“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” This is a quote often attributed to Albert Einstein, probably falsely. It doesn’t matter.
I just came across this quote on Facebook the other day, and I don’t think I have ever heard it before. How is that even possible for someone who has been teaching for so many years!? Whoever said it, it’s a great quote. My reaction was visceral and I quickly shared it.
What I said about it on Facebook (which I will share later) was from the heart, coming from many years of deep hurt in my soul (from at least a half century ago); hurt that not only was imposed on me by our monoculture of testing, but continues to inflict the same damage on students today. The big business of APs and testing dominates both the public and private school landscapes. We are “teaching to the test” more than ever, and schools are continuing to cave in to a one-size-fits-all assessment strategy.
Despite the mound of studies attempting to address different learning abilities, styles, and levels of emotional intelligence, we are losing the battle to conformity, resulting in at least some level of self-hatred and depression being suffered by many children, one sad “fish,” one limiting label at a time—ADD, ADHD, APD, LPD; Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, Dyscalculia, Dyspraxia; NLFD, NVLD, and executive functioning, to name a few. (For more information, and for definitions of these you can follow this link: http://www.boldfacenews.com/10-common-learning-disabilities-disorders/ )
I was one of those fish that could not climb a tree back in 1971 when I graduated from high school. As a creative person, many of those labels (if they had existed back then) would have applied to me. I wasn’t a “good” student. I wasn’t a bad one either, but I was sure made to feel like a bad one. It wasn’t all the “system’s” fault, and I can certainly shoulder some of the blame myself; nevertheless, it is true that the standards were largely aimed at just one kind of learner. You know. The kind that can tolerate sitting at a desk all day and can make it through long boring lectures and tests. Maybe you were one of them, and if you were, that’s ok!
These days most teachers understand the importance of recognizing and working with different learning styles; but I don’t know of any teachers who don’t feel pressured to teach to the test. Under this pressure, they run out of time for using true inquiry-based methods, tapping imaginations, inspiring student ownership of the educational process, and cross pollinating their amazing ideas with other subject areas. The ACT, the SAT, midterms, finals, and APs are always right around the corner, and that is where the importance is placed: NOT on really learning anything.
Other kinds of learners--builders, makers, inventors, and artists--quickly learn that there are many ways to solve a problem, and know that sometimes there is more than just one answer to a question. They are typically not afraid to take risks or even to fail in order to get ahead. They know that the process is as valuable as the product--but try telling that to your parents and to college admissions advisors when you don’t do well on a multiple choice test. If you are really creative, you might fill in the bubbles by design and not even read the questions because you are so bored and/or frustrated. (I did that once in 8th grade; I don’t recommend it.)
Around 2000, when ADD was becoming front-page news, I decided to learn more about it. Sure enough, going down a list of typical behaviors, it seemed like I checked off quite a few, if not most of them! Dang, I’ve got to look into this! I thought. After all, I was having a terrible time trying to teach myself to read music at the time, something I had been wanting to do my whole life. Formal music skills were so hard for me to focus on! So I made an appointment with a shrink and he agreed that I might have ADD (as it turns out, many creative people do), but just to be certain he prescribed some medication. Essentially it was a type of amphetamine. He said “If it doesn’t make you feel nervous, and if in fact, if it calms you down, well then, you may have ADD.”
Ok, let’s go for it! I thought. I waited a few weeks until summer break before giving it a try, when my wife, our two boys and I were heading off to Paris to run a college study abroad program. She taught a literature class and I helped by giving walking tours around Paris and leading an annual tour of the Rodin Museum. While she was teaching and while our boys attended a bilingual summer camp, I had some quiet time to concentrate on my music. What could be a better time for me to see if the medicine might be helpful in learning to read music, right?
Initially I didn’t feel any noticeable difference upon taking the medication. I was not nervous and I did not notice any negative side effects. Ok that’s good. I thought. I guess.. So I continued to take the prescribed dose. However, one morning before heading off to teach her class, my wife reminded me that I needed to prepare my lecture and tour of the Rodin Museum for the following day. I dutifully prepared all afternoon, reviewed my notes from previous years, and reread parts of a wonderful biography on Rodin.
Later that day when she returned from class, she asked me if I would like to run my talk by her. I did so, masterfully I thought, reciting names, dates, events and so on, but after about a half hour she looked at me quizzically and said, “What’s wrong with you?!” “Nothing, I feel fine--what do you mean?” I replied. She said I wasn’t making any of the wonderful connections and leaps between Rodin’s time and our times, between current events and artworks, past and present, and so on, as I always had. My performance was dry and impersonal. I was just reciting a list of facts--dates, major exhibitions, etc. In other words I was not my usual creative, lively, enthusiastic self. I was just reciting information one factoid at a time as if I were reading the news, and was unable to make interesting connections.
