Sir Ken Robinson and Education’s Death Valley
Recently I wrote about the need for education systems to develop the whole child, not just the restricted goals of educating in the basics. In that article I referenced Sir Ken Robinson’s Ted Talk video on the need to for education to develop children’s creativity.
I was sent the following information about Sir Ken which goes further into his beliefs; sorry I don’t know where it was originally published.
‘Sir Ken Robinson never argued against science, technology, engineering or mathematics. He argued against the idea that they are sufficient on their own.
When the arts and humanities are pushed to the margins, something much bigger is lost. Not just painting, dance, poetry or performance, but opportunities for young people to discover how they think, what moves them, and where they come alive.
A broad education is how people begin to understand their own talents, passions and possibilities.
Without that, many go through school knowing only a fraction of what they are capable of. And because of that, many go on to spend years in work they simply endure.
Education should not narrow a life before it has even begun’.
Every time you read or hear something from our narrowly focussed Minister of Education, compare her comments to this statement about Robinson’s beliefs.
One of these two is a visionary, the other is just posing as an educational expert – when asked for her opinion about the change of Labour Party education spokesperson, she fell back on the well worn comment ‘I’m just focussed on raising achievement.’ Wow, how original Erica. This phrase was well worn out by her National Party predecessor Anne Tolley back in 2011.
As Robinson was such an engaging speaker, who had a passion for real education, I will explore more of this thinking in this article, based on another very watchable Ted Talk video, ‘How to escape education’s death valley.’
‘There are three principles on which human life flourishes, and they are contradicted by the culture of education under which most teachers have to labor and most students have to endure.
The first is this, that human beings are naturally different and diverse.
Can I ask you, how many of you have got children of your own? Okay. Or grandchildren. How about two children or more? Right.
And the rest of you have seen such children. Small people wandering about.
I will make you a bet, and I am confident that I will win the bet.
If you’ve got two children or more, I bet you they are completely different from each other.
Aren’t they?’
This is blatantly obvious, yet our educational genius masquerading as Minister of Education says ‘all brains learn the same’, and therefore all children at a particular year level can learn from a structured learning system where they all learn the same things at the same time.
Robinson was speaking to an American audience, and goes on to discuss a learning goal espoused during the Obama years ‘No Child Left Behind.’
I asked an AI to summarise what this meant, as it has implications for what is currently happening in our schools.
‘“No Child Left Behind” was the name of a U.S. federal education law and also a slogan expressing its core idea: every student, especially disadvantaged ones, should reach basic academic proficiency, and schools would be held accountable if they did not.
More specifically, the phrase meant that:
All public schools had to aim for every student to reach at least a “proficient” level in reading and math by a target year (originally 2013–14), rather than accepting that some groups would always lag behind.
States had to test students regularly and report results by subgroups (such as low‑income students, students with disabilities, English learners, and racial/ethnic groups) so that struggling groups could not be hidden inside school‑wide averages.
Schools were rewarded or sanctioned based on whether all these groups made “adequate yearly progress,” reflecting the idea that no group of children should be quietly written off or ignored.
In everyday language, then, “No Child Left Behind” meant that public education policy should not be satisfied with most children doing well while some—often the poorest or most marginalized—fall behind without systematic efforts to help them catch up.’
At first reading, this is a worthy goal, however it’s not quite as easy as that. While Erica’s agenda isn’t as extreme, it is a considerable step along the way.
Robinson continues:
‘Education under “No Child Left Behind” is based on not diversity but conformity.
What schools are encouraged to do is to find out what kids can do across a very narrow spectrum of achievement.
One of the effects of “No Child Left Behind”has been to narrow the focus onto the so-called STEM disciplines.
They’re very important. I’m not here to argue against science and math.
On the contrary, they’re necessary but they’re not sufficient.
A real education has to give equal weight to the arts, the humanities, to physical education.
One estimate in America currently is that something like 10 percent of kids, getting on that way, are being diagnosed with various conditions under the broad title of attention deficit disorder.’
Read that last sentence, and consider the situation in New Zealand. The rise of children diagnosed with ADHD is rising quickly. Why do you think this is happening? What does Robinson think?
‘I’m not saying there’s no such thing. I just don’t believe it’s an epidemic like this.
If you sit kids down, hour after hour, doing low-grade clerical work, don’t be surprised if they start to fidget, you know?
Children are not, for the most part, suffering from a psychological condition.
They’re suffering from childhood.’
Food for thought? Does this suggest that the knowledge based and structured learning programmes are not kid friendly? That asking children to sit still in a boring classroom is too much of an ask?
‘Kids prosper best with a broad curriculum that celebrates their various talents, not just a small range of them. And by the way, the arts aren’t just important because they improve math scores.
They’re important because they speak to parts of children’s being which are otherwise untouched.’
This links back to my article about the need for schools to develop creativity. There is another desirable focus for schools, the need for schools to develop and foster curiosity. You could argue that this should come first as a goal, and that creativity is the way to explore and express this.
Einstein always maintained that his discoveries came from his intense curiosity.
“I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.”
