Analysis Of Do Schools Kill Creativity In Education

Do Schools Kill Creativity? - Structural Functionalist I found that Sir Ken Robinson 's presentation on the lack of support given to promote creativity in public education can be interpreted in the structural functionalist perspective. I believe this because what Sir Robinson seems to describe is an imbalance in education where we value and teach mathematics and english far more than we do the arts. Sir Ken Robinson explains how the public education system is "educating people out of their creative capacities" and mistakes become stigmatized. He continues and points out that the same hierarchy of subjects exists around the world with mathematics and english at the top and the arts at the bottom. Through this system, Robinson concludes that

Robinson explains how during industrialism society required an increase in mathematical and scientific studies and the education system responded. This is an example of an instance where the education system and society were in balance. However, during the Space Race which occurred during the late 1950s to 1970, the United States and the Soviet Union competed over several technological achievements, the most famous being the control over space. During this time, American legislation pushed a greater emphasis on mathematics and physical sciences through the National Defense Education Act of 1958 which increased funding for these goals. While Robinson agrees that maths and science are important, the imbalance today has grown larger due to budget cuts and the lack of funding to the arts. Secondly, Robinson makes a good point about the over-diagnosis of ADHD. In this presentation and another called "Changing Education Paradigms" he mentions ADHD and how it has been overused to treat children who may not need it. In this presentation, Robinson describes a woman who would have likely been diagnosed with ADHD if she had been a child today but instead became a world famous dancer, not because she couldn 't pay attention, but because she was a better learner and thinker when she was on her

The textbook was not dry like other textbooks are, and while the quizzes were challenging, I believe they fully assessed my knowledge of the chapters. The Working Poor by David Shipler was an interesting book and was incredibly important to fully understanding poverty in America and how the "working poor" live their lives. The discussion boards required me to think more critically about the chapters which I think was important. However, my personal opinion was that an equivalent could have been reached by simply answering the prompts directly to the professor instead of a discussion board and require additional posts to comment on other students ' work. Although, I do understand that this allows other students to hear other perspectives and possibly give them a better understanding of sociology. Overall this course was enjoyable and beneficial to both my college experience and my experiences in