NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a wonderful video if you have the 20 minutes spare to watch it, it's very entertainingly does as well:

http://www.ted.com:80/index.php/talks/view/id/66

The idea is predicated on the fact that public education is a construct of the industrial age - it's aimed at making us suitable for a job and therefore the most valued subjects are judged on whether they are vocationally useful.

Don't do music, you'll never get a job.

Does education kill creativity?

Yes!

School is frustratingly structured and it doesn't serve anyone well, the average kids aren't being pushed, the gifted kids are bored and the ones with some challenges are being pulled along against their will.

Nearly nobody develops in a linear fashion and yet that is exactly how school is set up. It's sad really.

Education kills creativity only if the student lets it.

Yes!

School is frustratingly structured and it doesn't serve anyone well, the average kids aren't being pushed, the gifted kids are bored and the ones with some challenges are being pulled along against their will.

Nearly nobody develops in a linear fashion and yet that is exactly how school is set up. It's sad really.

That could well be said to be the greatest analysis of the education system ever.

But I digress, to answer this topic's question yes and no, lemme expain:

Reading great works in Lit class can lead one to write great works.

Being bored in Math can lead to great works of art.

But none the less extremely structured schedules can break someone down.

As can adhering to stict rules and punishments.

Indeed it does.

I remember back when I was in High school.
The school would put on a special musical show every year, and sell tickets to it. Each music class would contribute to it.
The songs we were given werent chosen for any specific reason, they were merely suggested by a few people.

The song in the Choir class I was in was given some boring little song from the turn of the century about an irish woman and her love for Johnny, and her lovely wooden panels in her home.

Yah, it was really lame.

So, I presented an idea of a Beatles tribute, starting with "Golden Slumbers", and ending with the last part of the second half of the record "Abbey Road".
Anyone who is familar with the record may understand that it could have been done easily.

I was asked to make a presentation of the idea, and bring in the sheet music, and an outline of how it would go down.
I did as asked.

Now, this idea may have inspired the kids to get more into the production, and get a better performance.

It was rejected flatly, without reason.

They opted for the lame song that everyone hated.

30 young minds worth of creativity, squashed flat by a rigid system.

Depends a great deal on the teacher and the class. I encourage my kids to be as creative as I can, but at the same time I also have a class of 30 to 32 elementary school kids and letting them run wild is out of the question. I think the problem is that everyone who screams about how schools kill creativity usually is thinking back to how when they were in school the teacher didn't let them do whatever they wanted when they wanted. Sorry, that's not education, that's chaos.

But, I do ask, how would you like us to encourage creativity knowing that we teachers have a large list of things to cover and 180 days or so to do so and classes that have about 20 to 30 (Or more) students in it?

The idea is focused on the fact that we're schooled to 'not make mistakes', 'not making mistakes' will ensure us good grades, a place in university and thus a job.

Everything is focused around this process, crushing creativity.

Picasso said 'we are all born artists' - this is squeezed out of us.

Hence, in every country around the world, maths, science and english are at the top of the heap, art, dance, music, photography are at the bottom. We're weaned out of these subjects as they are not 'useful'.

It's not that you can't be creative in maths, etc., it's more that there's a value given to subjects and that value is purely aimed at fitting us into an industrialised society.

Depends a great deal on the teacher and the class. I encourage my kids to be as creative as I can, but at the same time I also have a class of 30 to 32 elementary school kids and letting them run wild is out of the question. I think the problem is that everyone who screams about how schools kill creativity usually is thinking back to how when they were in school the teacher didn't let them do whatever they wanted when they wanted. Sorry, that's not education, that's chaos.

But, I do ask, how would you like us to encourage creativity knowing that we teachers have a large list of things to cover and 180 days or so to do so and classes that have about 20 to 30 (Or more) students in it?

it's not something that can be fixed without a big huge fundamental overthrow of educational theory.

Depends a great deal on the teacher and the class. I encourage my kids to be as creative as I can, but at the same time I also have a class of 30 to 32 elementary school kids and letting them run wild is out of the question. I think the problem is that everyone who screams about how schools kill creativity usually is thinking back to how when they were in school the teacher didn't let them do whatever they wanted when they wanted. Sorry, that's not education, that's chaos.

But, I do ask, how would you like us to encourage creativity knowing that we teachers have a large list of things to cover and 180 days or so to do so and classes that have about 20 to 30 (Or more) students in it?

For starters, I dont expect much creativity in certain classes.
Just the ones that call for it.
Art..music...etc.

Instead of being instructed to be creative, most places just teach out of a cirriculum.

I'd really advise people to watch the video first so I'll post it again:

http://www.ted.com:80/index.php/talks/view/id/66

30 young minds worth of creativity, squashed flat by a rigid system.
Yeah, that whole copyright system really sucks, don't it?

If you were doing a public performance and charging for it, it wouldn't fall under fair use for educational purposes and the school would have to pay royalty fees.

The idea is focused on the fact that we're schooled to 'not make mistakes', 'not making mistakes' will ensure us good grades, a place in university and thus a job.

Everything is focused around this process, crushing creativity.

Picasso said 'we are all born artists' - this is squeezed out of us.

Hence, in every country around the world, maths, science and english are at the top of the heap, art, dance, music, photography are at the bottom. We're weaned out of these subjects as they are not 'useful'.

It's not that you can't be creative in maths, etc., it's more that there's a value given to subjects and that value is purely aimed at fitting us into an industrialised society.
I guess it's more of a passion killer than anything......kids are told "you must be perfectly linear in everything" and when they excel at one thing and lag in another, they feel they don't measure up, and thus they give up.

it's not something that can be fixed without a big huge fundamental overthrow of educational theory.
And do... what? No, really, I am curious because I hear this all the time and I'm always left wondering what people think we should do? I remember reading about alternate schooling theories when at university and I always thought about how great they were and how we should move to X system because X system really allows creativity... until it was pointed out that X system requires far, far more teachers than we have (Or are likely to have) and far more space for schools, larger budgets, and so on to cover the 60 million school aged kids in the United States.

Then I very quickly became aware that no one wants to pay for such a system.

I guess it's more of a passion killer than anything......kids are told "you must be perfectly linear in everything" and when they excel at one thing and lag in another, they feel they don't measure up, and thus they give up.

Very true - an example was French for me, I was very good at spoken, reading and comprehension and literature yet I sucked at written.

Written provided most of the %.

So I could get 90% on the first 3 and 40% on the last and my grade would be about 50%.

I gave up French because a poor grade would be no good for me for university entrance exams.

Why is written given so many points, it speaks to grinding out structures, learning constructions, parrot-teaching as opposed to a flair for the spoken word.

Science is given high value for the same reason - I'm not saying science isn't important, it is, but there's no equal value given to children good at different things - we don't encourage difference, we encourage a single talent.

