The education system is anachronistic Interview with Ken Robinson.
Eduardo Punset:
Many years ago I read something of yours that fascinated me, because I thought nobody had said before something as simple and so true. You said that raising education standards is useless if the standards in question invalid or incorrect. And since then, I tried to read everything you've written, and Out of Our Minds, for example. Could you explain to the viewers your view?
Ken Robinson:
My experience is that most of our educational systems are outdated. Are anachronistic. Were created in the past in a different era to meet different challenges. Over time, have become increasingly limited. Throughout the world there are attempts to reform education, and one of the great mantras is to be lifted standards. And it's funny, because of course we should always improve! But not increase them useless if they are wrong! For example, in most systems, is much emphasis on raising standards in mathematics and language, which of course are very important, but not all that matters in education! Have artistic disciplines, the humanities have, physical education also ...
Eduardo Punset:
I wonder if it is true that there have been many changes turbulent, a disparity that has arisen, or a large gap between education on the one hand, and individual needs of people on the other. What are these changes?
Ken Robinson:
Well, I think there are several. If we ask what is the purpose of education, politicians often speak of going back to basics, back to basics. And I think we should do, but we must first agree on what is essential! In my opinion, education, from kindergarten to adult education, has broadly three objectives, or at least should have them. One is economic. It is undeniable that one of the high expectations we have about education is that if someone is educated, will be better positioned to get a job, and the economy will benefit. That's why we invest so much money on education.
Eduardo Punset:
And now it is not.
Ken Robinson:
The problem is that the world's economies have changed diametrically in the last 50 years! The world is increasingly dominated by information systems, we are in a service economy and the industry has moved out of Europe now lies more in Asia. Thus, economically, the world now has nothing to do with the world in which you and I grew up. The industrial revolution forged our world, but also forged our educational systems have a system of industrial education! It is a model of education based on production.
The second major challenge is cultural education: one of the things we expect from education is to help people understand the world around them and develop a sense of cultural identity, an idea about their place in the world.
Eduardo Punset:
Yes
Ken Robinson:
If we look educational systems of all countries ... in Spain There is no doubt that this expectation is present in the education system: it aims to help students better understand English culture, and so does the rest of the world. It is a great expectation of education. The problem is that the world has also become culturally in the last 50 years. It has nothing to do with the world in which we grew, becoming more interdependent, more complex and more dangerous in some ways culturally more intolerant of certain things ...
The third major objective of education is personal: I know who have children but also anyone who alive: one of the things we expect from education is to help us become the best version of ourselves to help us discover our talents, our skills.
And I think education has failed miserably in this regard, since many end their studies without finding out what are good, not ever find their talents. Many go through school and come to the conclusion that lack any talent! And this is because, deep down, we have a vision of limited skills. There have been changes in this regard ...
We see that there are changes in our notion of intelligence, but also in culture, which has changed and complicated, not to mention how econonómicamente has revolutionized the world.
Eduardo Punset:
Therefore, we as three major changes that may explain this anxiety arising from the disparity between education and economic needs cultural and individual.
I think you were one of the first education sector to speak of the unfortunate division between science and culture and the arts. And it's funny, because we, when we prepare scientific programs, we often have to face a dilemma, we propose that an item does not fit well in what scientists refer to as scientific subjects, so it is best to discard it. But you claim that as a result of this schism between science and art disciplines, we have ignored a great field: that of creativity. What do you mean exactly?
Ken Robinson:
Now, think back into education. Most countries instituted a system of compulsory public education until the mid-nineteenth century. This is fairly new ideas.
Two factors heavily in education: the first was the industrial economy, which led to an organizational culture of education extremely linear, focused on standards and conformity ... and the other major factor influencing In my opinion, was the intellectual culture of the Enlightenment, which broke out in the academic culture of education. One of the characteristics of the teaching is that there is a hierarchy of subjects in schools.
In most systems have, above all in the hierarchy, language, mathematics and science, a bit below are the humanities, such as geography and social studies, or philosophy (when taught) ... and below are all artistic disciplines.
There are few educational systems (I know not, in fact) to teach dance with the same rigor and sophistication with which they teach math. Why is this hierarchy? Many will say to you 'is obvious! There must be a hierarchy! "But why? I think there are two reasons, the first of which is economic. It is believed that the materials that are higher in the hierarchy are more relevant to the workplace ...
Eduardo Punset:
... to find a job.
