Education Has to Be a 鈥楬uman Business鈥�
According to author and speaker Sir Ken Robinson, he is often asked: What would a different approach to education look like?
Robinson, who gave the most-watched TED Talk in history (with more than 33 million views), seeks to answer this question in his latest book, Creative Schools (Viking Penguin), in which he shares many examples of schools that break away from the current education model into a more personalized approach to learning.
He argues that many students are not receiving the kind of education that lives up to the economic demands of the 21st century or leads to the fulfillment of their 鈥渘atural鈥� interests鈥攁bilities that all children have, but may not retain through their lives because of the structure of the school system. The standardization of K-12 education and the public education model, with its roots in the Industrial Revolution, has all but drained creativity from schools, he says.
We asked the speaker of the viral TED Talk and the popular animated video (with more than 13 million views) about his thoughts on student engagement and testing, the future of teacher education programs, and why vocational education maters.
Commentary Intern Luke Towler, joined by Commentary Editor Elizabeth Rich, conducted the interview, which has been edited for length and clarity.
鈥擯hoto by Cindy Gold
EW: Since your 2006 TED Talk on how schools kill creativity went viral, it has been seen over 33 million times. Why do you think it has resonated so strongly with viewers?
ROBINSON: It clearly resonates deeply with people, and it鈥檚 because it rings true. I鈥檝e been at this a long time now, and I think most people in education realize that our kids have great natural talents and interests.
For a whole variety of reasons, partly because of the way they鈥檙e structured and the pressures that come on to them, schools aren鈥檛 able to connect with a lot of those talents. People feel that professionally. They feel that as parents.
I get feedback from a lot of students, from families and parents, from business people, and鈥攖o me, most encouragingly鈥攆rom teachers and school principals who feel that, too. I鈥檓 not pointing a finger at anyone in particular. I think it鈥檚 the system itself that creates the problems.
EW: Your latest book spans case studies of schools across the country. Many schools have instituted innovative new programs to encourage their students鈥� interests. What kind of school climate makes this kind of innovation possible?
ROBINSON: I think the key to this is that education has to be recognized as a human business. It鈥檚 a personal process. We鈥檙e dealing with living human beings in the middle of all of this. They鈥檙e not statistics or data points. They鈥檙e not data sets from a test schedule. These are living people with feelings and aspirations and hopes and ambitions and fears and talents, like you and me and everybody else. As soon as you recognize that education is not a processing plant, it鈥檚 about people, then the whole equation starts to shift around. My argument, really, is that we should be personalizing education, not standardizing it.
EW: What do you think about the opt-out testing movement?
ROBINSON: I鈥檓 not arguing against any form of testing. I鈥檓 not arguing against any form of standardized testing. But it鈥檚 really gone out of control now, and I think there鈥檚 a terrible tendency to confuse standardizing with raising standards. It鈥檚 always worth remembering, and I say it in the book, that this is an industry. This isn鈥檛 some benign group of well-intentioned educators sitting around thinking how we can help our children. I know a lot of people in these publishing companies, and they have lives too, and, in many ways, they think they鈥檙e doing their best.
But it鈥檚 a bottom-line issue. This is like drilling for oil鈥攅very time there鈥檚 a new standard, there鈥檚 a new test. The common core is another source of revenue for these companies. It鈥檚 a multibillion-dollar business that isn鈥檛 regulated. So before we look at anything else, we should at least recognize that this is serving other motives from helping improve kids and engage families across the board. So, yes, I think I can understand. And if I had a kid in school right now, I think I would be opting out, too, and I can鈥檛 discourage anyone from doing it.
EW: In an April 29 edweek.org opinion blog post, Philip Rutherford, an expert on vocational education, explained how Australia鈥檚 education system requires all of its students to take vocational education classes. In your book, you describe the divide between academic and vocational education as a caste system. What is the first step in dismantling the hierarchy of school subjects?
ROBINSON: [Career and technical education has] become demeaned largely because of the domination of education by universities. And we鈥檝e reached a point now where it鈥檚 too often seen as the ultimate goal of education to go do a four-year degree somewhere. And there are a lot of other ways that people can contribute and have fulfilling lives, and, in many cases, actually want to without being on this solo track to college.
I鈥檓 not trying to talk anyone out of going to college. I鈥檓 just saying there are other options. And the fact that it鈥檚 not working terribly well in the [U.S. education] system is illustrated by the very low graduation rates in college when people actually get there鈥攁nd by how many people, when they leave college, are unemployed or underemployed with their college degrees and how many of them don鈥檛 know what to do next. In our interest in raising so-called academic standards, we鈥檝e demeaned all the other options. That鈥檚 my point.
So I鈥檓 not trying to say that we should abandon any interest in academic work鈥攐f course not. But we should at least give equal weight to other courses, other options, as some of the systems do, and recognize that ideas really often develop best in practice. That when you actually get people on their feet and moving around, as some of the schools do in the book, when you get people working collaboratively on practical projects, they don鈥檛 suddenly abandon theory. What they鈥檙e doing is looking at how ideas play out in practice, how ideas can inform practice.
