Isn't it a *bit* unfair to blame the school for not being able to pick up on Paul McCartney's musical talent as a kid in a class of roundabout 30 students, in a subject that's not meant to foster child prodigys but to get everyone to get a feel for music and to stimulate their artistic sides by playing instruments, sing and create sounds? Seriously, this talker seems to believe that the arts class should be some sort of talent show for youngsters.
If McCartney hadn't gone to those classes, he might never have had the inclination to play in a band. Who can say for certain what made him go into music? I can tell you this though, the school bloody well didn't supress or ignore him by "not spotting anything".
That music teacher, who "had half the Beatles in his class", most likely had well over a hundred students a year. He/she would have had a strict curriculum stating that all the children would have to preform certain things before each school year was out, like for instance sing a song and play an instrument etc. That's what the music class is for, not spot the most musically gifted students and make popstars of them! And let's not overlook that neither McCartney nor Harrison at that time might've had their musical talent developed to any degree at all.

No, from my perspective it seems as if this talker needs to bring his expectations of teachers to the reality-based world and maybe try teaching gradeschool himself, or just stop talking to think for a second, before creating impossible demands like that.

^ i would think the part about the beatles was just a humorous anecdote, not the purpose of the talk.

*must hear one thing and fixate fixate fixate gahhhh*



i want to hear more about the crisis of human dysfunction. this is very interesting and personal.

>> ^Kreegath:
Isn't it a bit unfair to blame the school for not being able to pick up on Paul McCartney's musical talent as a kid in a class of roundabout 30 students

His argument seems to be that this status quo that you mention is a problem. That we don't have a mechanism for developing human potential. I don't think he is attacking the tpeople working at the schools, more the conditions which don't allow the teacher to find or develop talent.

Now at the risk of getting my head chopped off I would like to note that I would not consider the early Beatles to be clearly musical geniuses. And I would go farther and argue that McCartney is not exceptionally musically talented.

The point is more that: the method used in school fails to help talent, and focuses effort on forcing the lower half upto the mediocre standard.

The trouble makers get all the attention, and those who could be great are consistently missed and have to make their own path.

But lets be honest - the beetles hated their music class because they wanted to rock and roll, and the school was teaching classical music. Same as schools still focus on teaching "choirs" but don't teach great singers. Art's are subjective - it's not a fair topic because it has fashions/styles - Mathematics doesnt.

^I totally agree, both from my own experience and from observing the state of the education system in my country... they've received tons more money over the last decade, but all of it has gone into special ed classes, and none of it to normal pupils, and especially none to gifted children.

Thus they haven't improved the general education level at all, but only made sure "something is being done" for special needs children, who btw haven't shown any improvement either.

In the case of the Beatles, who's to say the school McCartney and Harrison went to didn't foster their musical creativity? This guy has unrealistic expectations of a school's goals and what it should accomplish with its education. I'd go as far as to say they're elitist at best.

I can tell you from my own experience working at schools that the myth of "troublemakers get all the attention" is flat out wrong. Again from my experience. The same goes for "those who could be great" being consistently missed, what does that even mean? There's nothing speaking for that statement being in the least true, but even if a teacher doesn't abandon his class to go foster a child prodigy's ego, it won't mean that the child prodigy would suddenly lose its gift. There's this little thing called parents who also have a responsibility to help raise and educate their children. But then again I don't really understand what the whole "those who could be great" thing means, or why that should be the case.
Try giving the teachers classes of fewer than 30 students and fewer classes each semester aswell as the time and funding they desperately need, and you'll see the level of educational standards raised significantly. Because most teacher working full-time have over a hundred different students to teach each semester, all with different levels of knowledge and various abilities to learn. That means it's simply impossible to give every child full attention all the time. It would be wonderful if each student could get all the help they wanted at every moment of the day, but for a democracy to actually function properly you need citizens who can make informed decisions and not just decisions, which is why you can't just discard the numbskulls and focus on the gifted ones.
The guy in the video kept whining over that McCartney wasn't "discovered" in school as if the school itself should've somehow made sure he went and became a Beetle. That shows he fundamentally misunderstood what the goals of the school were. It also shows he was completely oblivious to the fact that McCartney went into music in a community which at the time was heavily biased against the arts, which very well could be attributed to him being subjected to music in school.

Also, there are more than one method used in schools, not only between countries but also between educational systems. But none of them ignores gifted students in favour of troubled ones. Generally, they all subscribe to the idea that we shouldn't actively work to create an educational class system but instead give all children the opportunity for an equal education. That does not mean they're in any way inhibited to go beyond the basic education, in school or after, but instead of ignoring the struggling children there's this crazy idea of leveling the playing field and raising the bar not for a select few but for everyone.
One of the most successful educational forms shown in preschool and gradeschool is with mixed classes of grades 1-3, 4-6 and 7-9, where the students aid the teacher by helping out in teaching each other.

