On Robinson on Education

This very striking video has been circulating, and I’m inspired to reply to it:

First, let me say that the video design is very cool.  Moreover, Sir Ken Robinson is quite an excellent public speaker.  Finally, I agree with him entirely that standardization is the source of a lot of our educational difficulties.  But much of the rest of his message is irritatingly wrong.

The typical comment made about this video is that it represents a radical new proposal for what education should look like.  But there’s very little that is new about it.  Indeed, many school teachers and education professors, I’d wager, find a lot to agree with here.  Many of the progressive “reform” proposals look like this.  The problem is that they endlessly run up against the facts of reality.  And I don’t mean political reality, although that’s fierce enough.  I mean the reality of what education really means and what it accomplishes.

So let’s try to understand a few things that Robinson is trying to argue.  He basically makes the point that the education system was designed in the 19th century, and its methodology is stuck in the 19th century.  It needs to be updated, he says.  This, by itself, is a rhetorically powerful message, and an effective way to position his proposed reforms, especially for all those people out there who pride themselves on being cutting-edge in everything.

But what exactly, according to Robinson, is educationally backward and now wrong?  Several things, all dramatically denied (and quite amusingly illustrated):

  • 1. Work hard, do well, get a college degree, and you will be rewarded with a good job.  (Our kids “don’t believe that” and “they’re right not to,” says Sir Ken–why?  Because a college degree doesn’t guarantee a good job.  I spy a fallacy.)
  • 2. The “Enlightenment view of intelligence,” that real intelligence consists in the ability to do deductive reasoning and knowledge of the classics, or what (he says) we think of as “academic ability.”  (I think of academic ability as far more than this.  Also, I can’t recall coming across either of these as strongly advocated for in my public school education, and these have if anything become even rarer in schools.)
  • 3. There is not enough collaboration in schools.  (There sure was an annoyingly large amount of groupwork in the public schools I attended from 1973 to 1986, and now, I gather, such methods are still all the rage.  So I’m not convinced on this point.)
  • 4. Schools are too standardized: organized on factory lines, scheduled, regimented, studying compartmentalized subjects, with people of the same ages graduating at the same time.  (Here is where I agree with him–except for his complaint about the separation into specialized subjects.)

There are three main points in the rest of his argument, as follows.  First, the modern student is constantly being bombarded with stimulation, from computers, television, handhelds, and so forth.  This can be expected to reduce their level of attention.  But, second, this leads to a ridiculous over-diagnosis of and over-medication for ADHD.  This is supposed to be an epidemic, but it is really a fictitious epidemic.  The problem at base is that kids are made to look at “boring stuff” (Sir Ken actually uses that phrase, to cheers from teenagers on YouTube), which they simply can’t do unless they are “anesthetized” with ADHD drugs.  Third, an important element of intelligence is “divergent thinking,” or the ability to think of different interpretations of questions and produce many different answers.  Schooling, for reasons above stated, gradually kills this ability off, which is much stronger in kindergartners.  Our creativity is educated out of us.

What should we do instead?  At least in this speech, Robinson is annoyingly cryptic.  For instance, he says: “We should be waking them up to what is inside themselves” instead of “anesthetizing them.”  (OK, so how do we do that?  What does this even mean?)  Also, we should get rid of the distinction between academic and non-academic, and between abstract, theoretical, and vocational subjects.  (But…these are reasonably coherent and useful distinctions.  You can’t get rid of the distinction, in practice, without getting one of the things distinguished.  I’m guessing Sir Ken is all for getting rid of the “boring stuff,” which I suppose would include the allegedly soul-killing “academic” stuff.)  Also: “Most great learning happens in groups.”  (Not in my experience.  I associate group learning with precisely the standardization and anti-creativity groupthink that Robinson was bemoaning earlier.  And supposing he’s right and I’m wrong: how, exactly, should we harness groups to make “great learning” happen?)

