RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms

This RSA Animate was adapted from a talk given at the RSA by Sir Ken Robinson, world-renowned education and creativity expert and recipient of the RSA's Benjamin Franklin award.
Watch this lecture in full here: http://www.thersa.org/events/video/ar...

The RSA is a 258 year-old charity devoted to driving social progress and spreading world-changing ideas.

Find out more about the RSA at http://www.thersa.org
Join the RSA on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/thersaorg
------
This audio has been edited from the original event by Becca Pyne. Series produced by Abi Stephenson, RSA. Animation by Cognitive Media.

[marker squeaking on board]

(Ken Robinson) Every country
on Earth, at the moment,

is reforming public education.

There are two reasons for it.

The first of them is economic.

People are trying to work out

how do we educate our children
to take their place

in the economies
of the 21st century?

How do we do that?

Even though we can't anticipate

what the economy will look like
at the end of next week,

as the recent turmoil
is demonstrating.

How do we do that?

The second, though, is cultural.

Every country on Earth,
on earth is trying to figure out

how do we educate our children

so they have a sense
of cultural identity,

and so that we can pass on the
cultural genes of our communities,

while being part of the
process of globalization?

How do we square that circle?

The problem is they're
trying to meet the future

by doing what
they did in the past.

And on the way, they're
alienating millions of kids

who don't see any purpose
in going to school.

When we went to school,

we were kept there with a story,

which is, if you worked hard
and did well,

and got a college degree,
you would have a job.

Our kids don't believe that.

And they're right not to,
by the way.

You're better having
a degree than not,

but it's not a guarantee anymore.

And particularly not
if the route to it

marginalizes
most of the things

that you think are
important about yourself.

Some people say we
have to raise standards,

as if this is a breakthrough.

You know, like, really,
yes we should.

Why would you lower them?

[laughter]

I haven't come
across an argument

that persuades me
of lowering them.

But raising them,
of course we should raise them.

The problem is

that the current
system of education

was designed and conceived

and structured for a different age.

It was conceived in the intellectual
culture of the Enlightenment.

And in the economic circumstances
of the Industrial Revolution.

Before the middle
of the 19th century,

there were no systems
of public education.

Not really.

I mean, you could get
educated by Jesuits,

you know, if you had the money,

but public education,
paid for from taxation,

compulsory to everybody and
free at the point of delivery,

that was a revolutionary idea.

And many people objected to it.

They said it's not possible
for many street kids,

working class children,
to benefit from public education.

They're incapable of
learning to read and write,

and why are we spending
time on this?

So, there's also built into it
a whole series of assumptions

about social structure and capacity.

It was driven by an economic
imperative of the time,

but running right through it

was an intellectual model
of the mind.

Which was essentially the
Enlightenment view of intelligence.

That real intelligence consists
in this capacity

for a certain type of
deductive reasoning,

and the knowledge
of the classics, originally.

What we've come to think
of as academic ability.

And this is deep in the gene
pool of public education,

that there are really
two types of people:

academic and non-academic;

smart people and non-smart people.

And the consequence of that

is that many brilliant people
think they're not,

because they've been judged against
this particular view of the mind.

So, we have twin pillars,
economic and intellectual.

And my view is

that this model has caused chaos
in many people's lives.

It's been great for some.

There have been people that
have benefited wonderfully from it.

But most people have not.

Instead they suffer this.

This is the modern epidemic,

and it's as misplaced,

and it's as fictitious.

This is the plague of ADHD.

Now, this is a map of the
instance of ADHD in America,

or prescriptions for ADHD.

Don't mistake me,

I don't mean to say
there is no such thing

as Attention Deficit Disorder.

I'm not qualified to say
if there is such a thing.

I know that a great majority
of psychologists,

and pediatricians think
there is such a thing.

But it's still a matter of debate.

What I do know, for a fact,

is it's not an epidemic.

These kids are being medicated

as routinely as we had
our tonsils taken out.

And on the same whimsical basis,

and for the same reason -
medical fashion.

Our children are living in the most
intensely stimulating period

in the history of the earth.

They're being besieged
with information,

and force their attention
from every platform, computers,

from iPhones,

from advertising holdings,

from hundreds of television channels.

And we're penalizing them now
for getting distracted.

From what? Boring stuff,

at school, for the most part.

It seems to me it's not
a coincidence, totally,

that the instance of ADHD
has risen in parallel

with the growth of
standardized testing.

Now, these kids are being
given Ritalin and Adderall,

and all manner of things,

often quite dangerous drugs,

to get them focused
and calm them down.

But according to this,

Attention Deficit Disorder increases

as you travel east
across the country.

People start losing interest
in Oklahoma

[laughter].

