalized view - students don't like school (I'm referring particularly to middle/secondary school). Of course there are those who love school, but they are a minority. However, even students who detest school will usually be able to tell you about that one teacher they had - the one who challenged them, the one believed in them - the one who made a difference. One teacher cannot change a 200 year old system, but he/she could change the lives of a group of students.
I think Sir Ken Robinson's views apply very well to those schools that you describe, the ones that don't have much in the ways of resources, where arts and sports are continually slashed, and where students are far more preoccupied with their lives, and potential survival, than what is happening in your classroom. In these cases, more than any, it is essential to realize that you are teaching people, not disembodied learners. I agree that an IEP for 40 students is impractical, but an effective use of DI (differentiated instruction) can go a long way for you as a teacher, and to help students realize that school (and learning) can be an integral part of their lives, not a frustrating interference with it.
I have no ready-made solutions to offer as to "now what?"; however, I also feel that it is the easy way not to do anything to enhance the learning experience of our students. To repeat a cliche, "revolution starts at home". We need to start making little differences, being pro-active searching and finding ways of improving our skills, adapting and adopting according to the needs of our students.
It is never an easy job to change things; there will be resistance from the students, schools, parents. There will be shortage of resources and budget limitations and all while playing "tick-the-boxes" and "meet-the-targets".
Still, when I come home at night, I want to know that I have done my own best, not simply the minimal requirements of a system I do not necessarily agree or support.
Good video, and it resonated with a lot of the stuff I've been looking at on the teaching maths course I'm doing at the moment.
As a younger teacher in a Primary school I was schooled to expect the kids to behave in a particular way - sit down, sit up straight, listen... regularly repeated whilst I delivered the "statutory" - yes, it was enshrined in law, 30 minutes teaching in both maths and English per day. The intention was no doubt good - Maths and English had been somewhat neglected and it needed a boost. But 30 minute day in day out for kids in Primary school - 5-11 - was relentless.
I know my son, who was very good at English, was completely turned off his best subject - particularly when it came to the all important test year for 11 year olds, where they did nothing but practice tests for months on end.
Thinking back, I often say I wish I had tried new things in the classroom. Just a simple thing like letting the kids write, draw, notetake whilst I was delivering whatever it was at the time. Why do I pick this? Because when I'm in a meeting/ lecture/ etc, I'm constantly taking notes and doodling in order to concentrate.
The lecturer in the vid commnets that the best ideas come from collaboration, and I have to agree. Discussion is a fantastic way to throw ideas around and develop original thoughts. Far too little time is devoted to it because it appears that there is nothing to measure. In maths - you know, I know, we all know how maths has been delivered in the past - discussion is a brilliant way of exploring difficult questions and applying and trying maths logic. It works, but I wonder how many maths teachers are at the front blah. blah, blahing and telling the kids to put the pens down.
I agree that the structure is outmoded too. Here tech offers us possibilities. I think I posted recently that many kids often want to get on with what they are studying, whilst those that have a learning difficulty, or who can't work in larger groups could be given more attention from properly trained professionals, and not the poorly paid and untrained asistants. For that we would need larger spaces well served by reliable tech, and smaller rooms for specialist teaching. Of course this won't fit the model of a school. It won't happen, because once yo start to meddle with the idea of class groupings and appropriateness of teaching, the "packets" of kids becomes much more amorphous. It's not beyond the range of human creativity though is it? Perhaps we'd need to rely on the kids taking themselves about using their own initiative instead of the droves of classes changing at set times.
So much could be done with this one-stop-shop model of schooling, yet in the UK little will be done about the basic structure and timings because it is unofficially a big childminding operation. Whenever a school closes here due to snow - well the outcry is terrible. The subtext is that kids out of school can't be coped with - probably for financial reasons. There was recent research and a school that demonstrated that teens coming into school later - due to their physiology - work better and achieve more. Any plans to incorporate that? No - not a sausage.
In the face of all this, what can a teacher do but try stuff? I wish I had in the past, but at least I can experiment a bit now.
Online education is truly the best way of promoting education and making it accessible, affordable, approachable and available for students around the world. There are majors advantages to this education system as it majorly helps cut down the education costs for a student which a great relief.
True. Well put. God is fundamentally creative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Susan Savala
Great video! In the ongoing effort to identify what works and focus on improving performance in those areas, this is a good reminder to continue embracing innovation.
Creativity can be infused into a process, by changing or doing something different than before, perhaps resulting in better outcomes.
According to me creativity is essential for students, for teachers, for educational institutions. Actually, for everybody.
hii...i am jassica jonce