Sir Ken is a charming character, but he is mostly wrong.  I think his views, far from being especially novel or radical, reflect the mainstream of educational theory.  This pattern of educational theorizing has been going on for generations now, and one of the things that people say again and again, ironically, is how innovative and cutting-edge they are when they reheat such stuff for the umpteenth time.

But, you might ask, if Sir Ken’s theorizing is mostly old hat and mainstream among educational theorists, why aren’t we living out an educational utopia of self-realizing, non-academic, collaborative kids who only go to college when they really want to?  Because, of course, the theory is impractical.  It is poetic justice that somebody who thinks that we should jettison the distinction between theory and practice would be impaled on that very distinction.  Another way to put it, however, is that it is incoherent–in some cases, with itself, and in some cases, with common but often unmentioned beliefs, also known as common sense.

I’m not sure that Sir Ken mentioned any actual academic subjects such as history or mathematics.  But if you are going to castigate academics as “boring stuff,” then let’s get clear: you are opposing history, mathematics, science, classical literature (OK, so that was mentioned), and various other subjects.  In the same vein, when clever would-be educational reformers say that we need to get rid of the orientation around memorizing facts, they rarely specify which facts they think students shouldn’t learn.  As Sir Ken himself says in this talk, he doesn’t want to lower standards–of course not, that’s just obvious.  But if, in the limited amount of time we have to teach our children before they’re all grown up, we start emphasizing vocational subjects, then we’re talking about teaching less history, less mathematics, less science, etc.  De facto, standards regarding the amount of such learning are lowered.  You can’t really argue with this; it’s a hard, cold fact.  The practical consequence of less emphasis on academics, on “boring stuff,” is to de-emphasize teaching knowledge that, it so happens, society in general naturally prizes.  You set yourself up in opposition to school boards and parents who understandably want to raise standards so that U.S. schools remain competitive with other countries.  But, you say, what’s wrong with that?  They are simply mistaken about what our educational goals should be and so, sure, you do oppose them.  Perhaps; but, again, let’s get clear: are you really in favor of reducing the amount of math and history that is learned in schools?  I’m sure there are some people who follow the consequences and say “yes” to this.  But most people are like Sir Ken, who says, smugly and cracking a joke, that he, too, is in favor of raising standards.  He, like so many educational theorists, wants to have his cake and eat it too: he doesn’t want to teach so much “boring stuff” in school.  But he also doesn’t want to lower standards.  He no doubt wants our kids to do just as well in math and science…just without all that studying, which unrealistically requires ADHD kids to pay attention.

Similarly, just as the U.S. is in the process of adopting national education standards–i.e., taking a bold leap toward ever-greater standardization–he states that he firmly opposes standardization.  Well, I do too, which is why I’m homeschooling my boys.  But in the same speech he says that we learn best by learning in groups, collaboratively.  It is hard (not impossible, but hard) to do that very much apart from a school system.  And what is the politically practical way to create a school system without the sort of standardization Robinson dislikes?  I doubt there is any.  The government cannot and should not do anything without being accountable to the people; and how can it be accountable without adopting some reasonable rules and standards against which its performance is measured?  Besides, quite famously, the U.S. educational system still (as of this writing) lacks a national educational curriculum, and in that respect is remarkably less standardized than other countries.  The point is that as long as government is in charge of education, there are natural pressures toward the standardization that Robinson–and so many, many other staunch supporters of public education and collaborative learning–bemoans.  Again, we can’t have our cake and eat it too.  If we want public schools in modern democracies, we must face up to the fact that the quite proper requirements of democratic accountability will make our public school systems greatly standardized.

Not all students should get on the academic track and go to college–opines both Professor Robinson, who earned his Ph.D. from the University of London, and a passel of other highly-degreed academic theorists.  Well, of course this is true, in general.  There are still many jobs that do not (and should not) require a college degree, and there will always be people who, for whatever reasons, won’t be competitive enough either as students or in the job market to be very competitive in getting jobs that do require college degrees.  It would simply be cruel, and economically illiterate, to advise everyone to try to get a college degree.  This should be obvious to anybody who has been on the “front lines” of teaching the sort of college freshmen who quickly drop out because they should never have been admitted in the first place.  So, given that this is a truism (at least under present circumstances), why does Robinson, like so many others, feel it necessary to attack a culture in which many people are getting college degrees?  What, exactly, is the point of doing that?