They can hardly think
straight in Arkansas

[laughter].

And by the time
they get to Washington,

they have lost it completely.

And there are separate
reasons for that, I believe

[laughter].

It's a fictitious epidemic.

If you think of it, the arts,

and I don't say this
exclusively of the arts.

I think it's also true
of science and of maths.

But let me, I say about
the arts particularly

because they are the victims

of this mentality currently,
particularly.

The arts especially address the
idea of aesthetic experience.

And aesthetic experience

is one in which your senses
are operating at their peak.

When you are present
in the current moment.

When you're resonating with
the excitement of this thing

that you're experiencing.

When you are fully alive.

And anesthetic is when
you shut your senses off

and deaden yourself
to what's happening.

And a lot of these drugs are that.

We're getting our children through
education by anesthetizing them.

And I think we should be
doing the exact opposite.

We shouldn't be
putting them asleep,

we should be waking them up

to what they have
inside of themselves.

But the model we have is this,

it's, I believe, we have
a system of education

that is modeled on the
interests of industrialism,

and in the image of it.

I'll give you a couple of examples.

Schools are still pretty much
organized on factory lines -

ringing bells, separate facilities,

specialized into separate subjects.

We still educate children by batches.

You know, we put them
through the system by age group.

Why do we do that?

You know, why is there
this assumption

that the most important thing
kids have in common

is how old they are?

You know, it's like the most
important thing about them

is their date of manufacture.

Well, I know kids who are
much better than other kids

at the same age in different
disciplines, you know,

or at different times of the day,

or better in smaller groups
then in large groups,

or sometimes they
want to be on their own.

If you're interested in
the model of learning,

you don't start from this
production line mentality.

These are, it's essentially
about conformity.

And increasingly it's about
that

as you look at the growth
of standardized testing

and standardized curricula.

And it's about standardization.

I believe we've got to go in
the exact opposite direction.

That's what I mean about
changing the paradigm.

There was a great study done
recently of divergent thinking,

published a couple of years ago.

Divergent thinking isn't
the same thing as creativity.

I define creativity as the process

of having original ideas
that have value.

Divergent thinking
isn't a synonym.

But it's an essential
capacity for creativity.

It's the ability to see lots of
possible answers to a question,

lots of possible ways of
interpreting a question.

To think, what Edward de Bono
would probably call laterally.

To think, not just in linear
or convergent ways.

To see multiple answers, not one.

So, I mean, there are tests for this.

I mean, one kind of
cod example would be,

people might be asked to say

how many uses can you
think of for a paper clip.

Those routine questions.

Most people might
come with 10 or 15.

People who are good at
this might come up with 200.

And they do that by saying,

well, could the paper clip be turned,
and a foot tall,

and be made out
of foam rubber.

You know, like, does it have to
be a paper clip as we know it, Jim.

Now, there are tests for this.

And they gave them to 1,500 people.

It's in a book called
Break Point and Beyond.

And on the protocol of the test,

if you scored
above a certain level,

you'd be considered to be a
genius at divergent thinking.

Okay?

So, my question to you is,

what percentage of
the people tested,

of the 1500,

scored at genius level
for divergent thinking?

You need to know one
more thing about them.

These were kindergarten children.

So, what you think?

What percentage at genius level?

(Audience member) 80.

(Ken Robinson) You think 80, okay.

98%.

Now, the thing about this was,
it was a longitudinal study.

So, they retested the same
children five years later.

Age of eight to ten.

What do you think?

50?

They retested them again,

five years later,
ages 13 to 15.

You can see a trend here,
can't you

[laughter]

Now, this tells an interesting story.

Because you could have
imagined it going the other way,

couldn't you.

You start off not being very good,

but you get better
as you get older.

But this shows two things.

One is, we all have this capacity.

And two, it mostly deteriorates.

Now, a lot of things have
happened to these kids

as they've grown up, a lot.

But one of the most important
things that happened to them,

I am convinced,
is that by now,

they've become educated.

They know, they spent 10 years at
school being told there's one answer.

It's at the back and don't look.

And don't copy,

because that's cheating.

I mean, outside schools that's
called collaboration, you know.

But inside schools...

And this isn't
because teachers want it this way,

it's just because it happens that way.

It's because it's in the gene
pool of education.

We have to think differently
about human capacity.

We have to get over this old conception
of academic, non-academic,

abstract, theoretical, vocational,

and see it for what it is: a myth.

Secondly, we have to recognize

that most great learning
happens in groups.

That collaboration
is the stuff of growth.

If we atomize people and separate
them and judge them separately,

we form a kind of disjunction
between them

and their natural learning environment.

And thirdly, it's crucially about
the culture of our institutions,

the habits of the institution,

and the habitats that they occupy.