We're educated to be grinders, not creatives.

And do... what? No, really, I am curious because I hear this all the time and I'm always left wondering what people think we should do? I remember reading about alternate schooling theories when at university and I always thought about how great they were and how we should move to X system because X system really allows creativity... until it was pointed out that X system requires far, far more teachers than we have (Or are likely to have) and far more space for schools, larger budgets, and so on to cover the 60 million school aged kids in the United States.

Then I very quickly became aware that no one wants to pay for such a system.

meh, like I said it's unlikely that it will ever get better. It's not the teacher's fault.

This is a wonderful video if you have the 20 minutes spare to watch it, it's very entertainingly does as well:

http://www.ted.com:80/index.php/talks/view/id/66

The idea is predicated on the fact that public education is a construct of the industrial age - it's aimed at making us suitable for a job and therefore the most valued subjects are judged on whether they are vocationally useful.

Don't do music, you'll never get a job.

Does education kill creativity?

No, people choose to *ONLY* learn the core subjects. There is nothing stopping a person from taking core subjects AND doing things like music as well.

As for society; people learn only to get a job, that is half the problem, we have a nation of idiots who know nothing - and when the political season roll along they don't have the knowledge to sift through the crap and scrutinise what is being said/promised.

No, people choose to *ONLY* learn the core subjects. There is nothing stopping a person from taking core subjects AND doing things like music as well.

As for society; people learn only to get a job, that is half the problem, we have a nation of idiots who know nothing - and when the political season roll along they don't have the knowledge to sift through the crap and scrutinise what is being said/promised.

Yet why do we choose that way if we choose at all - because that's what we're good at or because we're required to do so?

For starters, I dont expect much creativity in certain classes.
Just the ones that call for it.
Art..music...etc.

Instead of being instructed to be creative, most places just teach out of a cirriculum.
So get rid of the curriculum and... teach what? What should I teach then?

This is a wonderful video if you have the 20 minutes spare to watch it, it's very entertainingly does as well:

http://www.ted.com:80/index.php/talks/view/id/66

The idea is predicated on the fact that public education is a construct of the industrial age - it's aimed at making us suitable for a job and therefore the most valued subjects are judged on whether they are vocationally useful.

Don't do music, you'll never get a job.

Does education kill creativity?

Actually there are significant studies that show music helps in education. I forgot the percentages, but most people with graduate or higher degrees studied music as well.

Yes!

School is frustratingly structured and it doesn't serve anyone well, the average kids aren't being pushed, the gifted kids are bored and the ones with some challenges are being pulled along against their will.

Nearly nobody develops in a linear fashion and yet that is exactly how school is set up. It's sad really.

Wow, the schools by you must suck. Every heard of differentiated learning and authentic learning units. It provides the variation students need to use their particular strengths to learn material at the level and in realistic situations. Focusing on life long learning skills and higher order thinking change learning from a mostly passive process to a learner active process. Sorry the schools where you are still teach poorly. I can see why you home-school.

Edit: Empowering a child to learn from discovery at their own level works great. It just requires us to change our thinking (linear) that all children must be perfect at x. Yet they must also be perfect at y and z or their are a "failure." Teaching children how to think and reason is the goal, not just to simply regurgitate facts. This system requires smaller class sizes and greater effort from the teacher. AS another poster pointed out this can be expensive. We can't bear that expense can we? "Don't you know we're at war!!!!!!"

Yet why do we choose that way if we choose at all - because that's what we're good at or because we're required to do so?

Because the vast majority are lazy. We want to do the bare minimum.

Again, how many people do you know who read non-fiction books in lieu of watching television - for example?

I hated school, except for the fifth grade. That teacher was great. He had a sense of humor and helped the students who were having trouble while letting the gifted children do some gifted stuff after we were done with the assignments. He was different.

All my other teachers were pretty much the same, with the exception of the special ed stuff. I always thought it was strange that I had special ed and honors classes. Weird. It was pretty much all work and learning (you know, reading horribly monotonous text books and "taking notes" [i always drew pictures] while listening to teachers that could only be different versions of the boring guy from the Clear Eye commercials). You were done early? Shut up and work on homework from other classes. No homework left because it's first period? Just shut up and stare into space. No drawing or talking or writing stuff not related to assignments. Poems are the tools of kids who go on shooting rampages and stories are the tools Satan uses to drag souls into the bowels of hell, after all.

For me, school symbolized monotony. Every subject, except for PE, was taught in the same way. Each class had twenty-thirty kids. I was penalized for being late. Know why I was late all the time? Because I had five minutes to walk almost a fifth of a mile through human traffic so congested, I can only compare it with New York City on a bad day.

The problem is that education is expensive and mandatory. I know it's important, but when you have such a large population, Murphy's Law really begins to shine.

Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

Yes!

School is frustratingly structured and it doesn't serve anyone well, the average kids aren't being pushed, the gifted kids are bored and the ones with some challenges are being pulled along against their will.

Nearly nobody develops in a linear fashion and yet that is exactly how school is set up. It's sad really.
Welcome to mainstreaming. Blame this on the residents who don't want to pay for special ed (which includes G&T education) as well as the parents who don't want their child to realize that they are, in fact, different, and instead teach them to be ashamed (Sorry if this comes off as harsh, smunkee...I'm just a little tired and a bit angered after quite a bit of traffic)
Indeed it does.

I remember back when I was in High school.
The school would put on a special musical show every year, and sell tickets to it. Each music class would contribute to it.
The songs we were given werent chosen for any specific reason, they were merely suggested by a few people.

The song in the Choir class I was in was given some boring little song from the turn of the century about an irish woman and her love for Johnny, and her lovely wooden panels in her home.

Yah, it was really lame.

So, I presented an idea of a Beatles tribute, starting with "Golden Slumbers", and ending with the last part of the second half of the record "Abbey Road".
Anyone who is familar with the record may understand that it could have been done easily.

I was asked to make a presentation of the idea, and bring in the sheet music, and an outline of how it would go down.
I did as asked.

Now, this idea may have inspired the kids to get more into the production, and get a better performance.

It was rejected flatly, without reason.

They opted for the lame song that everyone hated.

30 young minds worth of creativity, squashed flat by a rigid system.
That has very little do to with the "system" and much more to do with a teachers preferance. Actually, I can't see a single place where the "system" factors into this.
*put all posts together and snip them*
too much to post for each one, but QFT ;)
For starters, I dont expect much creativity in certain classes.
Just the ones that call for it.
Art..music...etc.