If I were being very charitable, I’d say that Sir Ken simply hated the thought of people making poor life choices, being overambitious, and paying for it in the form of high debt and dashed hopes.  But, having heard his speech, I think another explanation is more likely.  His contempt for the ladder to college comes in the context of a complaint that pushing education on children “alienates” them.  He says that he was taught as a school boy that by working hard, doing well, and going to college, he’d get a good job.  (It worked out that way for him, now didn’t it?)  But “our kids don’t believe that,” he says.  And yet “our kids” are still going to college in record numbers, so if they don’t believe it, they’re acting irrationally.  Anyway, he seems to be saying that the reason you shouldn’t go to college is simply that the academic track features “boring stuff” which will snuff out your creativity.  Yes, as amazing as it might sound, that is what he says in his speech.  He doesn’t put it in so many words, but that’s essentially what he says.

While Sir Ken and much of his head-nodding audience no doubt think that he, and they, are being wonderfully egalitarian and inclusive when they say and believe such things, really the opposite is true.

In the 21st century, just as much as in the 19th, a solid academic education, a liberal education, which features training in critical thinking and classical literature and all the rest of it, gives us an opportunity to improve our minds.  If you come out against academic education in the sense of liberal education, you really have to explain why you aren’t also coming out against keeping a lot of people relatively stupid.  Sir Ken seems to have forgotten that a good, indeed, academic education changes minds; it liberates them, which is where we get the phrase “liberal education” from.  It needn’t kill creativity, it can just as easily channel it and strengthen it.  But more importantly–because understanding is more important than creativity, I will be so bold as to say–it develops our understanding of ourselves, our society, and the universe we live in.  Having such an understanding does not merely make us much more employable, which it certainly does; and of course being more equal in this respect was indeed the reason for the egalitarian ideal of universal public education. But it also tends to make our minds and our lives so to speak broader or larger. To pretend that liberal education does not have this effect, to dismiss academic education as an artifact of the 19th century, is to ignore precisely the sort of training that made Sir Ken the speaker and writer that he is today.

Robinson would, I think, have a reply to this.  In his speech he says it is wrong to equate “smart” with “academic” and “non-smart” with “non-academic.”  So I seem to be trading on that outdated equation.  This sounds very egalitarian, and especially nice when he says that many people who are brilliant are convinced they are not, merely because they are not “book smart”–a lovely, gracious sentiment.  After all, everybody knows smart and wise people who have relatively little book learning–and people full of book learning who lack wisdom or good sense.  So, sure, that’s true; education has its failures, like any institution, and sometimes it isn’t really necessary at all. But whoever denied these things?  It hardly follows that academic education doesn’t tend to make people smart.  Of course it does; if it didn’t, people wouldn’t value such education.  When people go to school for a long time, and work hard and conscientiously, they tend to become better readers, better writers, better at math, and in general, possessed of better minds, than they had before, or than they would have in the absence of their education.  And this is, of course, ultimately the reason why people get an academic education.  I know it’s rather obvious to say this, but it is, after all, an important bit of common sense that Robinson is ignoring.

Share this post

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed
  • Share this post on Delicious
  • StumbleUpon this post
  • Share this post on Digg
  • Tweet about this post
  • Share this post on Mixx
  • Share this post on Technorati
  • Share this post on Facebook
  • Share this post on NewsVine
  • Share this post on Reddit
  • Share this post on Google
  • Share this post on LinkedIn

About the author

Larry Sanger had written 163 articles for Larry Sanger Blog

I call myself an "Internet Knowledge Organizer." I started Wikipedia.org, Citizendium.org, WatchKnowLearn.org, ReadingBear.org, and Infobitt. I write about education and the Internet from a broadly philosophical point of view.