So, I think part of it is to broaden the curriculum. It鈥檚 to take a more practical approach to teaching and learning. And it鈥檚 also important to recognize that all these things need to be assessed in appropriate ways. And design schools and arts programs and performing arts schools all have great experience in showing you can assess practical work at a high level. And how it鈥檚 a much more interesting, productive, and sophisticated process than giving people a series of multiple-choice tests.
EW: In your 鈥淐hanging Education Paradigms鈥� animation, you note that public education was based on the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment. This system, you said, has created chaos for many people. How can schools change from the current model into one that is less chaotic?
ROBINSON: We don鈥檛 organize our days in 40-minute bits and pieces and blow whistles at home and move on to the next thing. We just do that in schools. And it gets in the way of learning very often. We don鈥檛 sit people in desks all day long when they鈥檙e at home and get them to fill out multiple-choice tests. We get up and do other things.
So I鈥檓 not saying it鈥檚 all been terrible, but I鈥檓 saying that, on the contrary, there are wonderful schools and wonderful people that work in them. But the dominant culture has its roots in another time. It鈥檚 been reinforced by this testing mania, and the system has to change, and it is changing.
It has to change because it鈥檚 not serving enough children well enough. And it has to change because the world is changing so rapidly, and we need people to be educated differently now to the way we thought was suitable for industrialism.
And part of what I鈥檓 arguing in the book is that it鈥檚 important to understand what the changes should be, and how they might come about. I make the point that you need firstly a diagnosis, an analysis of what the problem is. You need a vision of what a better alternative would look like. And then you need a plan to get there鈥攖o go from this to that. I think the situation in the states has been that standards have been falling in math and science and literacy. That鈥檚 it.
And we have dropout rates because schools aren鈥檛 very good. That鈥檚 been the political analysis, it seems, from No Child Left Behind on. What we want is high standards in literacy, numeracy, and math for more people to stay in school and more people to go to college. And the way to do that is standardize everything, and test everybody. Well, I think it鈥檚 a false diagnosis, and I think it鈥檚 a bad strategy.
But the good news is that this system is very complicated, it鈥檚 very diverse, and it does change. Beyond the control of people, all sorts of things happen in the culture that aren鈥檛 planned because the mood starts to shift. And there are things which are inevitably changing in schools.
The spread of digital technology is one of them. The declining value of college degrees, the growing burden of student debt, the changing expectation of employers, general shifts in social relationships, the structure of the family鈥攁ll kinds of factors are swirling around schools, and the best schools are responding to them and changing how they do things.
And what I鈥檓 arguing is that schools can change. You don鈥檛 need to wait to be told to do this. You don鈥檛 need somebody鈥檚 permission to do it. The book is full of examples of schools [which] are innovating within the current system. If enough schools do innovate in the system, then that gets around and more people are encouraged to do it.
But I鈥檓 not saying that this is some act of defiance. I鈥檓 saying that this changing, in the ways that we describe in the book, is to the benefit of schools, to the benefit of students, to the benefit of parents and communities, and to the country at large. This whole testing thing is largely a failed experiment. And it鈥檚 time to recognize it鈥檚 not delivered its promise. So can we do something else that we know works?
EW: Teacher education continues to get bashed in America. What needs to happen to improve teacher-preparation programs?
ROBINSON: [Teachers] need a proper professional preparation. They need to know their disciplines. They need to know about how learning works, and what we know about learning, both psychologically and socially. There鈥檚 a lot to understand to be a good teacher about how people learn most effectively and why they do. And they need pedagogical skills. They need the social skills to work with complicated and diverse groups of people, and they need the pedagogical skills to know how to engage them in their material.
The heart of all of this is having a really effective program of teacher education in higher education, which works closely with the school system. So what I鈥檓 saying does have implications for how we select and train teachers, no question about it. There are clear examples of great programs across the country and clear examples of ones that aren鈥檛 doing such a good job.
EW: Do you think improving teacher education is something that would take a generation, or could be done in a faster, more efficient way?
ROBINSON: Some things happen with convulsive speed, particularly in the technological field. The Internet wasn鈥檛 a big deal until about 15 years ago for most people. So it鈥檚 worth remembering that most things we think are just natural features of the cultural landscape, particularly in the technological field, weren鈥檛 around 10 years ago. So things can happen very quickly, like with the growth of online courses and so on.
But other things do take a long time. I talk in the book about Finland and the changes that came about there. That鈥檚 been a generational shift. 鈥� There is often now a terrible political impatience. We want this thing to be fixed right now.
But at the national level, we do need policy to mature a bit. And it鈥檚 worth remembering: It鈥檚 been more than 30 years since A Nation at Risk, and we鈥檝e had almost 15 years of No Child Left Behind. In 15 years, we could be deeper in this hole, or we could be out of it. There will be a time 15 years from now, and we need to look ahead of that and say, 鈥淲ell, what type of education would we like that to be?鈥� Where do we want our children鈥檚 children to be going to school? And I think if we keep that in mind, we might get on with the job more quickly.
