Sir Ken Robinson's Misconception

Jumping to Conclusions

            I wonder if Sir Ken Robinson, a respected intellectual in the fields of education ever received school education, which he claims to be so detrimental for the creativity of children. Even we set aside the underlying assumption that creativity is the utmost important value for education, his interpretation and arguments are vulnerable to numerous doubts. He fails to accurately analyze the characteristics of schools, explaining the hierarchy of subjects, and doubts on epiphanies of children in general.

             Sir Ken Robinson points out mistakes should be generously accepted in case of children for the sake of their development, hence "we are educating them out of creativity" from "School kills Creativity". He argues that since school in the status quo fails to do so, school kills creativity. This is not true. National education system does not always work in a way that thinks mistakes as worst mistakes. There are free response questions or document based questions even in the standardized tests. Not only that, in case of France, students are all required writing essays about philosophy and various subjects. United States also encourage group discussion and presentation in schools as well. Even if there are such issues to a certain extent in the status quo, it could be modified to fit the original purpose.

             Because such flaws can be fixed, Ken Robinson is making an exaggeration when he leads this argument to the conclusion that school “kills” creativity. If Sir Ken Robinson were to argue that non-acceptance of mistakes by schools is a proof to school killing creativity, he should have proved of how this non-acceptance is an inherent trait of schools in general, or schools that he wish to discuss about. It would be possible to make a premise that school had killed creativity of students, but it would require more elaboration to state school “kills” creativity.

             Not only that, Ken Robinson seems to have a misconception regarding the idea in the hierarchy of academic subjects that the school deals with. He seems to believe that since Math has most class hours a week, it is at the highest position above other subjects. He claims that such phenomenon occurs because Math subject is the most popularly used when children grow up and make money. According to Ken Robinson, children learn math because math is most needed in industrialism.

             Is this true? Do lawyers use pole coordinates to create a strong case? Do newspaper editors decide which article to post by using trigonometry? Rather, it can be said that Math is taught frequently because it is related to increasing student’s logic, and essentially related for advanced studies for many other areas such as social science or natural science. However, since such contents are challenging and time-exhausting. Mathematics is not superior to other subjects; but there are many other factors such as its relativity to other subjects on the reason it has most lengthy hours. Amount of hours cannot be a foundation of concluding the school putting hierarchy between subjects and therefore restricting student’s choice on what to study. Rather, it is increasing the capability for students on choosing which subjects to study on. It widens the option in choosing, because many subjects require basic mathematical skills for advanced studies.

             The biggest assumption that Ken Robinson makes is the claim that every single child has his or her talents. First of all, it has never been proved throughout the lecture of what talents exactly are and how it is existent for all individuals. Because if there aren’t, the current system that gives balanced education on various fields can actually be more helpful. Not only that, even if we concede that children have talent, whatever it is, it can be shown latter time in life. It would be irresponsible to make students choose which subject to concentrate on when they don’t even know what kind of studies are out there. His example of Gillian is not only outdated but also exceptional. Children finding their talents in such young age and finding correctly is a rare case. Until then, children should first know what are out there before deciding which to put all effort on, unlike what Ken Robinson suggests so. Ken Robinson’s request can kill creativity in another sense.

             The purpose of national school system is obtaining knowledge, but more important aspect of it is introducing subjects to the young minds. They learn what social science is, and what a person can do with the study. They acknowledge of what math is like, taking a slight overlook. Compiling substantially professional knowledge through national school system is not the purpose in the first place.

             It is ironical to see a former professor who finished national schooling making lectures on how school kills creativity. Ken Robinson himself is a living counter-example of his lecture. Not only himself, there are many counter-examples around the globe. Also, Sir Robinson makes assumptions and hasty generalizations trying to lead to the conclusion that school kills creativity. It seems that schools can certainly encourage creativity, and had constructed the society until now since enlightenment.

X for X-rated

X for X-rated

             Every time I see an X in a math problem, I think of my volunteering experience. I went into a slum where the old needy lived and saw numerous big red X painted on the window glasses of the town houses. The X on the glass meant that the houses were illegally built and thus would be removed. I wandered then, what would happen to the people inside the house if they were to be evicted.

             The clearance of slums is an endemic problem in Korea. In Korea, if the government believes that a slum gives negative effects to its neighboring residents, it could tear down slum structures. This policy would be acceptable if the government builds new houses for the slum residents, but it neither gives adequate amount of money for the residents nor constructs new houses. The original townsmen are literally “kicked out” by the government becoming a homeless.

             That was the situation that I confronted while participating charity activity. Numberless X was painted on the window glasses of every house about to be torn down, either by the government or by the owner. I was unaware that such incidents were happening around in this country. What was more surprising, the townspeople with the average age of 68(not about 70s but 68, the authority said) were unwilling to protest against the unfair, brutal policy for they were too old, and tired of fighting off eager authorities. After the “clearance”, these poor people would have to go to charity facilities, forced to stay in the rooms without freedom to move about.

             I was enraged at the status quo, so I asked the social worker how this could even happen. She commented that this policy was lot better than the past. In the past, people kicked out had to choose between the privileges of being able to make a contract before others after the apartment is newly built, or just hard cash as remuneration. She said that these townspeople in current status had both. It was nonsense. Even though they might have the right to make contract than any other people, they were needy. What good is this right to a contract when they can’t even eat three meals a day? This change in compensation must be for the investors who plan to earn unjust capital by speculating. For two decades this law had done nothing except allowing the rich get even richer, and leaving huge red X on the poor’s windows.

             I once read from a history book that Jews had to wear a yellow star on their chest to be differentiated with other German citizens. People with that mark were rationed less than others, and were discriminated against in various ways. The only difference from the red X in Korea is that it was yellow instead of red and that it was on people’s chest instead of window glasses. In terms of being discriminated, living in poverty, and being isolated from others,two symbols are indifferent. The huge, red X on the slum people’s windows, or yellow stars on the Jew’s chest are like the branded A for adultery in The Scarlet Letter. Maybe the governors thought the life of slum people were too miserable for their children to watch. Maybe that is the reason why they put a large, red X on the window glasses: X for X-rated. They have succeeded in driving out the poor people out of their houses.

             The experience of aiding the slum dwellers, and witnessing their abject poverty was shocking. The uncomfortable expression on the fellow volunteer was a negative impression to me. Social discrimination was still progressive, like in the 1800s. All of this perception was visualized into a large red X in my mind. Every time I see a newspaper article about slums or the extremely poor, I see the big, red X, reminding me about the slum people.