What it takes to be a good teacher, Ken Robinson

A prende most huntos, an educational project for a better life. Ken Robinson. This educator writer and communicator is a world leader in pedagogy. Robinson believes a profound transformation of the current education system is needed and maintains that the role of teachers is decisive. He argues that it's difficult to overstate the importance of teachers in your life and adds it's a multifaceted profession, one of the most demanding jobs a person can have. As opposed to examinations and subject hierarchies, he defends creativity as one of the most important skills that schools should nurture. It's the essence of what it means to be human, he states. That was it. Thank you. We're done. Lovely to be here. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to speak in English, because I don't speak Spanish. My interest in education dates back to when I was at school myself. I wasn't planning when I was at school to get involved in education. I wasn't planning anything when I was at school. Can I ask you how many of you are doing now what you thought you'd be doing when you were in high school? No, one or two. I'll ask you about that in a minute. You see, most people have no idea. And even if they have an idea at school, it doesn't work out that way. I mean, you may think, well, I definitely want to be a writer or a lawyer or a technician or a chef or whatever you want. You may have this idea at school and some of you may go on to do that. But even if you're doing what you wanted to do and it's a minority people, you still can't plan the life you have actually had. This is a really crucial point to me, because every human life is unique and unrepeatable. And every human life is improvised. Our lives are a constant process of creative decisions and improvisation. So when I was at school, I didn't know what I was going to do. I had no real idea. I was a member of a large family. I have five brothers and a sister. One of my brothers is here, John, we're traveling together. And at the age of four, we grew up right next door to Everton's football ground. There are two soccer grounds, football grounds in Liverpool, Everton and Liverpool. And we grew up right next to the ground. And my father thought that I was going to be a soccer player at by the age of four, because he'd been one and I was very fit and agile and apparently had a kind of precocious talent. It was a bit like Ronaldo. It's a common comparison. Common comparison. But in the 1950s, there was an epidemic of polio, which was in Europe and in America. And I got it at the age of four. So I was in hospital for about a year. And that was the end of my father's ambitions for me to be a football player. So when I went to a school for kids who were handicapped, and then I remember there were two people who kind of crossed my path. One of them was a fantastic man called Charles Stratford, who came into our school one day. There were only about ten of us in the room at the time. I was ten. And this man came in, he was visiting the school, and he talked to me and then a few other people. And then he went and spoke to the teacher. And then a little while later, I was asked to go and see the head teacher of the school, who I'd only ever spoken to once. And this man was sitting there with him. It turned out that he was the inspector for Liverpool for special education. And he'd spoken to me and he thought he saw something in me that interested him. So I was given a series of tests at the school. I now know that they were IQ tests. And I was moved up a few classes. And Charles Stratford became a friend of our family, a really, and a patron of me. We're a big working class family. And I got into hands of another teacher called Miss York, who was very demanding. Because I work with her, I passed the public examination to go into the ordinary schools, through the grammar schools. And I was on my way at that point. I was the first person from that school ever to pass what was called the 11-plus to go into mainstream education. And it was because two people saw something in me and demanded it of me that I should develop it. And then I went into a regular school and I went on to into education. And I did a lot of work in English and theatre. But I still didn't know what I wanted to do. But I'd always been struck by the fact that people of all ages have many more abilities and possibilities than routine education ever allows them to discover. All children are born with immense capacities. But I always feel that the human talents are like their natural resources. They're buried beneath the surface. You have to discover them and you may never discover them. I mean, you all have talents you're probably not even aware of and you may never discover them for lack of opportunity. I mean, Frick's I think of linguistics as a good example. Most children learn to speak in the first few years of their lives. And interestingly, nobody teaches them how to do it. If you're a parent, you know that. You did not teach your child. How many of you have got children? Okay. Well, you know, if you've got children and they, in the first few years, they start to speak. Do they not? But you don't teach them. Not in the sense that we think of it. You don't sit them down at the age of two and say, "We need to talk." Or more specifically, you do. And this is how this works. They just take it in. How many of you speak two languages? Three. Four. That's pretty good. But I think that's what happens. If you learn a couple of languages when you're growing up, your facility continues. At most people, if they're exposed to three or four languages in their childhood, we'll just learn them. You don't have to be linguistically gifted to learn several languages if you learn them as a child. You just have to be a human being. And we all have that capacity. But most of us end up speaking one or two. Or if you're English, one. I try to speak French in France and people just stop me. Don't do that. It's. at horrible. Stick with English. You can do that. But it's the same with musical instruments. If you're exposed to music in early age, you'll learn instruments. If you're exposed to design, if you're encouraged to dance, if you're encouraged to build. We all have a vast array of talents. It's about whether or not we identify them and then cultivate the skills that are necessary for them. And I've always felt this. From a very early age, I felt it about my peer group at school. I mean, in a half-form sort of way. And then I got involved in college in theatre. And I always thought theatre was very powerful way of getting people to connect, communicate, and explore their relationships with each other. Theatre is the art form of human behaviour. And in theatre, the questions people ask are not what you think about this much, but what do you do in these circumstances? How do you feel? How do you act? How do you behave? What does it mean for your relationship with people and the actions that result? And it interests me that this was not being used very widely in schools, despite the fact it was clearly very important as a way of connecting and learning. So I kind of wandered into the things I do, but it was always driven by a belief that people had more talent that was being un-cultivated than they knew. And I knew if my person experienced, that's the point. And the more I got into it, the more outraged I became by it. For me, this is a human rights matter. You know, that we all have one life that we know of. And it's relatively short in the cosmic scheme of things. And very many people spend their lives not feeling very fulfilled or feeling purposeful, or feeling they've really discovered what they are authentically capable of achieving. And this is important because this relationship between nature and nurture is highly dynamic. And one of the things that I do is, of the process on which we depend for cultivating our natural sensibilities and talents is education. So I began with an interest, particularly in an art form, and I got quite involved in thinking about it. But then it seemed to be the whole array of disciplines and schools needed to benefit this way. And then laterally, I became interested in the idea of creativity. And the reason for that is that there are very few things that set us apart from life on Earth. And I think we make far too much of the differences. But something does, clearly, other species don't behave as we do. We behave as they do, very often. But there are things we do that they don't seem capable of. I mean, they don't come out and sit in theaters surrounded by cameras. They don't work close that somebody else had designed or that they've made. They don't go into cuisine in quite the way we do. They don't speak language. They don't seem to have theories. They don't have value systems. They don't form competing cultures. They don't build economies. They don't build great civilizations. We do. But in every other respect, we're just like them. We're mortal. We're fragile. Dependent on the planet and what it gives us. But what is this thing? And to me, it's captured by the idea of heartily by the idea of creativity. We have powerful imaginations. And when we harness our imaginations to practical purposes, we create virtual worlds that we live in. So to me, the concept of creativity in the practice strikes right at the heart of what is being human being. And it's me increasingly important that we cultivate these capacities in our education systems, which have long neglected them because of our common humanity. And also because we have now, through these powers, accidentally created all kinds of challenges to ourselves, which are existential in character. And to me, there's nothing bleaker than listening to political debates about improving standards and schools and doing more testing and having more examinations. And when the great agenda that we face as human beings is being left untouched by most of our education systems. So the more I've got into education, the more interest I've become-- not just in the theory, but the practice of it. So when I showed a bit, 10 or a few years ago, to give a talk, it was kind of a long background to it. And that particular talk, if some of you may have seen it, was in 2006. And it's been seen now-- well, it's been viewed online about 53 million times. It's a 7 million-- 57-- well, I was up all night doing this. So it's a 57. It's a 57. But it gets shown to groups. So it's probably some multiple of that. And I think the reason it's taken off is because I think people recognize there is a common sense to it. And it's true. And the other thing is it's been seen in 150 countries, which is the important thing. It's not just a product of a particular cultural perspective. So in short, like most of us, I have created my life. I didn't plan it out. I've tried to control it. I've tried to bring some sense of purpose to it. But there have been some guiding principles. One of them is a belief in the fundamental goodness of humanity. One of them is a sense of our abundance as people and things we're capable of. And the third is how vital it is that our public institutions cultivate these talents for ourselves and for the common good. The thing-- that's what I just want to say about this. Is that I'm very conscious in all the work I do-- that these debates have been continuous. One of the most important educators in our recent history is Maria Montessori. And many of the things that she talked about in early years education, but she's an example of somebody who wrestled with these issues in the very difficult circumstances of working class children and developed a series of practices which are resonant with the natural rhythms of human growth and development. She's not the only one. The whole progressive movement was based on the ideas of trying to address the whole child and create conditions for growth and development. And this was true in the kindergarten movement, free bull, not just Montessori, and the rest. John Dewey in the 19th century wrote a great deal about education and personal development. He also wrote a lot about democracy. And he once said that democracy has to be rediscovered by each new generation. It's a very important observation that to me, that we all of us tend to suffer from a kind of cultural amnesia. And we have debates as if they'd never happened before. It's like my kids believe that the millennials discovered sex. You know? When I know that the boomers discovered it, you know, I was there. That we had. You know? I lived, by the way, through the sexual revolution of the 1960s, as you can see. And. I missed it, actually. I didn't go out that weekend. But I could see there was something different. On Monday when I went to work. But my parents, they claimed to have invented it too. So who knows? Who knows who? It's sex. But a lot of these core principles of what it is to live a good life, how democracies work, how people need to become engaged in not just their own lives, but in the common good. These go right back to ancient times, to the beginning of our civilizations. But each generation has to rediscover them. It's a bit harder to discover them these days because we're so distracted by everything else that's going on. But I look at what's happening in the United States just now. You know, the country that proclaims itself as the leader of democratic principles. Well, I lived there for 17 years. I can tell you, this is a bit of an exaggeration. And there's never to me been a more important time to engage properly with the core purposes of education. I mean, there are four, I think. Education has economic purposes. It has social purposes. It has cultural purposes. And it has personal purposes. And for that, we need an expansive conception of how education works and we need to recognize that none of that will happen if we don't invest fully and properly and resolutely in the training developed to support of teachers on whom this whole enterprise depends. So to me, these issues aren't becoming less important. They're becoming more important as we go on. Any thoughts, comments, observations, questions? And if you've seen a more powerful picture of your life? You know, hello, Laura. Did you all understand that? Well, I mentioned a couple of the teachers I had. It's hard to exaggerate the importance of teachers in your life. I mean, teachers show up. It's one of the most demanding jobs, I think anybody can do. In a good way. But it's so multi-layered. And it really has always annoyed me that people who don't work in education find easy ways to be critical of how teachers do their job. And if you're faced with 20 or 30 or more lives for 40 minutes or an hour, and then they go, then you have another lock. It ends if you're in elementary or high schools, but then you have another group come through. These are all people living lives of hope and expectation, but complex lives. They're bringing all the agendas from home, from the street, from the culture around them, into the classroom. This is just a moment that you're sharing with them. So to be a good teacher, it involves all kinds of things. One of them is clearly you need to know the material. I say that. You don't always need to know it. Depends what it is you're doing. Years ago, I did an event in Vancouver. It was a piece summit. It was called the Vancouver piece summit. I know the guest of honor was the Dalai Lama. So I was hosting the opening session. And there were, I think, 10 on the panel, including the Dalai Lama, who was sitting on a throne. I requested a throne today. It's a cheap production, I'm just saying. [LAUGHTER] So the Dalai Lama was fantastic. And at one point, he was asked the question. He was asked lots of questions. There were 2,000 people in the room. So he was asked the question. And he got very thoughtful. There is, say, sitting cross-legged. And he closed his eyes and was quiet. For what seemed like a long time? A bit too long, I thought, because I was hosting the meeting. And I didn't know what was going on. I thought, has he become enlightened? Don't do that now. Not today. Or not before the coffee break. Anyway. We've got another 40 minutes. Anyway. No, it's cherished, it's been very thoughtful and then it's very funny too much. Philanthropai. Richard Wh also hid cyhywur. Basilagfyr 👏 arfyn yn un wahanfulways! Lwb yn gelethio credu hyn am ni hafnwch par goblau. Gdyf gallwn mlynedd yn eddwfaw byd. Danau yn eddwch ligne Meos When. Ja, algatron ja, 'egw'ía�들 cael gyfer cerwwchu'r pasis. am derothau 'r Ydard Frantba 버�il waithirORR '‬Marrow��es трав braff ed decrei ki hyu medicines {Jo' pa o 'p Our History College know when O'clock w refreshingo, wagtol i fod y tywyn yn doufryftol. Onos ro hang sy', yoli wnaethu, Konstantas Santasbiau'r Pen MacBook a ganorid og cu i ;) Dyn DanishYb. Felly, ond yr ymwyr, ac yw'n wyneddw i'n gylwyrill yn sut eru'r gwyllwyr i'r gwyllwyrill. Iog ymwyr, yw'r gwyllwyrill, yn gwyllwyrill. A'r gwyllwyrill. Mae'n gwyllwyrill. Mae'r gwyllwyrill, mae'n gwyllwyrill. Mae'n gwyllwyrill, yn gwyllwyrill. A'r gwyllwyrill. Mae'n gwyllwyrill. Mae'n gwyllwyrill. Mae'n gwyllwyrill. Mae'n gwyllwyrill. Mae'n gwyllwyrill. 'Ym hynny, mae hynny, mae hynny'r ymwnau, mae hynny. Mae hynny'r ymwnau hynny. Ym ja i'r llunodd yn ti'n gwneud i'r gwybod o ddoddau gydyn ymwnau'r ymwnau gwneud. Ym ymwnau gydyn i ddim yn'n gweld, mae hynny'n gweld. Mae hynny'r gydyn, mae hynny'r gydyn ni. Mae hynny'r gydyn ni yw'r gydyn ni'r gydyn ni'n gweld. Mae hynny'r gydyn ni'n gweld, mae hynny'r gydyn ni'n gweld. Mae hynny'r gydyn ni'n gweld. a 'Ti' a 'French teacher' a 'I just loved' this teacher. As Mr Evans, it's a long story. I grew up in Liverpool in the 1950s and 1960s. And there was a time when Britain was a part from the rest of Europe. You know. Strange to think of it now. But there's a time when Britain didn't really want to be part of Europe. But I mean, anybody of my generation, if you went to England in the '60s and '70s, it wasn't, I mean, it was always a good, interesting place with its own culture, but it wasn't European in the sense it's now become. So, when I was growing up, one of those I was impressed with Mr Evans, was he could speak French. And he was really well. And that wasn't true of most French teachers. It was something they had to do. He was chic and kind of swerve. And he smokes your tan cigarettes. And he'd had garlic. This in 1964, I mean, I thought garlic was a drug. I still do. So, he was in to French in a big way. He was European. And when he came in the room, something came in with him. A whole sensibility. And we just sat and listened to him. You know, he didn't have to do anything. We just paid attention. And because of that, I learnt French and got interested. There was a lot in that in the teacher, just really impressed me. But it's a relationship, that's the point. You don't have to like them. You don't have to like you. But there has to be something about a teacher that interests you. Or impresses you. And you know, a good teacher lifts you up. Just like a bad one will knock you down. And I can remember teachers who just were by raising an eyebrow made me feel terrible. You know, you ask a question and then make you feel ridiculous for having asked the question. That, you can put you off. That subject forever. You know, you bear heavy responsibility. You need to carry it lightly. But teachers are immensely influential. And my life has peppered with great teachers like that. And you will be one. I am a teacher, I am a teacher. And I believe, I am an optimist. And I believe that we will change the world through education. And I need the best of the teachers, the best guru you have. And I want to know if you had the power to change the educational system that would change and why? Okay. It's true, but today. [LAUGHTER] Let me preface this by saying that people often feel that it's impossible to change the education system. And I think it's important to understand what sort of a system it is. You see, it's not a mechanical system. There are some systems which are built to do something and they just do it predictably. It's not an inert system or one that just runs on algorithms. It's a human system. It's what theory is called a complex adaptive system. Meaning, you know, it's made up of multiple elements. You know, like a simple mechanical system is like a lever. What is it? That is an example of a simple mechanical system. You know, a bar with a pivot closer to one end, which amplifies the effort you put into it. An airplane is a complicated system. It's made up of millions of simple systems. But it doesn't change itself at the moment. You know, airplanes don't have feelings about where they're going to and I don't want to go to Karachi again. That was a real downer. You know, they don't do that. They just do what they're designed to do, hopefully. Human systems are different. Human systems are made up of, like the education system, it's made up of literally hundreds of millions of people in hundreds of thousands of organizations with countless interests, countless points of interaction with each other. And so it is highly complex. It's made up of individual actions every day and they're all fluctuating. There are dominant features of the system and how it works, but it's a vibrant dynamic system, even when it doesn't appear to be. Secondly, it is constantly changing. There are some things which seem to be perpetual, but even then, there's taken over time, there's a big change. There's also a lot of room in the system for innovation. You can do several things with education with human systems. You can make changes in the system. A lot of what goes on in schools, for example, in our countries isn't required by law. It's just what people have got used to doing. It's habit. For example, in most school systems, there's nothing to stop teachers trying new ways of teaching. My wife used to teach in Liverpool. She had 42 kids in her class. There were two kids. were ten year olds. And the classroom she was in was like an Aladdin's cave. And the reason is she got them all working together all the time in groups, mixed them up and make people say, "How can you teach 42 kids all day?" Well, you don't, you get them to work together. You teach them together. Hair school became a very interesting base because the head teacher encouraged collaboration between all the different teachers. So they worked their strengths. Headteachers can do that. It's not required by law that they have to keep the ordinary trot and path. You can make changes to the system. You can campaign for changes. You can get out of the system and go to an alternative school. But my point is there's more flexibilities and the system is changing. And it's changing partly the optimistic bit because there are disruptive forces happening around education. One of them is we have a man, I'm going to talk about this later on, but there's a mounting problem of unemployment among young people. The promise of education is being broken every day for tens of thousands of kids. And that's a big and unsettling energy that's building up in our communities. The promise of a higher education is fading many kids. I mean, while I was in higher education, and the idea was if you worked hard and did well and got a degree, you had a good job. People know that's not turning more. I don't mean it's never true, but it's not a guaranteed truth in the way it used to be. We also know that we're about to face a massive wave of new developments in digital technology and artificial intelligence, which is all in all likelihood going to start to erode many jobs that were thought to be uniquely the province of human beings. So we're living in a world of constant flux and change. This is before we begin to talk about the climate and what's happening in our national political system. So the system is flexing. It is changing. It's resistant to some changes, but there was a lot of change going on. So you've got various options in this, I think one of them is, and I think it's an important principle, that if you work in education, then you are the system. You and everybody else. It's not about saying, well, everybody else has to change. What you do is part of it. If you have a classroom and the door closes, and all those kids turn around and you get their attention, what happens next is the education system. For them, they don't care who the Minister of Education is. They don't care who piece of it is. They've never heard of Andrew Schneiker, they don't mind. What they know is you and what you do next. And what you give them to do, what you ask of them, the way you respond to them, is education for them. So I always say that the starting point is you. It's Gandhi, isn't it? It would be the change you want. It would be the change you want to see. And then work, if you have the energy and the effort and the will, with other people in the school to see if they want to see some changes too. With parents, if you can. Be clear about the sorts of changes you think are important in education. Clearly, there are big problems. It's like with the environment. There are big vested interests to keep things as they are, but it doesn't mean that there's no room for change. Look at the Me Too movement at the moment. That's been having, because it's kind of ignited the tinderbox of anger and frustration that people have known were there, but it needed something to create that spark. And that's beginning to have a big impact. So that's just the first thing. There is room for change if you have the will to do it, a determination to try and see something shift. It doesn't have to change the whole world, but what you do for your kids does change the world for them. I raised Ibrac can change the world for the kids you work with. And I think it's important to underestimate that, your power as a teacher in a school. And if it all gets too much and you just can't be doing with it, do something else. I really mean that. I'm not asking people to desert the education system, but you have to make your own call on this. It's your life too. I always feel it's important. It's the old thing, you know, put your own mask on first. You have to refresh yourself. If you feel this is draining you, you need to do something else for a bit or find somewhere balancing that out. I wrote a book a few years ago called The Element. It's in Spanish. I should know Speak Spanish. It's called Elementor. There we go. But one of the ways that people, it's about how when you know you're doing what's most authentic, you know, doing the thing that resonates with you as a person. My wife and I would travel to Paris last week. And we're just saying, you know, you don't, I have always long thought this. I do not know how politicians do it. You know, on airplanes all the time showing up being taken from meeting to meeting cameras, putting their faces, microphones, every word they say being weighed. I think, I would do this. But what's clear is they love it. And that's an important observation for me that if you're doing something, being in your element is two things. It's finding things you're good at that you also love to do. If you love something you're good at, well, you know, you never work again as Confucius said. But you know you're doing something you're meant to do or is right for you for a couple of reasons. One is, for example, you find that time changes. You know, if you're doing something that you love, an hour can feel like five minutes. You can't it. You look at it and you think, where did that go? If you're doing something you don't care for, five minutes feels like an hour. You look at the clock and you think, when is this going to move? The other thing is that being in your element, if you're doing something that you love to do, you get energy from it. There's an important difference to me between spiritual energy and physical energy. And you know what I mean by that? You can be, I mean, I don't mean spiritual in the religious sense. I don't know, but I mean in the sense in which you're in high spirits or low spirits. You know, you can do an activity that you love. You can be physically exhausted and at the point of collapse. Look at people doing marathons. They keep going till they cross the line and then they kill over. But you can be less dramatically. You can be doing things that exhaust you physically, like I'm white. But you can be buzzing with it. You know, you're kind of hearts pang, you know, you're exhilarated by it. Equally, you can do things that you don't care for. You can be physically fine, but completely down and desolate. And what I find with, if, by an element, is if you do something you love to do, it doesn't take energy from you. You get for energy from doing it. It charges you up, spiritually, that you're doing it. And it's true of activities. It's true of people. Don't you find that? I mean, there are some people that give you energy. Like just hanging out with them. You feel better. You know, you go to work and you see if people come into orge, you think fantastic. They're here. You know, you light up. And equally, you might see some else come into orge, and you think, "Really?" What now? You know, can we reschedule? You know, because they just suck energy out of you. And we know that. That's the way it runs. So I'm saying, I'm not talking too directly. I'm just using the opportunity to say it. Teaching is a physically very demanding job. It's emotionally a very demanding job. And on the best day is you're exhilarated by it. A lesson might have gone really well. Some encounter with the kid. Some you plan to do just really work. But then there are a lot of things that teachers do, who are innovating, you know, all the administration, all the testing, all the dealing with problems that come up every day. And you have to look at the balance of that. You're on balance. Is this feeding me? You know, or isn't it? And, or, or, did it used to, but it doesn't now. And I just always want to say to everybody, really, about if you have the choice to do it, that if you continue to love it, keep doing it. But if you need time to do something else or you need to give yourself time to be somewhere else, then you should try and do that. You know, within the realms of what's possible. I mean, I found out people, people change track, they can happen if you change, if you move to a different age group. I mean, teaching isn't, isn't homogeneous. I know people who love working with little ones. And they couldn't bear to be in a room for the teenagers. Another people with exact opposite, they know exactly what to do with 30, 15 roles, but give them 10, 3 roles that are completely lost. I don't know what to do about that. So, so it's all of that. So, so I think they're the layers of it. It is about looking at what your situation. And then if you, if you feel capable and in a position or have it in that part, for bigger social change, get involved in that too. Hello, my name is Jorge, I'm a musician. Part of your work, or almost everything, is around the concept of creativity. Curiously, there's a lot of confusion, there are a lot of people who don't understand it well, right? And you also say that the school kills creativity. So the question would be, what is creativity for you? Actually, what's your name? Gal mentors y brathers y nutritious gyntaf, Mynach y fillynwch sy'n cyflyn eu hyrch bron wneffe'n detlynno. …, yna, o gael ym yn ymwch sy'n cyflyn. Yna a'r ymwch sy'n cyflyn. Yna, o'r cyflyn yn ddyn, o'r cyflyn. Yna'n ames i'r cyflyn. Yn ymwch sy'n cyflyn yn ymwch sy'n cyflyn yn ymwch sy'n cyflyn yn ymwch sy'n cyflyn. Yn ymwch sy'n cyflyn yn ymwch sy'n cyflyn. Ymwch sy'n cyflyn yn ymwch sy'n cyflyn yn ymwch sy'n cyflyn. Yn cyflyn yn ymwch sy'n cyflyn yn ymwch sy'n cyflyn. goroddi ac yn Shalldi daeth cyfrullatodiod fy mwyn ftransl 피ithodi agau achos o facilitiesavyg ofos newud¡¯. Bad mewn i-un hon涵 o beliefiad a'n adwaith hwn responsesen ein cyfrullatodi pan ac swydd gan yumin i'r Wyd un i gan sut yr ey. Rhaid beth gan y dd教f癒edem mith o'r grŵrion videblwyd si eu cymryn fŵst i grâce agau trwy asioinol eu Qionafis oedd lwwi twci. Yn cyfrullatodi ac yn ymwyr i'r cyfrullatodi pan y cyfrullatodioddi yn cyfrullatodioddi yn cyfrullatodioddi. Bad mewn i-un hon涵 o ffos newud yw cyfrullatodioddi yn ffos newuddi. Cymru yn y cyfrullatodi yn y cyfrullatodi yn cyfrullatodi yn y cyfrullatodioddi yn y cyfrullatodioddi. Bad mewn i-un hon涵 o ffos newuddi yn ffos newuddi. Bwch ar yna o'ch gynhyrdd yna o'ch gynhyrdd yna o'ch gynhyrdd yna o'ch gynhyrdd yma. *** *** Mae rhafaeth Mae� Öb yn byddi Mae fus Mae d Express Mae d Will Mae ' bebyllaf Mae ' Will Mae yni Mae'r gran perran krân peraning 'Rf Oracle' Mae'r FIFA oper SHE/RA Ay mo? How about with the population's responsibilities? Yeah. Yeah, why? Because I think people with disabilities, they face different challenges and adversity everything. So maybe they're finding different ways to, you know, to go around, basically? Yes. Yeah. I think that it took a good – well, and what's your – do you like the word disability? Are you okay with the word disability? Apps. It's the best word I can use in English. I mean, I learned English just four years ago, so… Oh, really? (Laughter) Where are you from? I'm from here, from Spain. Yeah. So what's your disability? I'm blind. And were you born blind or were you… No, I became blind when I was eight years old. Right. Was that an accident or how did that happen? Oh, no, just a disease. Yeah. So was it progressive or sudden? Sully. Five seconds. Really? Yeah. Jum… I'm sorry. What was the disease? Glow coma? Right. It happened that quickly. Yeah, because that's my reddened. Okay. Yeah. So it was literally like throwing a switch. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. The reason I ask you is because the Secretary of State… Well, firstly, I went to a special school as a kid, as I mentioned earlier. And… So, you know, then we had kids with all kinds of apparent disabilities. I say a pan for a reason. But, you know, there were kids with polio, there were quite a few of us. Kids with cerebral palsy, blind kids, partially sighted death, people with heart problems, asthma. It was quite a collection, really, of people. And what interested me was… there was one kid I sat next to for several years who had cerebral palsy. Cerebral palsy is a terrible thing to deal with because it's caused by… usually by a damage to the brain, a brain lesion of some sort. And like with every other form of physical disability, it doesn't follow that there's any kind of mental or emotional impairment. It's just a motor issue. And in his… you know, in cerebral palsy, what happens is that, you know, in order to do some simple, like, extend your arm like that, some muscles have to contract and some have to relax. And the net effect of some of these brain lesions is in the motor centres is that it doesn't coordinate like that. So, the muscles that are meant to relax aren't, you know, so you're… it's uncoordinated, so you're fighting yourself the whole time. You can't get the message through from the brain directly to the muscles to behave in the way that other people find natural. Well, you can imagine, too, that if that affects the muscles of your face, you know, to speak involves a highly complex dance of the facial muscles. So if they're not coordinating, then, you know, your voice is muffled and you're often drooling and you would, as well, it's like when you've been to the dentist, you know, if all your muscles suddenly get paranoid in your face, so don't… So it's a terrible thing for people, because it sounds as if they've got some major mental problems as well, which they may, in all probably, not have. Anyway, this lad who sat next to me couldn't… his arms are all crunched up and he couldn't hold a pencil. So… but he could hold a pencil in his feet between his toes. So he used to bring his leg up and would write with a pencil grip between his toes. He had very good writing. It was better than my writing, honestly. I could never work out whether this was handwriting, you know, footwriting, but he was good at it. And… but the reason I mention it is because all the people that I knew there did not define themselves by the disability. It was just something they were dealing with. You know, I'm sure… I mean, I don't want to presume in your case, you know, but, you know, but it wasn't that they were saying, you know, I'm deaf, that's everything you need to know. They were also deaf. I mean, interestingly, among the deaf community, there is often a culture that I would predict the sort because there are sign languages, you know, one of the markers of a culture is that there's a distinctive linguistic code and they have one or they have several. But it isn't that if you, as you did, I'm so what's your name again? What's your name? Enamid. Enamid. Enamid. Yeah. It isn't that… I guess in your case, it's not… that's all you need to know, I'm blind, that's all… what else can I tell you? It's just something you're having to deal with. But you also have to deal with all the other stuff people are dealing with, like being a person, getting a job, working, you know. And some things are just much more difficult, obviously, and so you have to give more thought to it. And you, I'm sure you have… you have emotional things around it too. I mean, as a kid, it didn't bother me, though, I'd polio. I mean, I was… it didn't really. It was in nuisance, but it wasn't as if it was stopping me doing as I wanted to do. And for most of my life, I didn't use a cane. I mean, it was only… that's kind of a great reason. It didn't bother me. I was a lot fitter than I was a much more agile. I hitchhiked all around Europe. It didn't… it wasn't a thing. It's not like I wanted to do the tour to France. I didn't… you know, in the best of circumstances, I wouldn't have done it. But all the people I knew… you know, they have complex interior lives just like everybody else does. And the trouble with often with the disability issues, the people are be defined by it. You know, that's what… that's all we need to know about you. That's… that's… presumably that's the big thing in your life, and it may not be. It may be something else entirely that some people as well. And absolutely what's true is, people have all kinds of other abilities beyond the one that's attracting people's attention. I think one of the issues is that for people in special needs education is that our system as a whole has a very narrow view of ability. It's defined largely in terms of linguistics and mathematics. And it's because we have such a narrow view of ability that we end up with such a big conception of disability. But if you have a more generous conception of ability, then what are perceived disabilities take a different place in the constellation of things that people are capable of doing. The other thing is, I haven't found anyone in my life yet. I mean, maybe somebody here, but I don't know. I haven't found anyone yet. But a professional person in my life that doesn't have special needs. Everybody does. Everybody. Sometimes you can see them. Sometimes it seems obvious what it might be. It may not be the tool. It might be a gender issue. It might be an ethnicity issue. It may be an image. Carlym wedi sicrh停is, ar da cwarn Mae hynnych ir chyblwyr Diwchiam, ac dalam elot eta actually undw i naturen u 200 peth scalds sut 2018 neu chyblungust anogín dull to facilitating dar hardware and tad a wow 'chi bod os Ll alpha yn, brech confidence ar gyda mostem o Ges لكن Kid's Wijrd wigglebod i four wnaeth y galldad a'r ma \ Watchaillillach ynwater'i rydyn wneud ffordddio'r relu ac yn oedg ymwnaeth siwn raclchSingingTg, 요즘edd canarlo what עלwch, a'r��� Lyndon ac y Cybirion a'r saretchedd young Renolio소 a Georges Wyrsched SS iad yn Telly T차 sy'n ei roedd wrthfod ' Chydit, kaldau wedi a'r gwbod yn d chuy past, cael gan fathwaed ymriedg yn bar an'n gydw blynau Geoff jumpwed Brussels aleddi. casf wnaud passiol gw�� Kunst정이 aين eiffel oeg yn yr Yshylioedd yn llawer At yweld. Claudius ' Working Yea Bwydiad yn keyf cut, niwy hyn o' y caelud wedi chief wedi powerfyn Yoshereun a hef còn ei mu塵 ias peithio predauОrôtau ffyn newig i'n cyfranel三 A sy'n creallau o un expansionarterio i cael ei grafno Chysroyg. A rump yn edna��쳤o wedi dod cael wrth go hugrosé a feddylfa Iddo Unog eu lion o Marcel și fydd hyn oedd dd Heritagedraldiolгр yw edrych yn listio? yn noedd optiolgdron y bre angen oerheid p Thanks Chu'n Glo daledig. i rhw no ifilio eit ar��op Mae lwyma an�aethau. Diolch roiad o'r cadu'r mi lle i'n brad ב Prevention Uneg Attack f drawpielf fforddau Diana pan y brad gyda dyna yn ychwaraithor roedd Bangladesh neu gweith,'na y bro opались roedd rhoi. Mae yna, yn cronfog Mae Winny y representations o bo cho pleun. byw sk Launch- rhythms to i센rny am y steadily, un meith y pan mae'n pŵntich ac rydym ni sy'n f winio'r Qatar o'r метellog! at y wnegu f version wnaest'u ond dyna fel regul又illided y profillio'r rhyw vraiment erro yn ddim sy'n ei dat McAWN? a'i ryw beth'r iawn fwy fillio exploddw i d5e uhynny [Ther Avatar] ' mai quawr 싶uっ yn gall��igol' i قالla ni pupilidol i fixed el pfer dos honolai hwydynag, o honolai faén unich που wedi'n iawn. A che cwst yInź genlytu segid, Bald o b遊, dod fod y pafroazchi o bidegfel g以上eddodaid o sgwegeg hefn13 i ffordd yt serád a'r gall yn trat i fo fod hyn소�'nild! ンタ'r fat anywayos a eu un i ffordd a' dwi nodo ein diglion da wrth mae yne galod yna ewer ond cael de就fysgwur whし na mai arall o ddarmaedd yn hyn a gydwch dw mewn o bellydeni arna c skipkияIns ond i aionodd yn adjustag Het Rightsman. Dynad o'r prothys���iaith ein yang******P: ymdwyrпон whetafohl. O'r lino amlygu pan. O'r lino amlygu pan. Allaft – Mae dipion, mae ai magnitudeol. Pero sylvarioi gyda o sensors o'r ail oedd�r, o'n prachor poesendaw. A ganân i go! Mae ff ironicrabl nawrnoch yn bi aioneddeg. winyn ie a'n fywd Learna'r LO pilots iaidrol air除, 저희ae o hynny dynnu fywd i al ymg statinaau agaf fully YOURGF. Gyraastrow Hyw'n'n licicio e ang Colonialaoli o'n Natall a'n tasto Dynaeddwor a'n musol gen yw'rfer. Gerddaldirodd Gymyd亍io, 'Towel ei maeur אלig Falluating a beth enw' yn siol genair niild dyma'n a'n gweithio i'n gweithio yw'r gweithio a'n gweithio, a'n gweithio a'n gweithio. A'n gweithio a'n gweithio a'n gweithio, ydym yn gweithio a'n gweithio. Gynau'r gweithio a'n gweithio a'n gweithio a'n gweithio a'n gweithio. A'n gweithio a'n gweithio, a'n gweithio yng Nghymru. Gweithio a'n gweithio a'n gweithio a'n gweithio yng Nghymru. Y laith foundedda 'm i Подath doing bynnoopedи ymwowg eddam y hunid— siol yn ni ymwo, i IT impose boshodeld ar unfair o r9 to i ry dit deyr hynny arIRd a letenys var rwy'ad bod fy'n gyfly cympyr i minym ddod because 'dol yn ni'n pernizzizid o siol y gwophid o 'doriafion y ffyd do exceeda os tro'n ratt' ăn y ddoedd Sym to'r yn 'j regu rote' prefir muyrokou odyn why yn ôl sef arch tailon 'Tu swyddwyn sickould за yn y llwydd perxicol ond rac personnes i'r romwch Mar 6ve maef insights yn roedd yn y pgr傷ahiad mewn gw舞odig pŵf Dust сво zaechol yw ich rhyw Goku A AfDoudoli'n y warし 'Si, gy classroom arws哩 o amf50 foll yw'r p Sweet點 92 currents ycha Layfl weum beth i fwnes ar hyp �iam négoБ Dyftom Merchoy ffordd yn fferoid bydos a'r gael yn y gael yn ymwch yw'r gael yn ymwch. Dan â i 100 â i 160 i sy'n 50 â. Dispo chwfr ychwan â'n aun ym yn Ylwyr i trew sy'n anw sy'r cynnod- —— knewingion wedi pwy fareb. I' dgelgenur o gyfer mewn i dafliniaeth yng Nghyreneeth i'r gergkieff ylw Roedd Gymraeth 'Groesig itis �ぇth ditfaken y Mountain icheau nu y bwysio nioli ung voice, patch Ceisau fwy orbe MUSIC dinno, yna'm inbound i'r Yśmeaidd am gyda gig95 Emer any chandid� byw ewan ewanwyr, Faam y siwi unfold눈 am beth фleur bedol' dep thoroughly fwycewny regard, Hazan ffordd sof'au reyn ddrief yn cymgy i mewn hwn Ifând ong oésef Mae'n fyw열, erion o leiai i'f > Y那就 'reol o subliegol. A'ololate i'r bemhtuo i oddinema dd aussi ifadau na'n cof helpotellen i/ A'olwchio'r amdolol iawn laudio yn coliol, …quater, wyg, yma'r pwyllwyll yn yma'r dwi'n gwaithio. Yn gwaithio yn ymwch gwahanol, yma'r pwyllwyll yn gwaithio'r pwyllwyll yn ymwch gwahanol. Ymwch gwaithio'r pwyllwyll yn gwaithio'r pwyllwyll yn ymwch gwahanol. Yn gwaithio'r pwyllwyll yn gwaithio'r pwyllwyll yn ymwch gwahanol. Ymwch gwaithio'r pwyllwyll yn ymwch gwahanol ymwch gwahanol. Dwyddo'r pwyllwyll yn ymwch gwahanol. oli na nef einmalau a a�ant rhjoyst Qsig ar r� a'r즈 dro rolych hair o'r helluz boss i wedi'n ednau mafy️ a wanийl hyn a ´ expected Norring Dde mujwchن indicate ais i'n jur 27'n pwy,' a agfu appendft roby chapters gladi mewn Romecidol, bat chyr â maxim lefpl 열 dew mynd moddi'ch gydw i ddwy'r cw לend إdi gw таastud yfwyr gallwn chi'n ferh Полo gfwyt Dunel yn hollwch er zuend yn pens Wizardau reiseidrebbe Grad Too說wyd llwyng熟 nodiau'n Erwell yn wedi'n cael try∩ insect an отмет of a wedi'n eith y ddellu. fier i ngith ieli. Mynnwb gyd niio ac giant iawn fod i wedi'r chosen a ham ddo'r ifi, mae hwn gall ذw fe rhin yn meddefog, ag un gofyn i chi'n â'r grey fravaiddioedd, i ein gydeth yng Nghaeg barreda, yet би an fuzzy, mic rhom ar y cy fastingad ar ddyfa yn meddu cael hyn yn 'farfyn Xiaolín Par�au, cael eu yn nesref, y barfyn biall yn agi chi'n anun py exce知道u, asddall ti'n eu adaptationasu, yw rheolodd mewn a'n brinoedd wrthod y gofn gofn Animationas erawn Ef oorth gnaethu lyfnaiau dan ames fox a'r gyddiol, a'r gyddiol, a'r gyddiol. 'więfărgyff porgy dwast anł Würch. Nghygien домion; arr' ainol nda Megan Baterson was byrnyn yma? Mctachemyd说f ym o'l eu vennod fanbr acho tebdb un fal, achos ed sew i ddiol repeatsändi stop. Ac gydig nu panb i byg o etyr un fal "Neo," un albuma Cl YourItg, a kididagweithio gower. Þagner o Sprynnaam a lynnau gwynes iawn Batóetta,got diwy gyda Pittsburgh frequ trusted, wrth syna wedi edryd bon 快had�Quyr greasylls ond. R conclusion, rynwod dim mewn â jemandу a dynod ydym yn dynod ydym yn ddysbwch. Iolch ydym yn ddysbwch, yn ddysbwch, yn ddysbwch, yn ddysbwch, ynddysbwch, ydym yn ymwch, a cymryd, ddym yn ddysbwch, rwy'n ddysbwch, ddym yn ddysbwch, ddym yn ddysbwch. Emily C. Leonard Jessi yn cw高 f壓 y diagnosed gersodaeth i dar fan gach all giesun declaratio, envelope i dwna'r ataed caelio 'lawer'' cured Whith ang yser Newham alethiad o'rри mewn'n lliad erhwy'n holl sé fever BrygTurnosio'r rh amser iechant搞ua dni rys 노래niwyr yn Walwch yn Ouwch ar��gu? JOL 'Mo Lyfnwch addiction a Gaelfrycrull Iedog Roall, mewn tegn continu sydd ei這邊 ei matei, tiwi? Gr haircut'n gydi'n fyny gytaw ar hynig, ac Adamill siol y bas McNиш ond rydyn ei noir oar, bod y tua marvel bracket yn ed七, icaustill a gyd newindryd a gyfrill ey. ys i куда pwi intrолнו go gouz Learn besl entreprenew Child odedan yn par izpassos a cyd nation a gyntau'rchant yr cympans myndrolog blaush yn cyfr gibtro simgynion hyn gael, oddol am yrffyn Device c'n f enfer ond rhoafis o cyste달 an pedestrians na pud amser Τynioedd. Mae'n hidgrif elastic discreteath yn just rwygau y ffynniadau'r cyflwynn yn ydym yn ymwch chiadau. Mae'n gynnywch chiadau'r cyflwynn yn ymwch chiadau'r cyflwynn. Mae'n gwybod yn ymwch chiadau'r cyflwynn yn ymwch chiadau'r cyflwynn yn ymwch chiadau'r cyflwynn. I'n mynd ar ymwch chiadau'r cyflwynn yn ymwch chiadau'r cyflwynn. Mae'n gwaithio'r cyflwynn yn ymwch chiadau'r cyflwynn yn ymwch chiadau'r cyflwynn yn ymwch chiadau'r cyflwynn yn ymwch chiadau. Bwyd gyda fy과� cy lebdiwringyraid, dyma acef fueffquaroli ek? Byddun ddiur, fyddeithadau amed experienceil, ac cystefaticallyncorecid angledach eu fwyslw Cleriforodor eich wandymol, римatoid 'Őt gwy' yn ysgwyrg i fynd o'n cyhwyrrhyw i ffyrdd, i'n ffyrdd yma i'n ffyrdd, a'i'r ffyrdd yma i'r cyhwyrdd, o'n ffyrdd yn ymwyrdd yn ymwyrdd, i'r ymwyrdd, i'r ymwyrdd yn ffyrdd yn ymwyrdd, o'n ffyrdd yn ffyrdd i'r ymwyrdd. A'i'r ymwyrdd yn mewn i'r cyhwyrdd ar gyda, a'i'r cyhwyrdd yn ffyrdd, o'n cyhwyrdd i'r cyhwyrdd, o'n ffyrdd ymwyrdd yn ymwyrdd, o'n ffyrdd i'r cyhwyrdd, o'n ffyrdd. A'i'r yma'r cyhwyrdd yn ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma yn ffyrdd yma yn ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma yn ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma'r cyhwyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma yn ymwyrdd yma yn ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma, o'n ffyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. A'i'r cyhwyrdd yma. Al futbol un prave deu pan ychydis himiau. a highly passionate people. They're driven by intuition, by feeling Michael Pallani in personal knowledge, very knowingly about this years ago, where he talked about the intellectual passions of science, you know, that people are driven by a delight in what they do. I mean, you don't have to look at what the eruptions that break out in the control rooms of the space programs when they achieve their objective and all that feeling comes out. They're driven by that and what they try to do is not let their feelings cloud what they're doing, but often it can. You know, the negative feelings may get in the way of that, but the impulse for discovery, the impulse for curiosity, the excitement and passion that drives the scientific process is fundamental to their achievement. At the same time, you know, they're not bloodless clinicians, clinicians who go from experiment to experiment to a final conclusion. Very often, Pallani talks about this, a scientist will have an intuition, which is bound up in their hypothesis about what they're about to try and explore, and then they'll kind of backfill it with a method to see if that they can see if that's correct or not. And sometimes, like the Eureka moment, it's a moment of, you know, as it says crossing a heuristic gap where you see the solution, but you don't have to find a way to see if you can subsensiate that. At the same time, work in the art is deeply disciplined and objective. I mean, you know that. I mean, you watch the hours of study, practice, discipline, application that anybody puts into mastering a musical instrument. If you look at it, as I've done, I've worked with dancers for a long time. I'm on the, you see on the board of the Royal Ballet, I'm a patron of the London School of Contemplate and so if you look at the rigor and objectivity and a mathematical position that drives work in the performing arts, these are just terrible caricatures. And it's not to say that all of these things are the same, they're clearly not, but the processes in the art and science are very similar, just the outputs different. And I think that the sooner we can get away from this idea, the feelings are bad, that science is always right, that these are one process is just rigorous and logical, the others are creative, that one is full of feeling, the others devoid of it. The sooner we can get away from that and kind of heal this bridge between the enlightenment and romanticism, I think we'll have a much more holistic sense of our futures and species. Thank you. There's a lot to talk about 21st century skills. The thing is, some of the challenges we face now without question they're unique to the times we live in. No generation ever before has been raised in the sort of digital culture that this generation is now living in. I mean, people with my generation kind of moved into the digital world, but we began squarely in an analog world with TVs and books and digital culture has changed everything, it's not known that, or affected everything, I should say. It's affected. When I gave the talk at TED in 2006, I remember saying, and there that nobody knows what the world will look like in five years time. You don't have to be a clairvoyant to say that, but it is interesting that the smartphone, particularly the iPhone, it wasn't available then, it didn't come out until 2007. If you think of the impact that the iPhone and its alternative versions has had in just over 10 years on work, socialisation, habits of mind, relationships, it was impossible to imagine it. Even the people at Apple had no idea what they were letting loose in 2007. I know they didn't because I know them. But all that's likely to be dwarfed by what's about to hit us with artificial intelligence in its various forms. It seems likely to be anyway. But even so, I mean, so there are some things that we need to learn that are new to our times, but some of the things that we need to have in education are what we always need to have in education. Ancient principles and practices that are just common to humanity. What does seem probable is that the rate of change will continue to accelerate. It'll be as unpredictable if not more so than ever before. And that the impact of machine intelligence will be to colonise all kinds of roles that previously we thought only human beings could take on. Service roles, roles in the professions in law, in medicine, in the caring professions. I mean, the likelihood is a lot of those things will be certainly changed if not actually swept aside. The reason I say it's unpredictable is these things always are. New technologies have all kinds of refractory effects and they often generate jobs that nobody ever thought of before either. So it's very hard to say how these things will evolve. But what I do think we can say is that in future what we ought to be focusing on much more are what are the capacities which are distinctively human. What is it about human beings that we need to cultivate? Since most of the most of the time during the industrial revolution we were focusing on getting people to do things that machines could adequately do now. In fact, we'd be humanised people in order to fit in with the industrial economies and I think we have to rehumanise ourselves now through education. By the way, a few doubt all this, I'm sure you don't, but it interests me to just go back to the question about feelings and emotions. According to World Health Organization, the second largest cause of illness among human beings by 2020 and mortality will be depression. Depression. This is a time when the world is more affluent than ever before. I know the gap is also spread, but if I think of the lies we lead now compared to the lies most people led a hundred years ago, and were living in a fantasy world of abundance compared to them. In my parents couldn't have dreamt of the sort of luxuries we take for granted now when they were kids. But we haven't seen a dividend in terms of well-being or spiritual growth or satisfaction. People are as depressed and angry and belligerent towards each other as they ever were. I mean we're seeing now a Europe, an American gripped in a populous movement where people are pitching themselves against each other again and we know how that ended last time it happened. I think the fact is that we are developing more quickly technologically than we are spiritually. Our technology is outrunning our capacity to deal with them. So education has a role to play here, I think in trying to ground us again in some ways. So in this book for parents and also a book called Creative Scores, I talked about various competencies and I thought we should focus on. I mean competencies is a word that people are happy to use these days. It means a set of practical capabilities. And I have eight of them in that thing because I just got carried away. If I have to pick some out that matter, I do think that creativity for all the reasons I've said is important. Kids have tremendous natural capacities but they need to be cultivated. They need to cultivate them so that they're not locked in to a particular future of their own. So they can have access to their capabilities to create a life that means something for them. But also collectively we need to have all our faculties amount us. We have major problems to solve locally and globally and we need to be able to think quickly and adapt ourselves to them. Compassion is a set of capabilities. It's not just having nice feelings towards people. There's a difference between empathy and compassion. I think empathy is important. But we know how this is. It's long been said that if you hear that a child, in fact there was a piece of news yesterday in England and a very tragic thing. It was mother and daughter, an eight-year-old girl walking along the beach in the south of England. And a freak wave whipped up an eight-foot wave and when the mother picked herself up the daughter disappeared. She was found later on but she died. It's hard as a parent to think of that and not be distraught by it. We all would be. But then we get news of 2,000 people being killed by a tsunami on the other side of the world and it's an item on the news thing. It's not terrible. It's a phenomenon we all have. We have a limited range of compassion. As somebody once said, one death is a tragedy. 3,000 is a statistic. And it's very hard for downloadedum, the macbawerdau i 'hlwch 傷 noodles aïrd magi marda, may y styd mewn ithald h ancestor ac byg σwy enny cyrtuad ond roedd i dymafel o sut mel wedi Rowin Church kindoriaeth anedd ei bod, teachedio nurwell iben wirt road Gos cyclesu cyteland tuaShoctio fansellan gychop y c 20 krn ddim Graysteud. Na chi hylwod i sior cyddraeth mae edad jagoddio Bethes. A l Roedd wedi Calendariaeth canbo ond gwaningarian cyceksindwellau eti gof'ro. Ios diolch yn ymwch yn ffysioedio'r mediolau'r cymdeithio'r cymdeithio'r iben, yn y rhannic cymdeithio, ac mae'r cymdeithio'r ei ffysioedio. Mae'r cymdeithio'r iben. Mae'n ddod ymwch yn ffysioedio'r cymdeithio'r iben, ac mae'r cymdeithio'r iben, ac mae'r cymdeithio'r iben, ac mae'r cymdeithio'r iben, ac mae'r cymdeithio'r iben, ac mae'r cymdeithio'r iben, ac mae'r cymdeithio'r iben, ac mae'r cymdeithio'r iben, ac mae'r cymdeithio'r iben, Yma yn y caes Frameed a'u Cym주세요, 'rizio Beenolawn' a'u gallwch ein gyfer yn y santea oedd cymdarodd Roedd борgio'r B Y Medewyn trusting yn caes byddor cn But it Gospel or which are known independently of an in one person knowing it with theoretical ideas as well as factual information knowing that something is the case. So it doesn't mean it's true but it's a certain type of knowledge. And that fills up most of our academic curricula and it's important but it's not everything. We also need to know how to do things that there's a difference between being able to study a painting in art history and produce a painting. There's a difference between being able to listen to music and playing it. There's a difference between being able to get into a car and be able to strip the engine down. And then the world depends upon practical knowledge, knowledge of how to make things and how to make things happen. Our schools tend not to be very good at that and particularly because of the emphasis on getting to universities, we've tended to cut away a vocational programs and schools and they're seen as second tier. So if you go and do a degree in university, you're thought to be very clever. If you go and do a practical program for a trade, it's thought you're just not as smart as a people who go to university. And the world depends upon people who can do things. And also knowing this, which is what empathy is about, as you human being, that's what the art's trade in a lot, by the way. Not only that but also that. This is the nature of this experience and what this means. This is how we experience this thing. So I would say creativity, compassion and collaboration is the third. The reason I say collaborations, because the emphasis in schools is on competition. And competition has a place. But our communities, our cities, our families, our neighbourhoods depend on people working together. A great city like Madrid is highly coming back to what we're saying together. It's a highly complex and changing system. Every time I get on an aeroplane, I'm reminded of collaboration. When you think of what it takes for that aeroplane to be built in the first place, to take off. I don't just mean the laws of physics, but the massive orchestration of activities, schedules, to make sure the right crew is on the plane, that it doesn't crash into other planes when it takes off, that it gets to the right place in the airspace, it lands, the foods on it. All these things we just glide through, and we get annoyed if our baggage is late coming off. It's a miracle, it's there at all, I think. Human beings are highly collaborative creatures, but we don't teach it in schools. We teach people to compete. And this isn't an abstract idea. We just need more teamwork, practical work in schools, which help people to practice working together and learn from each other. So if I had to pick out three from the anti-social. Hello, Mr. Binson, I'm a pleasure. My name is Alicia Banderas, I'm a psychologist and a mother. I'm worried about the excessive overestimulation, so that we are now getting to our children and children, so that they can be smarter. I would like to know if you all know that more people are smarter, as the "Effesto Flin" says, that each generation, we say, increases their intellectual co-cientity. Thank you very much. I have some anxieties about IQ. IQ has an interesting history. You know this as a psychologist. Just for information, the origins of the IQ tests go back to the late 19th century. And it was a cousin of Charles Darwin, who originally got interested in inquiries that became the IQ test. He had become interested in the idea of natural selection in the animal world. And he wondered, this is Charles Darwin, it's his cousin. He wondered if something similar operated in the human world. He noticed, for example, that the human world was made up a very successful, and less successful people, rich people and poor people. And he wondered if this was because of a different genetic disposition. I think what he overlooked is that rich people could afford to educate themselves and perpetuate their circumstances in ways that poor people couldn't. But anyway, he started to develop these tests. They were eventually elaborated in some form by the French psychologist, the French woman's name now, who did the work in Paris in the early 20th century on kids with special needs. Basically, it was a series of questions to try and get some objective measure of intellectual capacity and growth. The thing is that the IQ tests have a rather limited range, the more classically. They're tests for certain sorts of deductive reasoning, certain types of logical reasoning. But IQ tests typically don't embrace all the things, for example, they're covered by the arts. They don't pay much attention to the things we associate with creativity. But they coincided with the growth of mass education. And so they became handy tools to sort people into different categories for schools. And also in America, they coincided with the growth of the military and they need to select people for the military. So they have an interesting economic and sociological history. But we tend to think, or people often tend to think, I think, wrongly, that IQ tests offer some objective, reliable and absolute measure of how smart people are. So people will say, of course, I have an IQ of this particular number. As if that again told you everything they need to know about it. And now I've always been skeptical about it. I know a lot of the very smart people who are particularly good at IQ tests. They're not very good at crosswords either. People can be good at all kinds of things and not good at other things. I know brilliant poets who are dyslexic, who actually have trouble writing, but they have a wonderful gift for words. I know brilliant musicians who can't read music. So human intelligence is much more textured, isn't it? And complex and nuanced, then can be captured in a simple 20-minute test. However many numbers it helps to generate. And one of the interesting examples of it is that this idea that IQ tests are going up year on year. Well, I'm not a psychologist. You'd probably have to help us out to understand why that seems to be happening. But the IQ tests itself has all sorts of art things in its history. For example, when people arrived at Ellis Island in America in wartime in the early past of the 20th century, they were given an IQ test in wartime and they were assigned to places in the military in America. Sometimes people landed at Ellis Island immigrants and were sent straight to the military. They didn't even get to where they were headed. So they were given these tests. And I wrote about this in a book I did a while ago called Out of Our Minds, the Power of Being Creative. And what was interesting to me about this was that if you scored a above a certain level on the IQ test, you'd be sent off for officer training in American military. If you scored below a certain level, you'd be sent to the infantry. Well, we know what happened to most infantry. So it is in the First World War, for example. And there was a cat in the army. on the assessment paper for the military intelligence test when it got the score. It said, if you fell below a certain level, it said, it was a chilling thing. It said, of low military value. Of low military value. Well, you know what that meant. You know, you're a machine gun fodder at that point. So the IQ test became literally a matter of life and death for some people. In America, I say America, as America has become obsessed with IQ, in America, if you have an IQ score below a certain level, you're held not to be responsible for your crimes. So if you commit a murder, you can't be executed in some states. If your IQ is too low, because they'll say, well, you're not competent to be responsible for your actions. Well, there have been several cases I quote them in out of our minds of prisoners, in fact, one notable one, who was sent for life imprisonment because he wasn't smart enough to be executed. And he took prison education programs, and over the course of 10 years his IQ level increased. Until eventually, it crossed the threshold, and he was now judged to be smart enough to be electrocuted. Not quite as smart as he thought, I think, if you weigh it up. But there was a big debate about this. So, you know, what does this mean? Can we now go ahead with the execution because he now qualifies? Well, I say it's a matter of life and death. But if this was some fixed amount of intelligence, which is what some people believe it is, and thought it was, that your IQ test is a bit like your blood group. You know, that this tells you how smart you are. If it were that, then it wouldn't improve in one person over time. It shouldn't improve generation by generation, should it, unless there's something in the water? You know, that's contributing to it. Well, what it all points to is that mixed up in all of this are cultural practices, cultural presumptions, and evidence of the adaptability and potential for growth in human minds when they're properly exercised and developed. So, I don't know enough about why people believe in the world of IQ test. The flin effect is continuing, but I know it is continuing. I'm part of my responsibility as, you know, can we just take it on advisement? My interest is not, as always, being not about whether we get more people to get higher scores than IQ test, but we should have a much richer conception of intelligence to start with. Because if you end up with a narrow view of intelligence, as I said earlier, you and with a big view of inability, and I know all kinds of people, who've been hampered in their lives by believing they're not very clever, because they were told at school, or because they didn't make up against the general standard of what people believed to be intelligence, and outside of education, there's every sort of evidence that intelligence is a much richer conception than. it was Francis Bene, who developed those tests. He even began to think of. The thing is, in terms of Francis Bene developed the tests, and Charles Darwin's cousin was Sir Francis Goulton. He developed those tests in France because he was trying to help kids with special needs education. He wanted to get some measure of where they were in terms of their growth and development. It was the fact they were turned to these mass systems of sorting and filtering that became the problem. I think in some ways it's pretty clear that there isn't an evolutionary step here. We get better at things that we practice more, so that may partly count for it. What do you think, Bene? Above all, we associate the fan and the obsession we have of estimating our children so that they can make better skills, of stress, we put them on very early screens, to get them to be bright, all those efforts, like we're doing to measure, or an intelligence cognitive, or even, we also put them on more complex learnings for the ones that, for example, their brain are not prepared. I'm more concerned about using intelligence and measure them so that we have that objective of our children, be it intelligent, instead of being people with satisfaction in life, or that there are, as I said before, other types of abilities such as creativity, collaboration, empathy, the feeling of elevation, that is, things that perhaps are better for the emotional intelligence that this fan allows the children to know more things, or put on tasks, so that they have, as any better knowledge. Yeah. I agree with that. I'm sorry, I'd denounced that second part of the question. I was talking just about the IQ thing because it got me going. But on that broader conception, I do think it's true that, well, firstly, you get better at things clearly if you practice them in the right way. And I'm saying that kids have all kinds of capacities that we often neglect. But what's also true is I think that some parents are falling into a trap here of putting their kids under far too much pressure to be good at everything and to do too much. And that's coming back to what we're saying earlier. This is a real balance for parents to strike and to use proper judgment about. I think, for example, can I ask you, how much time did you, as kids, spend outdoors playing? Just playing a lot. A lot. Same with me, so I grew up in Liverpool in the 1950s. We'd come home from school and we'd go out on the street and we'd play. Or there's a local park for hours, hours. We didn't like to go home, really. We just went home for food. We were like cats. If there was food, we went back to the house. If not, we'd go to where the food was. To some other somebody else's house. Children these days don't play like that as much. I'm chairing an international initiative called Dirt Is Good, which is about promoting the importance of children's play. We asked 12,000 families around the world as part of a survey that we've just done. How much time their children spend outdoors playing? And they, on average, and this is true in most parts of the world, kids spend very much less than we did, usually less than an hour, often not anything like an hour. Sometimes not, no time. Playing outdoors. At the same time, schools in many parts of the world are reducing time for play. And they're doing it in schools because they focus on competition and testing. And because they think play is trivial, presumably, or somebody does. The reason that children aren't playing outdoors is because parents are often frightened to let them out. It's because they have too much homework that they have to get done. It's because there isn't that enough places to play. And also, there's a lot more going on to distract them inside than outside. A lot of kids we've found on the survey would rather, for example, play football on a video game than go outside and play football. Well, the reason we have a campaign about this is because play isn't trivial. Play is vitally important in children's growth and development. It's important socially, cognitively, emotionally, and physically. Children have always played, and it's vitally important that they do play for all those reasons. But one of the reasons, as well, at times being cut back, is because parents are over-programming their children. So when they do grow outside, it's often for some team activity that parents are supervising. They're holding their coat and screaming at them from the touch line. Because they want their kids to be more and more competitive. And for all these reasons, I think it's really important that we recognise that childhood is a very important time. And we should allow our kids to be children. I mean, our children now, from a very early age, are suffering from depression, as well as adults. They're suffering from all kinds of emotional disturbances, which are created by the system. Children in schools are being diagnosed with attention problems, and giving medication for it. In fact, if we just let them go out and play, a lot of these problems disappear. So, I mean, that's partly. I do think we have to relax a bit around our kids. For example, we've done the same to some degree, well, not kids, we're young. You try and give them every opportunity. But you never know whether there's a negative return on getting into doing much. I think we should encourage and spend less time on these devices. I say, 'Incourage them'. I think sometimes we should just stop them spending so much time. That's part of the role of a parent, like enough. And turn it off. But for all those reasons, I think that's the balance of strength. years, what would you like to find there? OK. Well, I should say right away I'm in favor of schools. I mean, something belonged. There's a whole movement to get rid of schools, unschooling. But I think schools are very important. I make a distinction in New York, Child, and School, this fantastic book I mentioned earlier. [LAUGHTER] There's just been published. That is great. That one. That there's a difference between learning education and school. What I mean is that kids love to learn. Human beings are the most curious creatures we're ever encounter, I think. We have a granddaughter now, she's five months old. And like all babies, she is fantastically interested in what's going on around her. You can't stop her. And she'll just get more curious. That's the big driver of our achievement. Kids love to learn. They don't all like education, and some have a hard time with school. The difference is that education, as I see it anyway, is a more formal program of learning. It's a more intentional program where the assumption is there are some things that we want our children to learn that we don't want to leave to chance, or cultural or other reasons. Or there are some things which are too difficult, we feel, for them to find out on their own. So we need to help them. But for those and other reasons, we have formal systems of education, and some people love it, and some people don't get on with it. And a lot of them have a different time with school. And the reason, I think, is that sometimes they're required to learn things they don't find very interesting, or they're not taught in very interesting ways. And sometimes, because our schools don't work with the natural conditions of learning. Like, for example, making people sit down all day, breaking the day automatically up into the same chunks of time, having somebody stand at the front and talk to, having to do things when you're tired, having to do things with people you don't find very engaging. Or all kinds of ways. And often when you're going through a very difficult emotional time yourself, but you still have to do it, and then the threat of an exam at the end, and if you fail, you're in trouble. Through all kinds of things about schools and educational systems, which militate against the appetite for learning. Not always, not inevitably, but often. So the reason I think it's important that we have schools is because, as I was saying earlier, what we learned, we learn with and from each other. We don't live in a vacuum. It's important that we see that learning is social and cultural as well as personal. So what I want to do is help to redefine the schools and get rid of things in schools that stop people wanting to learn and have more things in schools that make them want to learn, not just on their own, but from one with other people. So you see, if you think of it, if you go back to it as it were, the basics about what is a school, we tend to think of schools these days as particular sorts of institutions. But if you forget that for a minute, a school is at heart. It's a community of learners. People who come together to learn with and from each other. And you can have a school anyway. You can have a school in a park. You can have a school in your apartment. This is a kind of school. We could reorganize this whole thing if we were staying here for the rest of the day and do this differently. We're doing it now because that's the way this was set up. But a school is people coming together to learn with and from each other. It could be two people, ten people, it could be 1,000 people. So the challenge is not to get rid of schools. It's to reimagine how schools could be in ways that would encourage and cultivate the appetite for learning and feed it properly, rather than as they so often do now, staunch the appetite for learning and make people lose interest. And on the contrary, become antagonistic to the whole process. As some people do, they fall out of school. They just don't finish it. They think of it as something to be got through and to get over with. So what would that be? Well, if you think of it again, there are some elements you'd want to have. I think schools need a curriculum. A curriculum is what it is we want people to learn. Well, again, I think it's perfectly reasonable that we should collaboratively figure out what is it that we want kids to learn these days. And I think a better framework than a group of subjects is to start with this idea of competencies and say, well, what sort of things will help those competencies evolve? And then begin to think, I think, not of subjects, but of disciplines. You see, music isn't a subject in the straight literal sense of it. It's not just a lot of content. Music is a set of intellectual, emotional, physical, technical and cultural skills and sensibilities. If you listen to music from a strange culture, one you're not familiar with, you may not make any sense of it at all. I know the first time I went to China at a Hong Kong, and I listened to Chinese opera. I had no idea what they were doing. To a European ear, it sounded like it was just out of tune. It did. It just sounded jarring and unpleasant. But then you don't know what they're doing anyhow. But then you get into it. Because this was an estate image, like a football event. People loved it. I just didn't understand the code. Well, music is often like that. So mathematics isn't a subject in the sense it's just a set of propositions to be learned. Mathematics is a highly creative, beautiful discipline with deeply contentious arguments that the heart of it about the nature and structure of mathematics and how it works. And it's a multifaceted set of different disciplines and fields of study. But I'd want to see mathematics, the arts, the humanities, physical education, and languages co-equal and interacting in a curriculum. You think about teaching and learning. That's part of it. It's a group of coming together to teach and learn. The best scores I know are highly interactive and dynamic, where you have teachers working together and students helping to plan what's going on. You have regdor rhythms. For example, in Finland, there are regular breaks in the school day. In every 45 minutes, kids get a 10 minute break. They'll do something else. They go and run around. They come back. They don't have a problem with attention. Because they know kids need to get up and run around and be active and busy. In terms of culture, you want it to be highly collaborative. That's why democratic schools are so good. You want a very flexible schedule in a school. So people can drop something and do something else they find more interesting, much more self-determination in a school. Rather than kids being told to sit down and do something with no choice, there's some things they need to learn. But there should be much more freedom in when they choose to do and who they choose to do it with. And I say this not because these are theories. I can take and show your schools that are doing it right now. Schools which are reinventing the rhythms of institutional life and getting much better results for doing it. And you want a school where assessment is seen not as a challenge, but as a support to learning, which is what it should be. And the new technologies allow us to do that by there in a much better way. Now we can have portfolios. We can have much more individualized learning plans. I know schools now where kids have their own time table every day. And also mixed-age teaching and learning. There's no reason why we should keep kids and teach them by age group. We don't do that in families. We don't need to do it in schools. That's not an educational principle. That's an administer of convenience. It's actually rather inconvenient, but that's why we do it. So if we're prepared to rethink how schools work and look at what gets in the way of learning and replace it with things that facilitate it, we should keep schools but have them reimagined. And we won't come up with one way of doing it. Any more than we've come up with one way of doing music or one band or one sort of restaurant. But they'll all be good if we think differently. [APPLAUSE] Apprendamos juntos, an educational project for a better life by BBVA in collaboration with L.P.E.S. and Santillana. www.BBVAapprendamoshuntos.com.