Instead of being instructed to be creative, most places just teach out of a cirriculum.
That has nothing to do with the curriculum, as the curriculum is the "what" of education.
Yes, many history teachers teach out of text books. Yet my prof has told every history major "If I ever hear that you taught out of a text book, I will kill you". Yes, many teachers lecture. Yes, many teacher use dull methods. This doesn't destroy creativity, nor does it encourage it. It just is.
Mind you, I have many lesson plans either completed or in the works for (what I consider) highly creative lessons, and let me tell you this: they aren't easy. There are only so many ways that I can hold a structured, effective lesson and still be wildly creative.

Very true - an example was French for me, I was very good at spoken, reading and comprehension and literature yet I sucked at written.

Written provided most of the %.

So I could get 90% on the first 3 and 40% on the last and my grade would be about 50%.

I gave up French because a poor grade would be no good for me for university entrance exams.Strange. Now, there have been many explinations for why written language lags behind oral vocabulary in young children, but that lag has never been recorded en masse among older students (I assume this was a second language class). Assuming your verbal was as strong as you claim, why was the writing so difficult? They should easily translate beyond the use of accents and such

Why is written given so many points, it speaks to grinding out structures, learning constructions, parrot-teaching as opposed to a flair for the spoken word.Because to give constant oral examinations requires time, something that is in great demand. Nightly homeworks? Forget it. Those structures and constructs should be in place when you speak. If you are able to glance through them, then you don't fully grasp the language.

Science is given high value for the same reason - I'm not saying science isn't important, it is, but there's no equal value given to children good at different things - we don't encourage difference, we encourage a single talent.We encourage science because we live in a science and technology driven world. Guess what the top paying jobs are? Is it fair? No. But then, is it fair that I will make less than my best friend entering the same school district from the same university with the same credentials and similar grades, yet he will make signifigantly more? No.

Mind you, the state exams under NCLB look at math and English. Expect, within the next handful of years, exams in history and science.




All my other teachers were pretty much the same, with the exception of the special ed stuff. I always thought it was strange that I had special ed and honors classes. Weird. It was pretty much all work and learning (you know, reading horribly monotonous text books and "taking notes" [i always drew pictures] while listening to teachers that could only be different versions of the boring guy from the Clear Eye commercials). You were done early? Shut up and work on homework from other classes. No homework left because it's first period? Just shut up and stare into space. No drawing or talking or writing stuff not related to assignments. Poems are the tools of kids who go on shooting rampages and stories are the tools Satan uses to drag souls into the bowels of hell, after all.Most of that is antiquitaded thinking. Talking while other students are working, however, is rude and disruptive.

For me, school symbolized monotony. Every subject, except for PE, was taught in the same way. Each class had twenty-thirty kids. I was penalized for being late. Know why I was late all the time? Because I had five minutes to walk almost a fifth of a mile through human traffic so congested, I can only compare it with New York City on a bad day.Tough. Talk to the teacher before hand and explain the situation. If that fails, ask the teacher before if you can leave a minute early. If that fails, talk to the principal or guidance counselor.

Honestly, almost every single one of these complaints relates directly to the teacher, not how education actually functions.

I have to agree with NER (*gasps of faux shock*). I've looked at many different styles of education. Many of these are being used in charter schools throughout the country. And you know what? They are costly. Sure, I'd love to have 5 kids in my class, and have the class go through natural flow and have every lesson team taught where I teach them the literature of the cold war, while the history teacher talks about the McCarthy trials and the art teacher has them make propaganda posters, and we all ignore the bells and take a break when we decide we need it...or where I can just wake up one day and say "Hey...I think we'll go see Walden Pond and read a chapter or two!". But, as Smunk said, it can't happen without a massive change in theory, and an even larger change in society.

As my, and I believe NER's, favorite quote about education goes, schools mirror society, not the other way around.

Interesting that school systems such as Japan, China, and Korea are looking to the US to figure out how to instill greater creativity, eh?

So get rid of the curriculum and... teach what? What should I teach then?

That depends.

What do you teach?

If its an art class, then instead of making the kids paint trees with tempera paint, why not encourage them to do anything they want, and grade the end result.

Music classes for instance, need a wider range of music to be able to choose from.

Its possible to teach children what they need to know and encourage them to be fully creative.

That has very little do to with the "system" and much more to do with a teachers preferance. Actually, I can't see a single place where the "system" factors into this.

It had more to do with the music not being "accepted Canon" in a high school setting.
It was "unapproved material".

As for teaching straight drom text books, as I said, it very much depends on the class. Math classes dont need to encourage independant thought, until higher levels of education. The same for science.

English classes on the other hand, certainly do.

I can remember my art classes in high school as well.
I was always better, and more interested in surrealism.
However we werent allowed to do whatever we wanted, we often had top do what the instructor told us, in the medium he told us to do it in.

Thats what Im reffering to.

Its crap.

That depends.

What do you teach?

If its an art class, then instead of making the kids paint trees with tempera paint, why not encourage them to do anything they want, and grade the end result.

Music classes for instance, need a wider range of music to be able to choose from.

Its possible to teach children what they need to know and encourage them to be fully creative.NER teaches English as a second language in Japan under (iirc, and please correct me if I'm wrong) the JET program.

As for the trees, depends on curricula and desired result. Yes, I can assign my hypothetical art students to paint whatever they want every day for 180 days, but then they never learn anything but "ohh...pretty paint on the paper! YAY!"
Granted, I stay away from elementary education like the plague. A more apt comparison for me is teaching about a specific artist, say, Georgia Okeefe.
Now, some background does need to be given, but I could lecture, art history style, or have the students paint their own giant-flower-that-looks-like-a-vagina. What is effetive and appropriate depends entirely upon what my desired outcome is. If I want my students to identify Okeefe paintings, as would be the goal of an art history class, method 1 works. If I want to have my students explore creativity, method 2 wins.

It had more to do with the music not being "accepted Canon" in a high school setting.
It was "unapproved material".There is little, if any, difference. Was there enough money for new music? Remember, a school must own one original copy for every student who sings. This is costly, particularly when the music is more popular.
However, the teacher in question actually DID foster creativity in one student: she required a presentation outlining how a piece would work and why it should be chosen, a task requiring some level of creativity. Yes, the effort was fruitless, but that could easily be a question of finance. You learn very quickly when you go into teaching that the view from one side of the desk is vastly different from the other. Teachers have the benefit of knowing both.

As for teaching straight drom text books, as I said, it very much depends on the class. Math classes dont need to encourage independant thought, until higher levels of education. The same for science.I disagree. Every class needs creativity. Yes, I can give my math students an assignment from a chapter, only to get the question "Why does this matter?". Primary sources, interesting applications to every day life. I had a student teacher who said "Here is a problem that will relate to your life every day!" I perked up a bit. She then said "You are a rancher". I stopped listening.
Now, how about this: You are trying to teach area of a triangle...why not talk about the Bermuda triangle, and the theories around that? Or how about seeing if it fits in with anything in literature or history? Mind you, I suck at math and could never create a lesson plan...but that kinda thing may atleast get someone besides a mathophiles attention.


I can remember my art classes in high school as well.
I was always better, and more interested in surrealism.
However we werent allowed to do whatever we wanted, we often had top do what the instructor told us, in the medium he told us to do it in.

Thats what Im reffering to.

Its crap.
The point of high school is not to offer specialization: it is to offer bredth.
Yes, that art teacher instructed you to try style A with medium 1. Then next week it was style Q with medium 27. He was introducing you to new ideas and styles, teaching the rules and common regulations. Without knowledge of these rules and regulations, you have nothing to rebel against.

It seems that many people here were let down that they didn't really get to do what they wanted: this is not the purpose of high school. High school exists to give a wide range of ideas that may later be focused.

It also seems that some things are being confused with others. There are many aspects of "school". The schedule, the curriculum, the class, the milieu, the teacher, the administration, the local, state, and federal guidelines...these all play distinct yet individual roles in "school".

There is little, if any, difference. Was there enough money for new music?
You must not be paying attention.
There was no cost. I provided the sheet music.
The only "cost" that may have been invoked was thirty xerox copies.





Remember, a school must own one original copy for every student who sings. This is costly, particularly when the music is more popular.

Nope. damn near free.


However, the teacher in question actually DID foster creativity in one student: she required a presentation outlining how a piece would work and why it should be chosen, a task requiring some level of creativity. Yes, the effort was fruitless, but that could easily be a question of finance. You learn very quickly when you go into teaching that the view from one side of the desk is vastly different from the other. Teachers have the benefit of knowing both.

No, in this case it was nothing more than laziness on the part of the educators, and the lack of interest to make the event interesting to those performing it, and those who would watch it.
They just didnt care.

You must not be paying attention.
There was no cost. I provided the sheet music.
The only "cost" that may have been invoked was thirty xerox copies.


What about licensing? If it is a public performance, you have to pay for copyright as well as a license to be able to modify the song.

You must not be paying attention.
There was no cost. I provided the sheet music.
The only "cost" that may have been invoked was thirty xerox copies.Guess what? Schools are required to have a copy of music for every student who sings. Could this be ignored? Yes. Could the school then be involved in a very lengthy and costly bit of litigation? Yep. Music, more than any other item in school in my experiance, requires that the schools actually follow copyright law.

Nope. damn near free.Come on the teachers side of the desk, or, more importantly, the administrators, side of the desk and say that. As little as you or I may care about not paying royalties on a particular work, the state DOES care, and that is who employed your teacher. She is a representative of the state, and is therefore obligated to care and own a copy of music for each child.


No, in this case it was nothing more than laziness on the part of the educators, and the lack of interest to make the event interesting to those performing it, and those who would watch it.
They just didnt care.Can you be certain of that? You just proved that you don't know that schools do have original copies of the music they distribute (yes, the copy you get is often photocopied, but that is to protect the originals). And yes, the companies that hold these copyrights do frequently come to schools to see that things are being done properly. I've watched it be done to several plays I've participated in, as well as watched one audit our schools music selection. It is not a game worth playing. It is the same reason why you couldn't go up to an English teacher and say "Hey, can we read book X instead of book Y?" Yes, I could just photocopy a work for you, particularly a short one, but that puts the school at risk.

That depends.

What do you teach?

If its an art class, then instead of making the kids paint trees with tempera paint, why not encourage them to do anything they want, and grade the end result.

Music classes for instance, need a wider range of music to be able to choose from.

Its possible to teach children what they need to know and encourage them to be fully creative.
Right now, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) at a Japanese elementary school. I've both taught and have been in student directed projects and I can tell you that while they can be wonderful, they can also be disasters as the bulk of students when confronted with a "Do what you want" either freeze or proceed to do what they want... which isn't exactly what I want. If I told my kids that they could do what they wanted I would be sitting in my classroom while my kids played outside WITHOUT using English.

Student directed usually works well when you have a dedicated, small group of kids. I have neither.

*Snip*
This time YOU got to get the good post in before me. ;)

Oh, I'm teaching at an elementary school in Japan now, just no longer with JET.

Wow, you people really went to shitty high schools.

I guess this may come as a surprise but the high school I went to was rated in the top 3 PUBLIC high schools in Ottawa. It specialised in art. The other two, one was the school for gifted students and the other specialised in languages.

The high school I went to, like I said, specialised in art. This being the exception meant I can say that I didn't feel like my education sucked the creativity out of me. There were plenty of dry subjects that were required. Science and Math were mandatory up to grade 10; PE and French up to grade 9, with English up to grade 12 required. We had 16 mandatory and 14 elective credits (in addition to 6 OACs at the time for those wanting to go to university).

For the students not enrolled in the triple-credit art programme (this meant being in one area - music, visual art, literary, dance, drama), at the beginning of grade 9 you were given a sampler pack of different art classes so you could get a feel for the different arts and at the end of that, you picked one area to continue in, in your second semester of grade 9.

Dance was so... let's just say most people didn't believe that the head of the dance department, a male teacher who also taught French (yeah, my dance teacher was my French teacher, that was very strange) was married. My elective credits were filled with art class. I took grade 10 drama, grade 10-12 visual art. I never took any music or dance after grade 9, though I took every advanced English subject, including English Writing (creative writing class).

We had Spanish and German for subject languages.

We had plenty of social studies classes like history (including American, ancient), world issues (a contemporary class)...

That being said, I believe that it is, based on my experience, entirely possible to have to take dry academic subjects next to art subjects. To take classes in a public education system and not have the creativity sucked out of you.

This is a wonderful video if you have the 20 minutes spare to watch it, it's very entertainingly does as well:

http://www.ted.com:80/index.php/talks/view/id/66

The idea is predicated on the fact that public education is a construct of the industrial age - it's aimed at making us suitable for a job and therefore the most valued subjects are judged on whether they are vocationally useful.

Don't do music, you'll never get a job.

Does education kill creativity?

That is an asinine comparison. All one would have to do is look at the education curriculum from the period prior to the industrial age to find the fallacy of that argument.

Early (read: preindustrial) western education was set around the trivium (grammar, logic and rhetoric) and then often complimented by the quadrivium (math, music, geometry and astronomy). These eventually merged to what we today call the liberal arts - which is the core curriculum of most primary schools. Every student who passes through the public education system is exposed to all of these things. After primary education students are able to specialize in any of them or something entirely different - or nothing at all.

As demonstrated by history - education is the keystone to creativity - as the unprecedented explosion of innovation has ridden on the coattails of the spread of education. Any argument to the contrary is just plain silly.

Education most certainly does not destroy creativity, but education systems can and do.

Welcome to mainstreaming. Blame this on the residents who don't want to pay for special ed (which includes G&T education) as well as the parents who don't want their child to realize that they are, in fact, different, and instead teach them to be ashamed (Sorry if this comes off as harsh, smunkee...I'm just a little tired and a bit angered after quite a bit of traffic)
it's not just the parents, it's an entire generation of people biased against G&T kids. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653-1,00.html

every single school in my district has special ed for children with disabilities, that's great! I doubt they would have any if it weren't required by law though :(

The G&T program in my area consists of 'AP' classes and the occasional field trip to the local community college, I know I went through it. The general consensus of the local school board is "there are some kids we can't serve" which is fine, I can homeschool them. It's probably not fine for most parents though, and there doesn't seem to be much I can do.

it's not just the parents, it's an entire generation of people biased against G&T kids. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653-1,00.html

every single school in my district has special ed for children with disabilities, that's great! I doubt they would have any if it weren't required by law though :(

The G&T program in my area consists of 'AP' classes and the occasional field trip to the local community college, I know I went through it. The general consensus of the local school board is "there are some kids we can't serve" which is fine, I can homeschool them. It's probably not fine for most parents though, and there doesn't seem to be much I can do.

The gifted are slighted in favour of the mentally retarded who are likely not to gain anything from an education. All this just to please people with under performing children.

The mentally retarded get away with so much more in school.

All while the gifted and and semi-gifted students are being left in the cold because they have brain function.

Am I bitter? Hell yes.

I remember in grade 8, I was arguing with a girl, I think something about not wanting to sit with her table because I liked sitting by myself (the girl spoke normally but had learning difficulties (ie: adademic) and was in the special ed class), one of the actual retarded kids in her class came over and pushed me down. I landed on a patch of ice, hitting my head, though I wasn't injured.

A teacher saw it and guess what? I got into fucking trouble because I was the one who was pushed. The teacher said the kid who pushed me didn't know better and I wound up being pulled out of my regular grade 8 English class (this is when I was doing a solo book project because the book given to the class was too easy for some of us; they were studying The Giver and the few of us who were given independent projects; I got The Chrysalids), and I was told to help out in the special ed class... so I could see that these kids couldn't be held responsible.

I had to help out for a couple of days. It was sooo boring. The class was doing material I learned in senior kindergarten.

My dad was actually pissed at the school for doing this.

This time YOU got to get the good post in before me. ;)

Oh, I'm teaching at an elementary school in Japan now, just no longer with JET.
Sounds pretty good...I take it you'll be staying over in Japan for quite a while?
it's not just the parents, it's an entire generation of people biased against G&T kids. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653-1,00.html

every single school in my district has special ed for children with disabilities, that's great! I doubt they would have any if it weren't required by law though :(

The G&T program in my area consists of 'AP' classes and the occasional field trip to the local community college, I know I went through it. The general consensus of the local school board is "there are some kids we can't serve" which is fine, I can homeschool them. It's probably not fine for most parents though, and there doesn't seem to be much I can do.
No question the blame rests primarily on society. Sadly, special ed is very expensive...You know all those studies that point out how wasteful public ed is vs. private? Well, a significant amount of the difference comes from the requirement of sped programs.
I was personally in a school district that only had AP/honors classes, and no G&T program. I think it is a joke that the parents (one of the largest voting blocks in the town) cannot show up for finance votes and approve added funding.

Can education survive in a world of NCLB and G&T? I have no doubt in my mind that the answer is a resounding yes. NCLB is not the inherent problem, as it seems Time would like to think. I think one model is the charter school system used in MA and mentioned in the article.

I'm out of time, and can't really complete these thoughts, but I'll try to get back later.

"Genius without education is like silver in the mine."

The only thing I hear about uneducated people creating is violence and destruction.

Interesting that we're talking about a lack of creativity when most people would describe themselves as creative.

Reading through this just makes me feel really glad I don't live in the US.

Seriously though, education doesn't kill creativity. Learning English (for example) allows children to learn how to communicate and through communication comes creativity and art. Write something, use your imagination, read widely, all things that are encouraged in English. It's not an "art" like painting or music, but it's certainly creative.

Does education kill creativity?

No, but it doesn't encourage it either. :(

BAD education kills creativity
GOOD education encourages creativity

Most of us did not get a GOOD education.

There's a reason why there's an emphasis on science in school. Sure it might not have much use for the majority who sit through it, but it has more impact than subjects like Art or English (once we reach the literature level). Science actually does things. Science designs computer chips, builds bridges, cures diseases and so on and so forth. Remind me, what have the arts done for our society but vaguely entertain people?

There's a reason why there's an emphasis on science in school. Sure it might not have much use for the majority who sit through it, but it has more impact than subjects like Art or English (once we reach the literature level). Science actually does things. Science designs computer chips, builds bridges, cures diseases and so on and so forth. Remind me, what have the arts done for our society but vaguely entertain people?

How can you "vaguely" entertain people?

There's a reason why there's an emphasis on science in school. Sure it might not have much use for the majority who sit through it, but it has more impact than subjects like Art or English (once we reach the literature level). Science actually does things. Science designs computer chips, builds bridges, cures diseases and so on and so forth. Remind me, what have the arts done for our society but vaguely entertain people?
What, exactly, is the purpose of living without the arts? Sure, science extends and makes our lives easier, but the arts make that worth experiencing. Science provided us with the internet, but it is worthless without the arts that provide the content.
Not to mention that each intelligence feeds another...sculpture enhances spacial intelligence, music enhances math, literature enhances reasoning and comprehension, etc.

What, exactly, is the purpose of living without the arts? Sure, science extends and makes our lives easier, but the arts make that worth experiencing. Science provided us with the internet, but it is worthless without the arts that provide the content.

Don't most people live to get wildly drunk, get laid, or perhaps more positively get married, have a family? What sad bastard lives to read books or watch plays? Certainly I would say it's as big a minority as those who might live to "solve the mysteries of the universe" using all that science they learnt in school.

Not to mention that each intelligence feeds another...sculpture enhances spacial intelligence, music enhances math, literature enhances reasoning and comprehension, etc.

That's what people like to say when justifying the teaching of such things in school, but unfortunately there's not really much truth in it.

There's a reason why there's an emphasis on science in school. Sure it might not have much use for the majority who sit through it, but it has more impact than subjects like Art or English (once we reach the literature level). Science actually does things. Science designs computer chips, builds bridges, cures diseases and so on and so forth. Remind me, what have the arts done for our society but vaguely entertain people?
What have they done? They actually built the society.

That's what people like to say when justifying the teaching of such things in school, but unfortunately there's not really much truth in it.
Got plenty of studies that show it, and what proof do you have?

How can you "vaguely" entertain people?

Not really entertain them all that much. I'm sure most people (well males in this example) would choose, say, a blow job, over reading War and Peace.