Ken Robinson:
Yes, and you find yourself with statements like: "Do not devote yourself to art you'll never be an artist or you earn a living with art ',' Do not do music, it is very difficult to get ahead as a musician. " So an argument is clearly economic. But the interesting thing is that nobody tells you "do not focus on math, math will never be" nor "forget about chemistry, chemical'll never be." This is because, in our intellectual culture, there is an association between the sciences and some kind of objective knowledge. It is believed that by working in the sciences, working with facts and certainty, which are the things that make a difference in the world, while the artistic disciplines are associated with feelings and personal expression, so are fine for entertainment, but they are important to the economy. The Enlightenment and the scientific revolution created a model of intelligence and knowledge that has prevailed in our culture. Since then, the art has been associated with the current of nineteenth century romanticism, with the expression of feelings. And I think that is a huge problem, because it has decoupled the intellect from emotion, and we've been to consider two things as separate, to the detriment of the arts and sciences. Creativity has come to associate with the artistic and not to the scientific, because it believes that creativity is about individual expression of ideas. I I propose, among other things, return to a conception of creativity that we return the relationship between artistic and scientific disciplines, both out injured since the separation.
Eduardo Punset:
While talking, I thought the pattern was used to establish that someone was in the right part of knowledge: IQ. Why on earth have long believed that IQ measurement was important for economic life?
Ken Robinson:
The IQ was one of the ideas that emerged from the growth of psychology and sociology, attempts to apply the same characteristics of the physical sciences to people. The important thing is that there are two forces: first, a genuine spirit of inquiry to see if we could measure intelligence as we measure the movement of tides, but also coincided with the growth of public education, which required an effective way quickly and objectively characterize individuals to educate them.
is needed to know, in a sense, if they had normal intelligence, below average or extraordinary. Alfred Binet, when he created the first intelligence test in Paris, was interested in children with special educational needs. To find out what their needs, needed to have an idea of \u200b\u200bwhat the average capacity. This was the initial objective. However, intelligence tests became central to the categorization of students in public schools, but also for selection in the military. They have become a myth, it seems, have become part of our cultural lexicon as if they were targets. One of the leading organizations that there is Mensa, the organization of people with high IQs. And I think it's great, I will not criticize Mensa, but I ask whether this is indeed the case. In fact, the only intelligence test measures the ability to do intelligence tests. There are people that these tests are given very good! If you want to know how smart someone is, at least we should accept that intelligence involves much more than can be measured in an IQ test, should not include other questions? Like, for example, you know write a symphony? Can you interpret it? Can you manage a successful business? You know dance? Can you write a poem that touches readers and makes them mourn?
Eduardo Punset:
or empathy ...
Ken Robinson:
Empathy! If humans only had the skills measured in IQ tests, most of human culture would never have existed. I do not want to live in a world. Do you?
Eduardo Punset:
No.
Ken Robinson:
We have a vision of intelligence very reductionist.
Eduardo Punset:
I would like to explain or suggest to viewers the big changes, what is the actual content of these great changes they are referring Ken Robinson. Let's see, it all started by a kind of thinking that was the Middle Ages, OK. Then we are told in two words what was the synthesis of this thought. Then comes the Renaissance, which is completely or very different. Then comes the thought of the Industrial Revolution, what we call the Enlightenment. Then comes another kind of thinking is different from the Romantic period, and finally ... there are now. I would like to define, in a nutshell, the difference between these models, including the Middle Ages, first, the Renaissance, then, then ... what came next? The Enlightenment and Romanticism ... where are we now?
Ken Robinson:
In a few words?
Eduardo Punset:
Briefly. The whole story ...
Ken Robinson:
All the modern history of Europe in a few sentences, go. The mainstream in the Middle Ages is that usually everyone was so dominated by the ideas of the Church, and was a social and economic hierarchy markedly between the aristocracy and the rural population. In general, it was a very rural lifestyle, especially in Europe.
the trigger in the Renaissance was the rediscovery of classical texts, thinkers and philosophers of the Greeks and Romans. This led to a renewed interest in the intellectual life and beauty, and new ways to rethink our place in the world. There were several important changes, for example the work of Copernicus and Galileo, which raised the possibility that Earth may not be the center of the universe of God, and that was a kind of ideological earthquake with enormous changes in the way of seeing things from people.
most important thing is that the vast majority of people no longer had to rely on the arguments and the authority of an educated minority of the clergy, for the invention of printing widespread access to the ideas: people could read for herself the ideas and distribute them. There have been several examples of quite revolutionary technologies, such as printing. Television also was one of them. And I think that digital culture is now so.
But
I guess if I had to define the great change in a few words, I would say that human consciousness has been expanding more and more out, we stopped navel-gazing to try to be more objective about our place in the world and order things, as we passed from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Overall, we consider the center of God's creation to see ourselves as part of a much larger cosmos.
Right now, our generation (and by this I mean you and me but a whole generation of people living on Earth now, all we live on the planet) have to face challenges that are unprecedented in the history of mankind. One of the reasons why I advocate so passionately that education must change and redefine creativity is because I feel that unless we change our way of thinking about ourselves, we do not live up to the challenges we now face. And if we do not address the challenges, the consequences could be disastrous! Not to be alarmist, but I think there's a lot at stake.
can watch the video and interviews on the following link:
