notes from Sir Ken Robinson at TED talk

we are not educated in creativity, but rather created out of creativity.

whole point of educational system: is to produce university professors

they live in their heads, up there, and slightly to one side.
disembodied. look at bodies as a form of transport for the heads. it's a way of getting their heads to meetings. real evidence of out-of-body experience.

whole system was invented in 19th century, to meet needs of industrialism.

steered away from the things, based on idea that you won't get a job based on it.
academic ability as intelligence. many people think they're not intelligent because the thing they were good at it, isn't valued,

more people will be graduating from education than
suddenly degrees won't be worth anything.
academic inflation.

intelligence is dynamic. interactive. not compartmentalized.
Creativity comes about thru the interaction of different interdisciplinary ways of seeing things.

Educational system has mined our minds and stripped us.
gift of human imagination must be used wisely...to avert disaster.
see creative capacities

task is to educate their whole being so they can make a better future.

While it is true that India speaks many language, all languages are not treated equally. The omission of someone's native language effectively obliterates the wisdom that is held in that language. In many countries in Latin America, most don't even know any of the indigenous languages. When I think of what Vietnamese culture would be like without the idioms and poems

I don't think that language is merely a vehicle for thought. I think it language itself holds wisdom.

Even though it is true India's adoption of English gives it an advantage in some sectors, I would argue that the benefits to a few are far outweighed by the disadvantages to millions who lack the opportunity to become proficient in English.

Gardner points out that educational institutions tend to change slowly over long periods of time. He argues that "When it comes to educational instititions--which have come to bear a primary responsibility for the intellectual and moral health of the next generation--such conservatism is especially to be recommended. "

I disagree with Gardner that 1) this pace of change has always happened slowly and 2) that slow change is preferable.

I would argue that the transformation of the educational system in the 20th century is actually very fast. As Gardner points out, a century ago, "only a small percentage of the population received even this much (primary school) education before ...[they] returned to the farm or proceeded to the factory."

In the space of a few decades of the first half of the 1900s, the idea of obligatory 12 years of schooling became standard, with a curriculum based on the needs of a newly industrialized society. My understanding of our current educational system was that it was designed to create disciplined factory workers who could follow directions, complete work on schedule, etc.

I do agree with Gardner, however, that the fundamentals of the education curriculum, however, have remained largely unchanged. Those who have been educated under a certain system and have excelled and been rewarded by it, tend to perpetuate its assumptions and values about what is important to learn.

For me, it is not the pace of change that protects children, but the vision and goals behind the changes.

It pains me to see how much time teachers are forced in Oakland Unified School District to "teach to the test," in ways that takes away valuable days (and weeks) from teaching, and doesn't contribute to truly understanding the connections between subjects.

And then the schools that are largely immigrant and poor get punished by having their funding withheld or management taken over if they consistently score low, as if the test would motivate teachers to teach so well that newly arrived immigrant kids would magically learn English in 6 months.

5th week Reflections

Reflecting at the end of this course, I have to say that I learned a lot.

Many of the questions that I had in the beginning remain, but I know they are eternal questions that teachers in traditional face-to-face classroom struggle with as well. How to create assignments and assessments that facilitate active investigation and deep reflection, rather than just posts to get 'participation points'?

How do you create a learning community without ever seeing or meeting each other?

Yesterday night, even though I finished all my discussion posts, journal entries, and final paper and submitted it all earlier that morning, I still wasn't sure if it was all done. There is something about going into a class and turning in assignments along with everyone else that gives me a sense of reassurance that I have completed everything I need to do.

I've started to get to know my classmates a bit better, and expect that as the courses continue, we'll get to build more a sense of a community and camaraderie.

Who gets to determine what is political?

That rule about not posting anything related to race, religion or sexual orientation still needles me. I originally wrote more in my discussion post, but felt a little hesitant, and yes afraid, to post something that others, including the teacher, might strongly disagree with (even though I myself strongly disagreed with the rule.)

But I think this idea that talking about say sexual orientation or race is 'inappropriate' is often used to silence marginalized voices. It's true, when you bring up certain topics, it can be uncomfortable, but usually for those who are part of the dominant group. If you're part of a marginalized group--gays, or poor people, whatever, you always have to deal with discomfort of having to hide who you are, and adapt to the norms of what's considered 'good.'

For example, some people think it's rude to talk openly about how much money you make in social settings outside of business. But I think it's also because talking about money in an honest way with people who have a lot less, makes us face our own (unearned) privilege. Poor people are always thinking about money. Not talking about it doesn't make it disappear. It just means that the power of money (or race or gender or whatever) goes unexamined, at least in a collective way.

I know some people might say "oh, we just meant we don't want people to make posts that are trying to convert people to their religion," but in that case, you can just write that. The inclusion of race and sexual orientation conflates honest discussion of society, power, and who we are with religious proselytizing.