In the movie, Ken Robinson talks about what education should be. He argues that “creativity is an important as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status.” And he warned that our current education system won’t serve us for the future.

I basically agreed to his idea, that is, it’s important to make much of creativity in education. In his speech, he describes the current situation of not making much of creativity in education, and analyzes why it’s not. As the first analysis, he says “in the current education system, mistakes are the worst thing you can made.” Despite the fact that “if you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original.” As the second analysis, he explains hierarchy of subjects, which is the same around the world. He says subjects such as arts, which is relevant to creativity, is positioned beneath of the hierarchy because it’s regarded less important to meet the needs of industrialism rather than mathematics, language and etc. Actually, I’m sad about such current education system. It’s because we are increasingly homogenized and can hardly cultivate the individuality.

However, I think that it’s difficult to run an education system, which lets children grow their creativity, in reality. It’s just because I can’t come up with a good idea to do so as Ken Robinson does not show any idea in his speech. At least, I am against the idea that we should introduce more and more subjects such as arts and dance to a school program. First reason for that is because I think arts are relevant to creativity, but I don’t think arts are the best, at least better, way to let children grow their creativity. Second reason is because the idea that education without cultivation of creativity won’t serve us in the future seems to me to be made by only looking at the future of developed countries. In my opinion, an education system, which makes much of subjects necessary at the point of whether to meet the needs of industrialism such as mathematics and language, will continue in developing countries. Rather, these subjects are necessary for children there to live because the educational standard there such as literacy rate is not as high as that of developed countries. Without looking at the difference of circumstances between developed countries and developing countries, the gap of the living standard, which is influenced by education very much, between them will be much wider in the future.

As a conclusion, Ken’s argument is interesting and fascinating me. Actually, I’m not satisfied with the current education system, in which creativity is hardly cultivated. However, I think we must be prudent when thinking about introduction of new education system to cultivate creativity at two points, that is, effects of new system and a gap between global north and south.