Do Schools Kill Education?

Xenophile

Education !

Do Schools Kill Education? Sir Ken Robinson.

Torakx

Who cares if it was wrong, from the comment it's obvious you knew what was meant.... *sighs*

Yes I am 100% sure the educational system limits and restricts peoples minds. Example, maybe forcing them to focus on spelling corrections when there are more important issues at hand.
I know geniuses that failed miserably in tests in primary and secondary, but aced college after spending many years away educating themselves.

It appears to me schools are set up for what I generally refer to as left brain dominant types.
Linear logical thinking. Most subjects are taught from the start to the end, left to right. I believe even how we read left to right is limiting ideas.

I did ok in school, slightly above average, worst subject was english ^^. Around a 130 IQ I think.
But i never listened in school and in college recently I couldn't pick anything up fast enough for it to be of use.

Everythign I learn is by myself at home. So school to me is just a place I had to go to tell me what I need to learn for their tests.
Remember the answer and repeat it... somethign I am bad at.
It's easier for me to understand the whole process all at one time and figure out answers.
When learnign "right brain dominants" look for the whole picture, then fill in the gaps to create answers using intuition.
On top of that my dyslexia(which I suspect is a form of extreme abstract thinking, a right brain trait) makes it difficult for me to follow linear patterns of learning.

I cna raed siht leki tsih relaly rllaey esay, bacuse teh rgiht biarn sees teh wlohe pucirte, nto jstu the wodrs , aslo teh cntoext.
Can also sometimes read mirrored text fairly fast.

So yeah.. I think school accomodate a certain way of thinking in order to try and force more people to become consumers and thoughtless workers. They don't want people thinking about the end goals or outside of the framework.
They want us all to follow a step by step path, all the way into a corperate office job or factory.

By the way I've seen this talk before and it is really funny! Well worth a look.

Black Swan

MOD: You are encouraged to include philosophers and their philosophies in your discussion of this topic.

Torakx

In the spirit of conformity

http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Nietzsche.html
Taken from the paragraph covering theory of transmission.
I'l bolden the parts I am interested in.
I believe this is based off Nietzches work.

"Reason in the schools." The schools have no more important task than to teach rigorous thinking, cautious judgment, and consistent inference; therefore they should leave alone what is not suitable for these operations: religion, for example. After all, they can be sure that later on man's fogginess, habit, and need will slacken the bow of all-too-taut thinking. But as far as the influence of the schools reaches, they should enforce what is essential and distinctive in man: "reason and science, man's very highest power" - so Goethe, at least, judges. (P57)
There are no educators. As a thinker, one should speak only of self-education. The education of youth by others is either an experiment, conducted on one as yet unknown and unknowable, or a leveling on principle, to make the new character, whatever it may be, conform to the habits and customs that prevail: in both cases, therefore, something unworthy of the thinker-the work of parents and teachers, whom an audaciously honest person has called nos ennemis naturels. (P70)
The teacher as a necessary evil . .... One should consider the teacher, no less than the shopkeeper, a necessary evil, an evil to be kept as small as possible. If the trouble in the German situation today has perhaps its main reason in the fact that too many people live by trade and want to live well . ...then one can certainly find a main reason for the spiritual troubles in the surplus of teachers: on their account, one learns so little and so badly. (P71)

In my view, teachers should not be teaching metalwork,woodwork, Economics, languages or maybe even any subject! apart from the persons main language at the early years.
They should be teaching children how to learn according to their intellectual leanings. Discovering their own modes of thinking and processing information and setting them to the task of researching the information they need to teach themselves.
By all means have some form of casual exams, but the focus I think, should be on self education and nurturing passion for exploring new things.

Consider that analogy of giving a man a fish and he eats for a day, but give him a fishing rod and he willnever go hungry(unless he live sin the new Irish/EU farmed waters )
Education should be the same as this. Teach a man to learn and you will not have to hand feed him every topic.
This leaves room in schools for an abundance of time to pursue interests and I would argue create much more variety and depth of knowledge.
Teaching children to work as a team, research protocols and efficiency.
How to think, what is love and attachment, general philosophy.
Maybe generaly on other topics but open and communal.

Imagine one country in the world took these measures, I believe after 10-20yeasrs theywould be overflowed with radical thinkers and a massive boost in number of students reaching their full potential in chosen fields.
So says my intuition Maybe it's wrong...

Roquentin

I have always thought that school and college in particular teach you just how to be part of the system.

Torakx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium
An interesting design for teaching.

Black Swan

Xenophile wrote: »

Video: Do Schools Kill Education?

Ken Robinson appears to be a talented and humourous speaker in the OP video. He uses several entertaining anecdotal stories about children, while making broad sweeping generalisations of condemnation regarding all public school systems and universities in the world.

When introducing his talk, he said that he would address two important things: education and creativity. Unfortunately he did not offer any specific ways and measures to improve the education and creativity of children. Furthermore, I was left with the impression that persons considered adult (and not children) were already a lost cause having been educated by the existing systems.

Perhaps when mentioning the universities he condemned, Robinson could have examined John Henry Newman's "Idea of a University" (1852), and to what extent today's universities measured against that "Idea?" Robinson briefly listed that education should be diverse, dynamic, and distinct, which was a part of the "Idea" for universities suggested by Newman. Then again, since the Church had greatly influenced the Newman writings, perhaps Robinson could have found specifics for fostering diverse, dynamic, and distinct creative education in the secular works of Paulo Freire in his Education for Critical Consciousness (1973), wherein his solutions to flawed education were in transition, and not to be completely tossed out.

Torakx

I think to be educated is to be directed in your thoughts.
I believe we should all educate ourselves and be free to pursue our interests.
Our interests and passions I think are a source of our creativity. We may suffer certain incidents in our past, which can inspire us later to be highly creative and express the deeper things others can connect with at deeper levels.
These incidents can form our passions and interests.

If we all are run through the same "suffering" that is education and schooling, we may all be losing a certain amount of potential for being creative.
Writing from the same source in some respects.
I didn't do too bad in school, but not so great with maths and english. I recently discovered I am dyslexic(at least 2 types). Which prevents me from taking in knowledge that is given to me through audio(direct teaching).
The result was that I had to teach myself while not knowing I had dyslexia. Meaning I passed my grades because I went over the material by myself before the exams. I could most likely have played outside for the whole school term and just studied myself to get close to the same grades.

Most of the time in school was spent drawing on my books or firing bits of paper and rubber through a biro casing, at friends across the classroom.
I remember funny incidents where people were going to the toilet to get wet bog roll to stick to the ceiling when the teacher wasn't looking.
My point is that i didn't learn anything in school. I learned a majority of it at home by myself.
I believe the result is that I have more flexibility in thinking and I have learned to read myself too, giving me an advantage in now enjoying reading books.
For me school is detrimental to critical thinking as well, due to the over use of authority figures and the matter of fact way everything is introduced.
There is no discussion, you follow the course or path and do not stray from it.
Maybe not so bad these days, I don't know...

Fast forward to college recently. I did really really well. I got low grades, meaning I couldn't be arsed to chase the distinction as that piece of paper is useless to me. Again failing to meet the linear requirements of tests.
But in terms of creativity and talent, I was notably good at what I did.
And again I leanred hardly anything in college, because of this audio issue and so I had to educate myself at home.
This shows me personally that I am not suited for school and education the way it is done. And I have progressed and become quite talented in the areas I am interested in, most likley as a result of my situation with learning for myself and not being able to follow the course laid out.

All of this may be yet another of my ideas, suited for the ideal world that does not exist.
We live in a world where we are born into slavery. And the pursuit of freedom can cause more imprisonment or percieved negative effects.
Your kids must be brought to school(because of the birth cert, legal bond) as the governments property. If you teach them at home, they must pass certain tests.
This is in order to become a productive worker for society and the nations economy. Fair enough, we live in a capatlist environment and that's what is required in order for the "machine" to continue running.
I would argue that this same mechanic is creating thoughtless workers with less critical thinking patterns and more obedience and drive.
These people get stuff done! But they don't think about what they are doing half of the time. And the methods of doing are much less creative than those who have not been educated so much by the system. I have seen it quite a lot in entreprenuers, I have seen it a lot in people who didn't go to school after the age of 12.
It's also fair to say that a majority of well to do folks are probably well educated, I don't dissagree.
But the product of their works may not be so beneficial when they are educated for a certain purpose. To make money and feed the system.

I know there is a lot of presumptions and personal views there and not much in the way of philosophical quotes. But I think my philosophy must in some ways be relevant(or some parts), even if I have not presented it in an orderly, analytical/critical fashion.
Take it for what it is maybe. An opinion and a way to vent at the current system.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

Yes I am 100% sure the educational system limits and restricts peoples minds.

Torakx wrote: »

If we all are run through the same "suffering" that is education and schooling, we may all be losing a certain amount of potential for being creative.

Caution should be exercised before making global and broad sweeping generalisations about the "education system," when there may be considerable differences between teachers, schools, and universities in terms of their pedagogies, curriculums, and student learning outcomes. Ken Robinson threw caution to the wind when making the same conclusions in the OP video, which may have been popular with the audience he was addressing at the time, but nevertheless problematic upon reflection.

Granted, such sweeping challenges to education as a system were not new. Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Emile (1762) suggested that it was natural for humans to learn, but that social conventions within educational systems crushed this natural state.

Pink Floyd sung the same education system critiques in "The Wall:"

"We don't need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall."

It's easy to criticize education, but it's harder to build a system that works. Where to start? John Dewey (1916) in his Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education suggested that humans as learners were unique, each having special needs, therefore unique individual approaches were needed to optimize their learning potentials and outcomes.

Torakx

Possibly these sweeping statements and generalisations are a form of friction against the tide of the general process of educational systems.
I know that some countries like Sweden have some great ideas regarding education.
So I think it's just a way to counter the majority.
Without making these generalisations, it might be hard to get the point across and get people to really think.

If i was to do the opposite and only speak about statistics and well recognised facts. I might lose the ability to reach the emotional part of that issue for people.
People make decisions a lot of the time based on emotions and less so on critical thinking. it could be argued that Ken Robinsons delivery, especially the use of comedy, is a very effective way of motivating people and making the point more acceptable and memorable.

On marketing and how people make decisions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-6WvFGVmQM

My view of ken Robinsons speech, was that the facts and details of how many schools or colleges where a certain way, was not as important as reaching peoples motivations and starting a wave of change.

The same might be said for all my anecdotes too I suppose, i just never really thought about that until I rewatched that video.
In the end the overall goals might take precedence.
For that reason I think speaking in generalities is ok. It might seem like sticking a label on all schools, but I also think people are smart enough to know that nothing(or most things) is absolute.

Regarding offering solutions.
It may be more important right now to bring out a motivation for change before offering a solution people do not realize they might want.
They have to want it first.
Ken was probably giving us the why for the most part, or it's how I saw it personally.

Another thing I just noticed and again maybe not anything solid to go by.
But if you look at the thread with the most views on the first page of this forum. It is the one on thoughts of existence. Something we can all relate to.
People need an idea to relate to personally and then inside that idea, we can discuss thoughts on existence and bring out the facts and philosophies.
I see Kens talk as a thread of change. The whole talk as the thread topic and how it can relate to us. The wave he creates can then be opened up and analyzed properly.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

Possibly these sweeping statements and generalisations are a form of friction against the tide of the general process of educational systems.

Sweeping generalisations are often considered fallacies in that they are subject to errors in reasoning. They frequently represent oversimplified, superficial views that can be very misleading and are sometimes completely spurious.

Torakx wrote: »

People make decisions a lot of the time based on emotions and less so on critical thinking.

Gustav Le Bon in The Crowd (1896) cautioned about decisions based upon an appeal to emotions, rather than those developed from critical thinking. Facilitating learning and creativity are complex topics, not simple ones that can be solved by an appeal to emotions using sweeping generalisations.

Torakx

I think we are both looking at it from different perspectives.
In that sense we may both be correct(if such a thing can be).

I can totally agree with all you wrote. But at the same time I see another side to it, that requires the ability to overlook the fine details and facts, in order to reach more people.

I suppose thinking now, I should ask if he said anythign that was not true and in what sense were those things untrue.
If they apply to the majority(say in the west) maybe it is ok to make such sweeping genralizations as a price for putting a point across about education in general.

I think he made relevant points about issues. However it was sometime slast year I watched this, so I will try get around to watching it again if I can and come back with a more formed oppinion.
I admit I am going mostly now on intuition based on feelings i now have on the content of whatI did watch back then. My memory unfortunately is for the most part intuitive. Mean si remember a lot of stuff, but are expressed as feelings. Kind of hard to explain myself or my thinking when this happens.
I know what i mean, but it often feels near impossible to explain it and why.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

I suppose thinking now, I should ask if he said anythign that was not true and in what sense were those things untrue.
If they apply to the majority(say in the west) maybe it is ok to make such sweeping genralizations as a price for putting a point across about education in general.

That's the problem with Ken Robinson using sweeping generalisations without empirical support (other than crowd pleasing, unscientific anecdotes). He provided no substantive material to evaluate, consequently the validity and reliability of his generalisations were problematic.