Wow!
Take from this story what you will, but I will say, for myself, I decided then and there that I would rather be “me” any day, than be in a prescription drug-induced state of mind that narrowed my field of vision and suppressed my joie de vivre, and my enthusiasm for the subject at hand.
During 20 years of teaching, I have observed more and more students come into my art class who have lost that spark..the spark of creativity. Often I find out later that they are being medicated to treat one learning “disability” or another. Of course in some cases** this is an appropriate and helpful way to help some students, but at this point, I can almost tell you without any prior knowledge of the student’s medical history which ones are “taking something” for some kind of anxiety or learning disorder. Their expressions are often flat. They seem almost shell shocked at times—and I worry about them. Typically, they are not eager to explore on their own, and they prefer to be told what to do in a step-by-step manner rather than use their imaginations.
Why is this happening? Well, it is so that these students can become just what their well-meaning parents and certain school officials want them to be. “Good” students. Ready for college. And most of them will be. The medicine works! They sit still, and they do what they are told. But will they ever learn to be themselves? Will they ever really know their true talents?
One could make the case that by medicating our children so that they can withstand the barrage of testing and the pressure they are under in traditional classrooms, we will be able to avoid them having problems of low self-esteem due to poor grades. I suppose that is true, but at what expense? And is it really necessary? That is all that I am asking. There are many other forms of assessment that are more holistic than an SAT--and, I would add, more fair, and more revealing of students’ true abilities as well.
Portfolio assessment is at the top on my list, and it can be combined with other forms of testing. Portfolios can demonstrate acquired skills in any subject area, and can level the playing field for different types of learners, the ones like me, allowing every kind of student to shine somewhere. And most students will, if just given the chance!
Sadly, I have known top-notch students, even valedictorians, who have been accepted into the very finest colleges; yet they have absolutely no artistic/creative literacy, including knowledge of art history. I can assure you that nobody tried to bust their self esteem because they are unable to name an artist, nor draw a straight line, nor learn how to use a tape measure!
“Easy Rider” 1975, welded mufflers, by Stephen Rueckert, when I was a senior in high school.
It is more than just an oversight when a school doesn’t provide a balanced curriculum in the arts. Both parents and students will literally be shortchanged. Every head of school will say art is important, but not very many are able to articulate why it is important-- or even worse, care why it is important, since it is not considered critical to college admissions. To be honest, there has not been much interest in recognizing that art is as intellectual as it is physical and spiritual, practically since the Renaissance! Some S.T.E.A.M schools (science, technology, engineering, art* and math) are the exception to the rule, but it is an uphill battle even for them—unless there is strong and dedicated leadership. Unfortunately, many administrators I have known regard art as a “feel good” subject, “fluff,” or “vocational.” They haven’t even taken the time to wonder why it “feels good,” or how it has the potential to be a gateway into every subject across the curriculum. The emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and physical components involved in the production of art are essential ingredients in meeting the needs of a well-rounded student.
One of the problems is that portfolio assessment takes time, and time is money, and higher education is big business. But teaching to the test takes time as well. The fundamental question here is, are we really educating our students or not? Where are our priorities? Our students are our future. Do we really want them to have all the creativity and emotional intelligence smashed out of them before they even begin their lives? Don’t we need them to have the ability to think creatively as they face the difficult problems that lie before all of us?
If only we could encourage all students, and help them find what makes them special (because they all are). If only we could help them become themselves without making them feel stupid or destroying their self-esteem. It’s a terrible thing to do to a child: it took me years for me to get over it.
And now for the response I shared on Facebook following the quote attributed to Albert Einstein, “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
I said:
“This is so true. And in these days..when kids don’t fit the mold, rather than allow them to be themselves (often artistic, creative, mechanical, collaborative, kinetic) we medicate them, label them forever and let them sleepwalk into the rest of their lives.”
I’m sure there’s a better way. I would love to hear your thoughts. Click here: contact
* Arts and Humanities
**Please note: I have no expertise in the treatment of any medical condition. My observations are personal and anecdotal. Just as I believe there should be no one-size-fits-all solution to teaching students, I am sure there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to their academic challenges. I know that for some kids these treatments can be a life saver! What I am really advocating is for us to find more creative, more inclusive ways to teach and assess.
For more on this subject:
Temple Grandin
The World Needs All Kinds Of Minds
I am not alone.. Consider this: https://www.ted.com/talks/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare