I agree with the statement presented by Natalie Hopkinson that what has been perceived as education reforms is instead a great disservice to the mind of a child. The education system has been designed to suit the “A” even when all the student can do is recite the academic literature as it is and reproduce in examinations without questioning the validity of the very material presented to them. The system has been meant to work against any child who tries to critique information presented to them yet that is the best way to gain knowledge. As Natalie puts it “there is no creativity, all one needs to know is how to eliminate three out of four bubbles” which is an unfortunate situation in any academic system. Furthermore, the system has been designed to send into oblivion those that don’t move as fast as what the academic “reforms” desire. The students are only presented with two options which is either pass or fail. The journey to the two choices has always been a controversy as no one cares about the means but only the results. I also agree to the sentiments by Natalie owing to the role that a teacher has played for a long time in this so called reforms. The system has made it almost obvious that the teacher is the sole source of knowledge and all the learner needs to do is listen and reproduce. In most cases, there is no chance for a leaner to critique the information passed by a teacher even through sober engagements. At the end of the day, the assessment is much based on what the teacher expects more than what the leaner thinks is right. Absolutely absurd!
Step Two
What was the purpose of Robinson’s speech?
The purpose of Robison’s speech was to challenge the way the children are being educated using the US system. He challenges the system and advocates for radical changes that will cater for the diversity among learners which is natural, develop the natural curiosity of the learners as well as develop their inherent creativity (Robinson, 2013). He argues against the current education policies with a mention of “no child left behind” which according to him has been an undoing.
What is at least one inference you can make?
One inference I can make from the video is that even though there are good things going on in the U.S education system, a lot still needs to be changed especially in regards to the mechanization of the system which should rather be based on human approaches.
What is the key concept in this speech?
The key concept in the speech is that students have the potential to flourish if given right conditions. Unfortunately, the “No child left behind” has been a total failure as it has left more American kids out of school (Robinson, 2013). The program is inconsiderate of natural diversity of the child, curiosity as well as creativity. There is need for the curriculum to be reformed to accommodate the different talents of children. The teacher should also be meant to facilitate learning through engagement and stimulating ideas.
What is at least one assumption Robinson makes?
The one assumption that Robinson makes in his speech is success in education may not be about money or resources but rather opportunities given to the child.
Who may have a different point of view from this video? Explain.
Proponents and advocates of “No child left behind” will definitely have different opinions from what Sir. Robinson has presented in his speech. According to proponents of the program, there has been equality and equal opportunities for any American child to be given a descent education.
What is at least one implication for this video – especially related to underachieving students?
For underachieving students, this video will act as a motivation to them. The video is an indication to them that their success could be measured in another dimension. To them, the speech is an indication that they could be subjected to unfair system which doesn’t consider their best areas. Such students may opt to claim for their rightful position in the academic society through their talents or any evaluation where they deem better positioned. Probably, focus is too much on the STEM areas which they could not be best.
Explain one major difference between the United States and Finland as discussed in the video.
While there is standardized testing in the US system, Finland doesn’t almost have standardized testing and teachers are given a lot freedom to focus on certain teaching areas as per the interest, ability and talents of a learner. This is unlike in the US where learning has to follow a specific curriculum after which a standardized test has to be undertaken. The end result is that while the US has witnessed high rates of learners dropping out of school, such cases are almost non-existent in Finland. The Finnish teachers have fluidity as well as discretion since the education system is devolved to the level of the school unlike in the US where it is controlled by the State.
How can you connect to what Robinson said here and what was discussed in Chapter 14 about the teaching profession?
Robinson states in his speech that a teacher is the lifeblood of the success of any school. The profession itself is meant to be based on creativity and not on delivery. A great teacher is supposed to mentor, provoke, engage as well as stimulate the thinking of a learner. All these attributes is what we learned in chapter 14. Therefore there is a clear relationship between what we learnt and what Sir. Robinson brings out in his speech especially in regards to the role of a teacher.