Almost thought it was a dube of

http://www.videosift.com/video/Do-Schools-Today-Kill-Creativity-Sir-Ken-Robinson-TED

Had to go find it though

^Kreegath

You must have worked at a very different school than every one I ever went to. The things I said re. troubled students hogging all the resources is very much true for my country's education system. My mother is a special ed teacher, and everything she's told me about it corroborates my opinion that special ed is an economic black hole.

Besides, how can you say equality is more important than maximization of each individual's potential? What intrinsic value does it have to make everyone average?

And I also have to say that I disagree with talented students "not being in any way inhibited" from developing their talents, by being forced to go to school. They are very much inhibited, for example by your next point, that they are forced to become assistant teachers from an early age.

Just giving a student more attention doesn't automatically mean they're doing better and everyone else doing worse, and it doesn't automatically lead to the better students somehow missing out or getting held back. There's nothing inhibiting students from maximizing their potential, whatever that means. Making sure everyone passes the bar and gets a sound education is what school is about, not forcing everyone to know the same things regardless of their ability to learn. It's about giving everyone as similar an education as possible, which practically means as much personal freedom to pursue ones own goals.
Of course it would be better if there were more teachers and smaller classes. But the fact of the matter is that most kids who do well in school are doing well because they have their parents' and/or private tutors involved in their education, helping out at home and being active in the child's upbringing. You'd be surprised how even the playingfield is when it comes to talent.

There's simply no validity to the saying that putting extra effort in helping the students who have a harder time learning leads to the students having an easier time learning would somehow lose part of their intelligence or are robbed of education. To be more precise: what is it those gifted students are missing out on? Because I still don't really understand what it would mean for a school to "maximize each individual's potential". As you know, school is for teaching kids broad, basic, general and useful information, to give them an understanding of the world and their surroundings and get them in an environment where they get to interact and cooperate with others. In that regard there is no such thing as lowering the bar when it comes to making an effort to get as many kids as possible to pass. In that regard there is only teaching as many as possible what they need to learn, and actually have them learn it. In geography they need to know what continents are located where, major countries and capital cities etc. In music they need to have tried playing a couple of instruments, sung a couple of songs and learned the basics of music creation. By "maximizing their potential", would that mean making them memorize all countries and cities, make them compose music and become proficient in several instruments?
This doesn't mean that because one kid is done with its calculus and another isn't, that the first will sit on its behind until the second is done aswell. That's a ridiculus proposition and one which we all know isn't how schools work. There's advanced calculus, trigonometry and a host of other things for them to learn. But there are base skills that needs to be known by a student,
things that have been agreed upon by society that a student has to have a grasp of. That's why students struggling to learn them need to get extra help, not because they're raising hell and causing a ruckus.

I'd like to point you to a form of education called the "Montessori method", which has shown great potential and results thus far in preschools and gradeschools, and where the students are encouraged to learn by themselves by teachers changing the dynamics of the classroom aswell as have them take on a different role from the standard lecturer. It's shown that children can not only learn faster and more qualitatively by doing, but they're also improving their own knowledge by helping their friends and classmates learn. Your statement about forcing students to become assistant teachers is not only flat out wrong, it shows a lack of understanding of the subject.

There's also university, where people generally go to maximize their potential. That's where they narrow down their education to one or a couple of fields, and develop their personal interests and/or potential into a profession and hopefully a career.

^ Well I only ever tried school from the pupil's perspective, and I've seen nothing to disprove my point about kids being "forced to be average". i guess by now it's fairly obvious that I didn't have the greatest time in K-12, education-wise. I went to small schools with generally no money and deeply incompetent teachers.
And I did have to sit on my behind, doing nothing, most of the time, when I wasn't helping my classmates. I was not allowed to do other stuff after I'd done the required work, whenever I put my hand up i was ignored, because "everyone else should have a chance as well". and i couldn't leave. at least i got pretty good at drawing.

It seems the demands fit into a very narrow scale, and any work of better quality than "passed" was ignored or actively discouraged.

My point about "maximising potential" is not about harassing the students and teaching them countries' capitals by rote, that's a straw man. it's about expanding the scale of demands, so extraordinary effort is rewarded and encouraged, instead of ignored "because the strong kids will be OK, we won't lose them even if we neglect them a bit".

Fuck the level playing field.