And:
‘The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvellous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.’
What does Sir Ken have to say about this?
‘The second principle that drives human life flourishing is curiosity.
If you can light the spark of curiosity in a child, they will learn without any further assistance, very often.
Children are natural learners.
It’s a real achievement to put that particular ability out, or to stifle it.
Curiosity is the engine of achievement.’
One of my main objections to the knowledge based curriculum is that it makes no allowance for child curiosity, that their learning experiences won’t centre around their curiosity, their interest and their questions.
Instead it mandates learning as laid out in the various subject curricula, based on what selected academics think is necessary, for example Elizabeth Rata’s love of 19th century English schooling.
‘Now the reason I say this is because one of the effects of the current culture here, if I can say so, has been to de-professionalize teachers.
There is no system in the world or any school in the country that is better than its teachers.
Teachers are the lifeblood of the success of schools.
But teaching is a creative profession.
Teaching, properly conceived, is not a delivery system.
You know, you’re not there just to pass on received information.
Great teachers do that,
but what great teachers also do is mentor, stimulate, provoke, engage.
You see, in the end, education is about learning.
If there’s no learning going on, there’s no education going on.’
Erica hasn’t understood that, or maybe she has, given her efforts to take over control of the New Zealand Teachers Council, and thus be able to set the criteria for teacher registration.
It could be argued that the last thing she wants is for teachers to have professional autonomy, to challenge her dictates about the delivery of curriculum (that’s a phrase which was also very current in Anne Tolley’s time, viewing children as passive learners having knowledge poured into them.)
Paulo Friere called this the banking model of education, defined in Wikipedia as:
‘Paulo Freire referred to the “banking model of education” to describe a traditional educational approach where teachers deposit knowledge into passive students, who merely receive and memorize information without critical engagement. This model is criticized for stifling creativity and critical thinking among learners.’
But this is exactly what Erica and her mentors are aiming for – is that what you want for the country’s children?
‘The role of a teacher is to facilitate learning. That’s it.
And part of the problem is, I think, that the dominant culture of education has come to focus on not teaching and learning, but testing.
Now, testing is important.
Standardized tests have a place.
But they should not be the dominant culture of education.
They should be diagnostic. They should help.’
Back in 2011, when the then National led government was forcibly imposing (and I mean that) their National Standards programme on to schools, the biggest argument against them was just this. Testing/ assessments are valuable tools to help teachers plan further learning, but using them to rank children’s achievement is counter productive. While Erica has sidestepped past the National Standards debacle, her goal is actually very similar, when you look at her dictates on reporting to parents.
‘It shouldn’t obstruct it, which of course it often does.
So in place of curiosity, what we have is a culture of compliance.
Our children and teachers are encouraged to follow routine algorithms rather than to excite that power of imagination and curiosity.’
Exactly.
‘…and one of the roles of education is to awaken and develop these powers of creativity.
Instead, what we have is a culture of standardization.
Now, it doesn’t have to be that way. It really doesn’t.
Finland regularly comes out on top in math, science and reading.
Now, we only know that’s what they do well at, because that’s all that’s being tested.
That’s one of the problems of the test.’
I wrote about Finland in a previous article.
‘But what all the high-performing systems in the world do is currently what is not evident, sadly, across the systems in America –I mean, as a whole.
One is this: they individualize teaching and learning.
They recognize that it’s students who are learning and the system has to engage them, their curiosity, their individuality, and their creativity.
That’s how you get them to learn.’
But not in Erica’s schools…. She who knows best/who must be obeyed has decreed otherwise.
Same goes with her attitude to teachers as shown through her control of teacher registrations and by the ongoing efforts by teachers unions to obtain adequate remuneration for teachers.
Compare that to,
‘The second is that they attribute a very high status to the teaching profession.
They recognize that you can’t improve education if you don’t pick great people to teach and keep giving them constant support and professional development.
Investing in professional development is not a cost.
It’s an investment, and every other country that’s succeeding well knows that.’
In the next section, Robinson discusses who has control over the provision of education. Again this runs counter to Erica’s centralisation of control.
‘And the third is, they devolve responsibility to the school level for getting the job done.
You see, there’s a big difference here between going into a mode of command and control in education –That’s what happens in some systems.
Central or state governments decide, they know best and they’re going to tell you what to do.
The trouble is that education doesn’t go on in the committee rooms of our legislative buildings.
It happens in classrooms and schools, and the people who do it are the teachers and the students, and if you remove their discretion, it stops working.
You have to put it back to the people.’
But Erica can’t allow that. She knows that there is considerable opposition in schools around the country to her education agenda – just reading the Aotearoa Educators Collective substack site is evidence of that – and so she has to centralise control in order to force schools and teachers to comply.
Anne Tolley and Hekia Parata laid the path for her to follow in 2011 by their attacks on those school Boards of Trustees who tried to stand up for their schools and teachers.
They failed and Erica will also fail.
The problem is that current and future children will pay the price, as was the case in the failed National Standards era.
It’s not too late; this can be stopped in November with two ticks in the right boxes.
