It should be noted that a speech made in 2006 still serves to be a warning of what public education shouldn’t become 15 years later, a testimony to the vision of the speaker Sir Ken Robinson. The argument that Professor Robinson put forward is one that requires much research and investigation: what is the purpose of public education and why is creativity, so treasured an asset of humanity, lost, or ‘squandered ruthlessly’, in our education? Though this vilification is not entirely fair, it is high time that we began to contemplate the ultimate goal of public education.

The world is not that different after all, since problems faced by youngsters throughout the planet at school and career choosing seem to be parallel. ‘Don’t do art, you’re not going to be an artist.’, not only because talent is rare, but one needs to assume the responsibilities of life, which proves to be difficult through pursuing art, is one statement almost every child hears. The hierarchy of disciplines is also ubiquitous, as dancing just doesn’t get as much class hours as Maths no matter how hard we emphasize overall development. Thinking as such is often blamed for destroying creativity, yet still remains to be the abject predicament.

On the other hand, Maths, as well as some other subjects which occupy the top rank in the ‘hierarchy of subjects’, does seem to be more useful. The various state of development across the world also complicates matters. In lesser-developed countries, people simply couldn’t give priority to dancing or one different student who just didn’t seem to fit in when the majority of students weren’t even fed properly. The speaker also mentioned the role of industrialization in shaping our public education. ‘The goal of our education is to make university professors.’ Professors, engineers, doctors were regarded as more respected careers and enjoyed higher social status and identification in no small part due to industrialization. And yet analogous to the dilemma mentioned above, some, understandably under-developed countries embrace industrialization as means of development to end poverty, others, mainly developed countries emphasize its folly in destroying individualism through identical mass production, damage to the environment, inhibition of humanity, which also make sense in its own right.

Despite endless debate and criticism, mankind still reaped the benefits through the current education system. Flawed as it is, no system which is currently within our grasp is able to suit all of our needs. But this should not prevent us from seeking a solution that will achieve more while protecting our creativity and individuals who don’t fit in when the time is ripe. For now, education systems that critics dubbed as ‘killing imagination’, paradigm of a typical ‘destroyer of creativity’ are ones that provided the most equality, in countries such as China. While no career should be discriminated, that does not necessarily mean every manner of knowledge or skill deserves the same attention. Scholars do agree on the directing of public learning by state policy. When we need technology, it is self-evident a fact that priority should be given to Natural Science, instead of business studies, for example.

At the end of the speech, Sir Ken Robinson quoted the worries of Racheal Carson in the respect of ecology, to which he made an excellent analogy: ‘I believe our only hope for the future is to adopt a new conception of human-ecology, one in which we began to re-constitute our conception of the richness of human capacity. Our education system has mined our minds in the way we strip-mine the Earth for a particular commodity.’ Inspiring? Yes. Yet the beloved nature, or the Earth, stripped dinosaurs, who seemed to be following the rules of nature just right, of the right of life and there is no guarantee the same thing would not happen to us. Humanity’s creative power should be used not conservatively, but as endeavors for our survival.

For those fellow students present, if you consider thinking so much abstract theory boring and confusing, you might as well just get down to work, since even creativity need necessary efforts to become assets recognized.

An essay on Sir Ken Robinson’s TED talk: changing Education Paradigms

作者：高二（7）班 宋致达
责任编辑：古雨