12 Responses to "On Robinson on Education"
  1. Reply Lezah St Jean May 29, 2011 03:14 am

    Are you familiar with E.D Hirsch Jr’s book Cultural Literacy? (link below) It has been many many years since I read it but the concept is that every American Student should be taught core knowledge in a sequence from Kindergarten to 6th grade and it might have been extended into 8th grade. This should be taught in every public school in America. One of the biggest issues is that many children don’t go to the same school their entire life. Students are migratory.
    Tommy may be taught something in 1st grade at West School, then the following year he transfers to East school and in 2nd grade is retaught the same thing. Essentially skill sets, the 3Rs in particular, should be improving. However he is relearning the same general knowledge things all over again. Tommy becomes bored and misbehaves, what do you think might happen? Medication? Perhaps.
    It works the other way too… Katie might have learnt all about something in 1st and 2nd grade at South School, then she transfers to North School and in 3rd grade they are building on something that the other students had learnt the year prior. Something that Katie had not learnt at South School. Then Katie has a knowledge deficit. She struggles to understand loses confidence and ultimately her grades slip and he may even fail.
    This is a big problem. E.D Hirsch Jr has written a series of book called the Core Knowledge Series. And has co-founded (I believe) the Core Knowledge Foundation. His goal is to implement this Core Knowledge Curriculum into all American Schools. He wants every 1st grader learning the same thing at the same time and so on so that any student can transfer to another school and not have the issues I explained above.
    There is a lot of resistance to this idea… I don’t completely understand all the arguments. But the biggest one is that there are things in the curriculum that are not covered. Fair enough, no curriculum is complete. That is why this is CORE knowledge. This is the bare minimum that students should learn. Everything else should be supplemented to compliment individual school and community diversity.

    http://www.coreknowledge.org/

    http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Literacy-Every-American-Needs/dp/0394758439/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306655643&sr=8-1

  2. Reply Lezah St Jean May 29, 2011 03:42 am

    2 Other things that I detested about public education growing up in Australia was that we were taught in age groups and we were taught to what has been referred to as the lowest common denominator.
    I remember my friends and I, I hung with the ‘gifted’ kids, sitting around saying for about the first 3 months of every school year how bored we were to be learning the same thing that he had been taught the year before. It seems that it was a common thing for teachers to do. They wanted to ensure that every student knew the work before we moved forward. Many students seemed to have forgotten what they had learnt the year before. 6 weeks of summer holidays seemed to do something to them.
    My friends and I, used to theorise that it would be beneficial if we were able to test out, or test ahead at the beginning of each year, in subjects that we excelled at. We imagined how neat it would be if we could scale these subjects in levels. Just like climbing a ladder; individually; rather that being herded in a group.
    For example all students, regardless of age in level 5 math would all be taught algebra et al. Students that were falling behind could drop to level 4 and students that were going ahead could climb to level 6. Though it would never be assumed a student in level 5 math would be in level 5 for reading. That student might be only a level 1 or 2. However they would be in a class with students all on the same level. More time would be spent on lower leveled subjects to round out the students complete academic portfolio. These lower level classes would benefit from lower student teacher ratios and one on one tutoring to help them advance.
    The goal in the end was to have all students reach level 7, the top rung of the ladder before leaving primary school at the age of about 12 or so.

  3. Reply GPC June 1, 2011 11:12 am

    Lezah,

    My view is that we need to move away from group education for many subjects and move more toward self-paced learning. A few schools are already trying to do this in some form. Basically, students work at a computer and learn at their individual level. Teachers are there to help. Students can move on when the master each level.

    It’s like homeschooling but putting it into a school environment. The student isn’t pushed ahead or kept behind. They do what they are capable of doing. This really allows brighter students to move much further ahead. Slower students won’t end up in a situation where the curriculum is way ahead of their ability.

    I’m sure there are probably some downsides to this. But with the demands of globalization we can no longer afford to hold our students back from learning what they are capable of learning, simply to keep everyone at the same level. And we can no longer afford to lose all those slower students who drop out. With a decent level of education there will be a place even for them in our economy.

  4. Reply Larry Sanger Blog » Is college a waste of time? June 5, 2011 11:39 am

    […] I admit this is news to me: a “Thiel Fellowship” has been set up by PayPal founder Peter Thiel, which encourages tech entrepreneurship by under-20-olds with the requirement that the recipients not go to college for two years.  Peter Thiel, as it happens, has B.A. and J.D. degrees from Stanford, so it’s a fair question whether he would have taken his own advice.  I recently had a similar reaction to Ken Robinson, Ph.D. […]

  5. Reply Larry Sanger Blog » Is there a new geek anti-intellectualism? June 6, 2011 16:29 pm

    […] brings us to today.  Recently, Sir Ken Robertson has got a lot of attention by speaking out–inspiringly to some, outrageously to others–saying that K-12 education needs a sea […]

  6. Reply Unkyjar June 7, 2011 19:12 pm

    Based on the content of your arguments I think it is safe to assume that you have only watched the twelve minute truncated RSA Animate version of the Ken Robinson’s speech as opposed the actual hour long lecture he gave to the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts.

    Other than the emphasis on moving away from standardization I don’t believe you really understood his points, but that may be because the RSA animate video was heavily edited.

    I’m be very curious if your viewpoint would change after seeing the full version, and your comments on that. Now he does get off topic at several points in the lecture but I do feel it far clearer than the animate video.

    http://youtu.be/mCbdS4hSa0s

  7. Reply Matières Vivantes » Blog Archive » Les geeks sont-ils anti “intellectuels”? June 18, 2011 09:47 am

    […] est cette vidéo de Ken Robinson, spécialiste de l’éducation, que je découvre (et que Sanger critique) Aux Etats-Unis, cela se traduit aussi par des idées comme quoi l’éducation supérieure […]

  8. Reply Responses to Sir Ken Robinson’s Education Paradigms Video « Scenes From The Battleground July 27, 2012 07:35 am

    […] From co-founder of Wikipedia and education blogger Larry Sanger: On Robinson on Education […]

  9. Reply Bruce Dietrich price December 25, 2014 16:57 pm

    I early on thought that Ken Robinson was wrong on just about everything. I couldn’t help thinking at the same time that he was a self-aware phony. Now I must admit that I didn’t reach these answers by the deep analysis seen in Larry Sanger’s article.

    Rather, I noted that some of Robinson’s videos had quickly gotten more than 5,000,000 views. (That’s huge for intellectual content). Well, there are only 3 million teachers. Somebody’s pushing these videos, and pushing them, and pushing them. I thought to myself: well, Robinson’s message is clearly what the Education Establishment wants everyone to believe now. It’s the Party Line. All of my research shows that our Education Establishment is invariably wrong. So it was a simple deduction that Robinson must be wrong. Birds of a feather can be dismissed together.

    QED: Anybody at odds with the Education Establishment has probably got the correct answers.

    • Reply Bruce Deitrick Price December 25, 2014 16:58 pm

      Sorry, name mis-spelled by my subversive dictation software.

    • Reply Larry Sanger January 6, 2015 15:47 pm

      That’s a pretty cynical approach, isn’t it? I’d like to leave open the possibility that maybe, just maybe, somebody popular, even popular with the education establishment, is getting it right. For example, Starfall.com seems to be pretty popular and well-used, and I think they do a pretty good job.

  10. Reply Larry Sanger Blog » Some unpopular opinions May 18, 2015 23:43 pm

    […] liberate the mind, to make fully competent and responsible free citizens of a free republic. This, contrary to the much-celebrated Sir Ken Robinson, is not “boring stuff.” We’ve got to adopt […]

Leave your response