Do Schools Kill Creativity - response

After our discussion on 9/29 regarding curriculum and instruction, as well as viewing the video “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” I am left thinking about how schools approach curriculum and its effects on instruction. As new teachers, we are bound to the curriculum, as we are so nervous about the actual job of teaching that we need to feel secure about something. But, as we get more adept at instruction, we start to move away from the curriculum. In fact, as we become better teachers, the curriculum becomes secondary to what we do every day in the classroom. But, while watching the “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” video, I am struck by what instruction and the daily grind of the classroom can do to kids. It makes one reassess what they say to students every day, especially in light of all of the different types of curriculums (as we discussed) that exist on so many levels within a classroom. It makes one second guess the types of attitudes we exude on any different day within the classroom. So, even if I am having an “off” day, i.e. the server goes down, I am tired, etc, all of these become part of the experience of being in my classroom and having me as a teacher. Then, what if I say the wrong thing to a student, and they are affected in ways I cannot begin to imagine? This boils it down to the awesome responsibilities teachers have. I think this is one thing that Sir Ken Robinson did not touch upon – with all due respect, that could have been another lecture. In a world of test scores and cut funding, it’s important to realize that everything is curricular, and one curricular choice made by a teacher has longer reaching results than one could realize. So, the question can become, do TEACHERS kill creativity?

TIE 536: Attitudes and Technology Integration

What makes a district reach full or appropriate technology integration? A lot of good points were made during the discussion on Monday night – context of technology (can we really expect that a poorer district can get the technology that a richer district might?) and time (how long do we expect districts to take to integrate technology?) It seems to me that technology integration looks different for each district – and it may be reasonable to presume that districts have different ideas of what technology integration looks like for them. A major component of technology integration that I believe is critical is attitude. For technology integration to work on any level, a district must decide that technology is a priority and work to make it happen for faculty and staff. But, as a citizen who pays taxes in a town, it must be incredibly difficult to promote technology expenditures when your tax base may not understand why the purchase or the change may happen. It seems as though parents want change and promote the idea of technology, but sometimes it seems as though when it comes to specific purchases or ideas, the reality is much more difficult than the projected results. It is also somewhat disconcerting that in an election year, we are still discussing what books should be read or taken out of libraries, and looking at emerging technology, we are and continued to be barraged by different opinions. We could possibly face a future where technology is banned because of the ideas it espouses – look at the controversy surrounding cloning. It is also valuable to note that, while our government promotes technology in the schools, the same budgets that contribute to this technology are being cut to almost nothing. Thus, when I think about technology integration, one major issue that I find is that attitude is a huge barrier to successful technology integration. Therefore, even if the poorest district in the world decides that getting one computer in each classroom is a technology goal, so many people (parents, teachers or administrators, even the government) can impact how successful that district is. It takes the effort of so many people to make technology integration successful, and key behind that effort is the belief that technology is important to learn and integrate into daily living. And much like the arts in school, how can you quantify that? Obviously, statistics show that 21st century jobs require 21st century skills, but in order to make integration work, we must look at the process as organic, as daily living and technology grow into each other. Is it valuable for a student to know what an iPod does – sure, because if they know how to use the iPod and do not have a fear of technology, that same student may be the one using a computer to compose a symphony.