Wasn't there that article awhile ago about adolescence not being real? Which I think is probably true. I do see college and high school as preparing for a bland, middle-class job... My school lost a lot of the good stuff like wood, metal, and auto shop in favor of mor math and science (which is mathified anyway).

Don't most people live to get wildly drunk, get laid, or perhaps more positively get married, have a family? What sad bastard lives to read books or watch plays? Certainly I would say it's as big a minority as those who might live to "solve the mysteries of the universe" using all that science they learnt in school.So no one enjoys movies? Television? Music of any kind? Fashion? Paintings? Wood working? Architecture? Literature? Magazine articles? Hell, even those scientific essays and articles? I've spoken to dozens of engineers and scientists who completely lack the ability to express their ideas coherantly and explicitly, even to others in their field. Welcome to the need of literature and clarity of speech and writing.



That's what people like to say when justifying the teaching of such things in school, but unfortunately there's not really much truth in it.Not one for reading yourself, I take it? I suggest reading Howard Gardner, among others. There is vast research backing the claim that work in one area has strong influence over other areas, and, to my knowledge, none refuting the claim. So please, enlighten us. Give a source for your claim.

Not really entertain them all that much. I'm sure most people (well males in this example) would choose, say, a blow job, over reading War and Peace.Yes, sex is good. And yes, War and Peace is both intimidating and dry. However, as listed before, War and Peace is hardly the only example of art.

Not really entertain them all that much. I'm sure most people (well males in this example) would choose, say, a blow job, over reading War and Peace.

Maybe if you read a few more books you might be able to select words that mean what you mean?

I think you're guilty of taking the arts as the sum of its parts. Plays are more than just their ability to divert. Humans have told stories for as long as we can tell what the hell we were doing. Something deep within us demands to be told stories.

Besides, art is a way to say something about our society and about us as human beings and where we're heading. George Orwell must be referenced here daily.

Wasn't there that article awhile ago about adolescence not being real? Which I think is probably true. I do see college and high school as preparing for a bland, middle-class job... My school lost a lot of the good stuff like wood, metal, and auto shop in favor of mor math and science (which is mathified anyway).
Adolescence is a social construct of the West, created by our ambiguous transition from "child" to "adult". The first research in this field came from Margaret Mead, and has been continued since. It is, however, real in our culture.

Maybe if you read a few more books you might be able to select words that mean what you mean?

I think you're guilty of taking the arts as the sum of its parts. Plays are more than just their ability to divert. Humans have told stories for as long as we can tell what the hell we were doing. Something deep within us demands to be told stories.

Besides, art is a way to say something about our society and about us as human beings and where we're heading. George Orwell must be referenced here daily.
You mean social commentary and analysis is necessary? You mean there have been books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom's_Cabin) and newspapers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Hearst) that started wars? Perish the thought.

Creative children who think critically can survive public school with those intact. The problem is parents who expect public school to produce well-rounded, intelligent kids.

It's not designed to do that, so it doesn't. It's designed to produce sheep (which has value - sheep do a lot of the work we want done but would rather not do).

So no one enjoys movies? Television? Music of any kind? Fashion? Paintings? Wood working? Architecture? Literature? Magazine articles? Hell, even those scientific essays and articles? I've spoken to dozens of engineers and scientists who completely lack the ability to express their ideas coherantly and explicitly, even to others in their field. Welcome to the need of literature and clarity of speech and writing.

Sure they do. But they enjoy doing lots of stuff, like ping pong and croquet. I don't think the arts deserve a special status here. Why don' we just turn school into doing things that are fun? (not that that's necessarily a bad idea, I just dislike the way the arts are elevated as being more than, essentially, a hobby).

We could have lessons in school on "writing well". Actually we should replace English with that and make it a subject worth teaching. But the arts aren't involved in that much.

Not one for reading yourself, I take it? I suggest reading Howard Gardner, among others. There is vast research backing the claim that work in one area has strong influence over other areas, and, to my knowledge, none refuting the claim. So please, enlighten us. Give a source for your claim.

You're the one making the claim here. Quite a strong claim too. Should I list a bunch of advances and you find any sort of non-scientific/mathematical inspirations for such advances? A book by some guy (and yes, looking around a bit, he really does seem to fit in the catagory of "some guy") isn't really enough.

Yes, sex is good. And yes, War and Peace is both intimidating and dry. However, as listed before, War and Peace is hardly the only example of art.

And blow jobs aren't the only example of a good time ;)

Maybe if you read a few more books you might be able to select words that mean what you mean?

I'm just being creative with my choice of words :P. In all truth, I don't see anything wrong with something being "vaguely entertaining".

Besides, art is a way to say something about our society and about us as human beings and where we're heading. George Orwell must be referenced here daily.

That's not really a good thing. These tend to be people who are more interested in what George Orwell said in 1948 in a piece of fiction, than the actual details of what is going on. They venerate the guy as if His word is the unquestionable truth.

Yes!

School is frustratingly structured and it doesn't serve anyone well, the average kids aren't being pushed, the gifted kids are bored and the ones with some challenges are being pulled along against their will.

Nearly nobody develops in a linear fashion and yet that is exactly how school is set up. It's sad really.
One of my colleagues sends her kids to Montessori. They seem to have the non-linear paths that allow children to pursue an interest. In addition, they can structure additional lessons around that interest. Seems like the teachers must be very flexible and fairly well educated, themselves.

Sure they do. But they enjoy doing lots of stuff, like ping pong and croquet. I don't think the arts deserve a special status here. Why don' we just turn school into doing things that are fun? (not that that's necessarily a bad idea, I just dislike the way the arts are elevated as being more than, essentially, a hobby).

We could have lessons in school on "writing well". Actually we should replace English with that and make it a subject worth teaching. But the arts aren't involved in that much.



[QUOTE]You're the one making the claim here. Quite a strong claim too. Should I list a bunch of advances and you find any sort of non-scientific/mathematical inspirations for such advances? A book by some guy (and yes, looking around a bit, he really does seem to fit in the catagory of "some guy") isn't really enough.
Mozart effect is one thing to look at, as well as actually studying the theory of multiple intelligences before rejecting it (as the brilliant man of science you are should already know)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2984(199122)60%3A3%3C477%3ATRBMAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L
Logic and mathmatical reasoning share a clear relation, despite the fact that one is verbal and one is numerical.
Research has consistantly shown that students who study music perform better in math. Similar studies have shown the relation between sculpture and painting with physics and spacial understanding, as well as dance and spacial understanding. I have articles, but they require registration, so there is no point in putting them here, and I don't have time right now to find free copies
Now, can you even provide a rational theory supporting your side?



And blow jobs aren't the only example of a good time ;)

Yes...several of which fall into the category of "art". People would rather see a movie than read War and Peace. Hell, people would rather see a film version of War and Peace than read it. This proves nothing but personal taste. That doesn't discredit the value of art.

I'm just being creative with my choice of words :P. In all truth, I don't see anything wrong with something being "vaguely entertaining".



That's not really a good thing. These tend to be people who are more interested in what George Orwell said in 1948 in a piece of fiction, than the actual details of what is going on. They venerate the guy as if His word is the unquestionable truth.

I agree about Orwell, the example was given just to demonstrate that fiction does have a role in society and how we reflect upon it. But that is definitely a good thing and it's just unfortunate that in this case the references to Orwell have become cliches and when things become cliches they usually lose their context and meaning.

Full disclosure: I'm a playwright. I have a vested interest in you not scaring away the five remaining people who actually go to the theatre for something other than We Will Rock You.

Wow, that guy is God. He just owned ADD/ADHD.

Wow, that guy is God. He just owned ADD/ADHD.

Good video eh :)

Good video eh :)

I've yet to be able to get it to play. I'll try again when I get back to Boston

I've yet to be able to get it to play. I'll try again when I get back to Boston

I've noticed from your posts :)

It's really not against teachers in any form, it's not really about schools and it's not even an attack on education so much - it's more a curious look at society's priorities and saying that it starts with education, and saying that a society that drives people to one aim isn't healthy, that more emphasis should be placed on creative subjects.

I'm probably not capturing it too well.

Hence I haven't really replied to points addressing teacher/linear issues.

I've noticed from your posts :)

It's really not against teachers in any form, it's not really about schools and it's not even an attack on education so much - it's more a curious look at society's priorities and saying that it starts with education, and saying that a society that drives people to one aim isn't healthy, that more emphasis should be placed on creative subjects.

I'm probably not capturing it too well.

Hence I haven't really replied to points addressing teacher/linear issues.

makes sense. However, one point that you said stood out (namely, the one I bolded). Society does not, and moreover, can not mirror the education system. Education mirrors society. Assuming that he says otherwise is one point he would be wrong on.

makes sense. However, one point that you said stood out (namely, the one I bolded). Society does not, and moreover, can not mirror the education system. Education mirrors society. Assuming that he says otherwise is one point he would be wrong on.

Yes, I can clarify in reiterating the point, society has its priorities wrong and those priorities first become apparent in the way we structure education. Actually, not so much the way we structure it but where we place emphasis.

It's very hard, as Nervun and yourself point out, to see how we might change things - resources are limited.

Yes, I can clarify in reiterating the point, society has its priorities wrong and those priorities first become apparent in the way we structure education. Actually, not so much the way we structure it but where we place emphasis.ahhhhh...okay. Gotcha. Rock on.

It's very hard, as Nervun and yourself point out, to see how we might change things - resources are limited.
Yeah...I'm sure me and ner have looked at many of the same alternative systems, and, given our similar views of education, I'm sure we probably favor the same ones for our little perfect teacher world imagination.
Damn those resources.

The system punishes teachers, and encourages forcing people through the revolving door of fail. Nobody wants to pay for better schooling, yet everybody wants the benefit. If the teachers were better paid and liked what they did, the school system would be far better in America. Of course, this won't happen since nobody would honestly think being a teacher is a valid career path.



Special Ed courses are just stupid anyway. The mentally retarded really shouldn't be clogging the system, nevermind getting special treatment. People feel sorry for them, but since they literally cannot possibly understand material beyond a certain point there is no purpose toward them even being in school beyond that. Just more sappy, worthless pity that drains the system of funding that could go elsewhere.


Oh yes. I'd also like to see creativity explained, taught, and such. The problem being that creativity is terribly ambiguous. Do you mean musical creativity, artistic creativity, creative writing?

Well, we need a balance. Math,Science,English, and History are all important. Very important, but we aso need creativity. Thats why music and art are required. Music theory is a fun class. But it can be rigid too. Do you for example just memorize how music works with formulas and such. Or do you listen to music and then compose your own songs? The later is better. Same thing with art. Do you study brushstrokes all say or paint?

George Carlin said kids should have 2 hours of daydreaming every day. Obviously a joke, but things like freewriting help greatly. If a teacher ssays write an essy about whatever you want, thats fun. Kids will be creative. But many teachers say ok write whatever you want,but no violence,bad language,political ideas, only 2 pages, completely politically correct, no powerful ideas. You know what I mean. You don't want inappropriate stuff but some teachers just squeex the life out of everything.

A lot depends on teachers too. Some teachers,wellsuck. They are too rigid and structured. Add some degree of fun or freedom and kids will learn.

You can't go crazy though. But what I'm saying is teachers can give a boring history report(straight up facts) or add a twist. Like time I had to do a group report. But we also had to build a model or draw a poster. So we learned, but still got to be creative by building a national monument out of foam carboard,etc. Thats a good balance.

Well, we need a balance. Math,Science,English, and History are all important. Very important, but we aso need creativity. Thats why music and art are required. Music theory is a fun class. But it can be rigid too. Do you for example just memorize how music works with formulas and such. Or do you listen to music and then compose your own songs? The later is better. Same thing with art. Do you study brushstrokes all say or paint?

George Carlin said kids should have 2 hours of daydreaming every day. Obviously a joke, but things like freewriting help greatly. If a teacher ssays write an essy about whatever you want, thats fun. Kids will be creative. But many teachers say ok write whatever you want,but no violence,bad language,political ideas, only 2 pages, completely politically correct, no powerful ideas. You know what I mean. You don't want inappropriate stuff but some teachers just squeex the life out of everything.

A lot depends on teachers too. Some teachers,wellsuck. They are too rigid and structured. Add some degree of fun or freedom and kids will learn.

You can't go crazy though. But what I'm saying is teachers can give a boring history report(straight up facts) or add a twist. Like time I had to do a group report. But we also had to build a model or draw a poster. So we learned, but still got to be creative by building a national monument out of foam carboard,etc. Thats a good balance.
You can always daydream on your own time. I don't think that happens much anymore. Life seems to be very programmed for kids with too many after school activities and too few hours of free time. Sometimes I think they forget how to play -- maybe never learned? Video games, TV, and computers don't help much.

In school, however, kids should have recess. I don't know if the elementary schools even have that anymore. But kids do need time to decompress from class before going to the next one.

From my personal experience, nothing kills creativity like art- and music-classes... maybe y'all had better teachers, but they just made writing music much harder...

Television kills creativity more than anything.

Ok, so I am a fan of education, otherwise I wouldn't still be in school, so I might be a bit biased, but the further I progress in my education, the more creative I find I can be. Granted, this isn't just creativity in the arts and crafts and music sense, there's a lot more to creativity than this, but I can find rather creative ways to solve problems or write (very simple) programs. On the side I draw (actually, I want to take courses in drawing, especially when it comes to anatomy so I can draw better), write (again, something I wouldn't mind more classes in) and play a couple of instruments.

Oh yes. I'd also like to see creativity explained, taught, and such. The problem being that creativity is terribly ambiguous. Do you mean musical creativity, artistic creativity, creative writing?
You can't teach creativity. You can teach the skills that one needs to express one's creativity. For instance, teaching someone how to play a musical instrument and giving them a foundation in theory can give them a way to express themselves effectively. Similarly with writing or drawing.

If you want to figure out how to be creative, go take a long walk by yourself, visit a gallery, read a book, sit quietly and think et c. If you learn to entertain yourself with little or no stimuli, you can be creative.

You can't teach creativity.

You can crush it though.

You can't teach creativity. You can teach the skills that one needs to express one's creativity. For instance, teaching someone how to play a musical instrument and giving them a foundation in theory can give them a way to express themselves effectively. Similarly with writing or drawing.

If you want to figure out how to be creative, go take a long walk by yourself, visit a gallery, read a book, sit quietly and think et c. If you learn to entertain yourself with little or no stimuli, you can be creative.

Interesting perspective. If I wanted to nit pick I'd say you contradicted yourself, though. :D

Interesting perspective. If I wanted to nit pick I'd say you contradicted yourself, though. :D
How so? You can't teach someone how to entertain themselves with little stimuli or think outside the box, you can only encourage this.

To summarize/refine: You can teach someone else techniques, but you can only encourage creativity.

How so? You can't teach someone how to entertain themselves with little stimuli or think outside the box, you can only encourage this.

To summarize/refine: You can teach someone else techniques, but you can only encourage creativity.

But the method you described would teach creativity, though perhaps more indirectly than I originally thought.

As well, you can teach people to entertain themselves with little stimuli. See: Fishing. :D

But the method you described would teach creativity, though perhaps more indirectly than I originally thought.

As well, you can teach people to entertain themselves with little stimuli. See: Fishing. :D
Just putting someone in a situation where they can either be terribly bored or take an imaginary trip isn't teaching them creativity, there's still a good chance that they'll just sit there and do nothing and not learn anything from it. It's one of those "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" sorts of situations.

Wow, that guy is God. He just owned ADD/ADHD.

Unless the video provided a plausible explanation for massive differences in brain structure, he did no such thing.

Again, how many people do you know who read non-fiction books in lieu of watching television - for example?
I don't know anyone who doesn't.

all interesting statements, been a good read. I have nothing to comment on though

Unless the video provided a plausible explanation for massive differences in brain structure, he did no such thing.

In a sense he did - the notable difference with those suffering from ADD/ADHD is the speed at which thickening and thinning of the prefrontal cortex occurs - which is a biological process.

His point is that we look to suppress the effects of this through various means, not make use of it as a difference - again, we're crushing difference, and potential for creativity, in an attempt to reach normality.

By placing a use value on education in terms of what we term useful or not, we block ourselves from seeing different potential as anything but a problem.

His point is that we look to suppress the effects of this through various means, not make use of it as a difference - again, we're crushing difference, and potential for creativity, in an attempt to reach normality.
How the fuck are we supposed to make use of something that leaves the person unable to function in anything?

How the fuck are we supposed to make use of something that leaves the person unable to function in anything?

How extreme an example are you using?

How extreme an example are you using?

Not extreme at all. Difficulty at focusing that stems from ADHD applies to everything, not just traditional education. In other words, someone with ADHD is essentially unable to function in any circumstance.

Not extreme at all. Difficulty at focusing that stems from ADHD applies to everything, not just traditional education. In other words, someone with ADHD is essentially unable to function in any circumstance.

Well, ADHD is a maturing of the brain issue and has gradations of suffering. I suspect we're coming back to linear education again. Yet this is somewhat a point in that we aim to treat everyone the same, with the same goals and are measured by those goals to judge pre-determined ideas of excellence.

Yet even this is a side issue and I'd suggest watching the video.

This is a wonderful video if you have the 20 minutes spare to watch it, it's very entertainingly does as well:

http://www.ted.com:80/index.php/talks/view/id/66

The idea is predicated on the fact that public education is a construct of the industrial age - it's aimed at making us suitable for a job and therefore the most valued subjects are judged on whether they are vocationally useful.

Don't do music, you'll never get a job.

Does education kill creativity?

Erich Fromm beat you on this point by about fifty years. Read The Illusion of Individuality. Great little chapter.

Erich Fromm beat you on this point by about fifty years. Read The Illusion of Individuality. Great little chapter.

Thanks - I need the equivalent of the kung-fu download in the Matrix.

"I know Fromm"

To an extent I'd have to agree...really, people seem to become less creative as a combined mixture steamroll education and mindless entertainment (IE. Video games to an extent, TV, Fashion, etc...)

Not extreme at all. Difficulty at focusing that stems from ADHD applies to everything, not just traditional education. In other words, someone with ADHD is essentially unable to function in any circumstance.

While i strongley object (and then grudgingly admit) to hte "not being able to function" part, basically yeah you're right. But there is a diffrence: As an amateur inventor, I never get ideas when i take my meds. But otherwise i focus much more on life in general, and love it. Except for the fact that occasionally the meds I take make me hear voices in my head tormenting me. But.....Im kinda used to it

Thanks - I need the equivalent of the kung-fu download in the Matrix.

"I know Fromm"

XD

It's a chapter from his book, "Escape/Fear from/of Freedom" (first option for US, second for UK). It's quite good. :)

too right. That's why all the great authors are/were illiterate.

"You thik you dwell in Wisdom's Sea, still sweet Ignorance is the key to a poet's paradise".

Holopainen.

"You thik you dwell in Wisdom's Sea, still sweet Ignorance is the key to a poet's paradise".

Holopainen.You forgot to credit www.nightwish.com.

You forgot to credit www.nightwish.com.

To tell the truth, I got it by the Oceanborn booklet. :D

I don't know exactly how it is called in English, but the Anonymous of Sublime said something like this while comparing Homer with Callimachus: Homer, being ignorant in poetry, compared with Callimachus, was a sublime auctor, while Callimachus was just a good poet with no error in his poems.

To tell the truth, I got it by the Oceanborn booklet. :DYeah, on the site, it tells you that you may use their lyrics, so long as you credit Tuomas and the website.

If you think that your run of the mill peasant in the Middle Ages was extremely creative, I guess you could say that education kills creativity. :p

If you think that your run of the mill peasant in the Middle Ages was extremely creative, I guess you could say that education kills creativity. :p

XD

I think the thing is more that it's not education, but the SYSTEM that kills it.

But it comes down to: Can you HAVE education that doesn't have a system that squelches creativity? If the answer is no (which it likely is), then the question becomes: how much are you willing to sacrifice?

too right. That's why all the great authors are/were illiterate.
Aye, see Orwell, Horowitz and Hemmingway.

Oh... wait...