今天和大家分享的這位演講者非常了不起，他是肯·羅賓遜，全球最具影響力的教育家、排名第一的TED演講人，同時還是“Thinkers 50頂尖思想家”與“創造力和創新領域的全球傑出思想家”。

肯·羅賓森在該演講中概括了使人類生活繁榮的三大關鍵原則 ，而現行的教育文化又如何與其背道而馳。他以風趣幽默、激動人心的演說告訴我們，如何逃出目前教育所面臨的“死亡谷”，如何以開放的文化氛圍培育年輕的一代。

他認爲，人類天生彼此千差萬別。“不讓一個孩子掉隊”所提出的教育政策，是基於一致性而非多樣性。這種政策是在鼓勵校方以成績的高低，這種狹隘的方式，來爲兒童的能力定位。

教師的工作不僅僅去傳遞所接收到的信息，同時他們還會指導學生的學習，激發學生的興趣，挑起學生的熱情，贏得學生的關注。但是當前教育的文化核心，不是激發好奇心，而是要求服從。

芬蘭將教學個性化，他們認爲學生是學習的主體，教育體系要做到吸引他們，引起他們的好奇心，他們的個性以及創造力。這樣才能讓學生主動學習。

中英文演講稿

Thank you very much. 非常感謝

I moved to America 12 years ago with my wife Terry and our two kids. Actually, truthfully, we moved to Los Angeles -- (Laughter) -- thinking we were moving to America, but anyway, it's a short plane ride from Los Angeles to America.

12年前我移居到美國，同我的妻子泰瑞和兩個孩子一起。事實上，說真的，我們只是搬到了洛杉磯，還以爲到了美國，不過，從洛杉磯乘飛機到美國，用不了多長時間。

I got here 12 years ago, and when I got here, I was told various things, like, "Americans don't get irony." Have you come across this idea? It's not true. I've traveled the whole length and breadth of this country. I have found no evidence that Americans don't get irony. It's one of those cultural myths, like, "The British are reserved." I don't know why people think this. We've invaded every country we've encountered. (Laughter) But it's not true Americans don't get irony, but I just want you to know that that's what people are saying about you behind your back. You know, so when you leave living rooms in Europe, people say, thankfully, nobody was ironic in your presence.

12年前，我剛來到美國的時候，當地人給我講了許多東西，像“美國人不懂諷刺。” 你們也有這種想法嗎?這很荒謬，我踏遍了美國的山山水水，卻從未找到任何證據來證明美國人不懂諷刺， 這屬於一種文化迷思。就如同說“英國人很矜持”一樣，我真不知道人們爲何會這樣想，英國曾侵略過每一個與其不期而遇的國度啊。(笑聲) 但是說美國人不懂諷刺確實與事實不符 ，其實我只是想令大家知道，別人在背後是怎樣談論你的。在歐洲，你離開客廳時，關注蔡雷英語接收更多英語資訊直人們會說，幸好，沒人當着你的面諷刺。

But I knew that Americans get irony when I came across that legislation No Child Left Behind. Because whoever thought of that title gets irony, don't they, because -- (Laughter) (Applause) — because it's leaving millions of children behind. Now I can see that's not a very attractive name for legislation: Millions of Children Left Behind. I can see that. What's the plan? Well, we propose to leave millions of children behind, and here's how it's going to work.

在我偶然聽說“不讓一個孩子掉隊”這條立法時，我就知道了美國人是懂得諷刺的。想出這條立法標題的人，就很懂得諷刺，難道不是嗎，因爲-- (笑聲)(掌聲) 因爲數百萬的兒童被撇在後面了，我從中看到的是一個並不招人待見的名號，“數百萬的孩子掉隊了”，顯而易見，具體有什麼計劃呢?我們提議，把數百萬兒童撇到後面，這就是它如何運作的。

And it's working beautifully. In some parts of the country, 60 percent of kids drop out of high school. In the Native American communities, it's 80 percent of kids. If we halved that number, one estimate is it would create a net gain to the U.S. economy over 10 years of nearly a trillion dollars. From an economic point of view, this is good math, isn't it, that we should do this? It actually costs an enormous amount to mop up the damage from the dropout crisis.

而且效果不錯，在美國的部分地區，60%的孩子從高中退學;在土著美國人社區，達到80%。 有一種看法是，如果這個數字較少一半，那麼在未來的十年裏，可以爲美國的經濟 創造近萬億美元的淨利潤。從經濟角度看，這是一筆好買賣，對吧，但我們應該這樣做嗎? 實際上，要大量的投入，才能肅清輟學危機所造成的損害。

But the dropout crisis is just the tip of an iceberg. What it doesn't count are all the kids who are in school but being disengaged from it, who don't enjoy it, who don't get any real benefit from it.

但輟學危機僅僅是冰山一角，沒算在內的是那些人在上學，心卻輟了學的孩子，他們不喜歡學習，無法真正從中獲益。

And the reason is not that we're not spending enough money. America spends more money on education than most other countries. Class sizes are smaller than in many countries. And there are hundreds of initiatives every year to try and improve education. The trouble is, it's all going in the wrong direction. There are three principles on which human life flourishes, and they are contradicted by the culture of education under which most teachers have to labor and most students have to endure.

其原因，不是我們沒有投入足夠的錢，在教育領域，美國比大多數國家，投入了更多的資金，班級人數也更少。每年都有上千條立法提案，嘗試改善教育制度，問題是，我們走錯了方向。 有三條法則，關注蔡雷英語接收更多英語資訊可以讓我們的生活更加繁榮，而現行的教育文化卻與之相牴觸，多數教師教得辛苦，學生學的痛苦。

The first is this, that human beings are naturally different and diverse.

第一條法則是，人類，天生彼此千差萬別

Can I ask you, how many of you have got children of your own? Okay. Or grandchildren. How about two children or more? Right. And the rest of you have seen such children. (Laughter) Small people wandering about. I will make you a bet, and I am confident that I will win the bet. If you've got two children or more, I bet you they are completely different from each other. Aren't they? Aren't they? (Applause) You would never confuse them, would you? Like, "Which one are you? Remind me. Your mother and I are going to introduce some color-coding system, so we don't get confused."

請問一下，在座各位，多少人有孩子，孫兒輩也算，兩個或兩個以上的呢?剩下的即使沒有孩子也見過別人的孩子。(笑聲) 到處都有小孩子 我要跟你們打個賭，我肯定能賭贏。 如果你有兩個以上的孩子，我打賭，他們一定是完全不同的個體，不是嗎?難道不是嗎?(鼓掌) 你絕對不會錯認，對不對。你可不會說“你是哪一個，提醒我一下，我和你媽媽要採用些手段 像彩色編碼系統，這樣我們就不會搞錯了。”

Education under No Child Left Behind is based on not diversity but conformity. What schools are encouraged to do is to find out what kids can do across a very narrow spectrum of achievement. One of the effects of No Child Left Behind has been to narrow the focus onto the so-called STEM disciplines. They're very important. I'm not here to argue against science and math. On the contrary, they're necessary but they're not sufficient. A real education has to give equal weight to the arts, the humanities, to physical education. An awful lot of kids, sorry, thank you — (Applause) — One estimate in America currently is that something like 10 percent of kids, getting on that way, are being diagnosed with various conditions under the broad title of attention deficit disorder. ADHD. I'm not saying there's no such thing. I just don't believe it's an epidemic like this. If you sit kids down, hour after hour, doing low-grade clerical work, don't be surprised if they start to fidget, you know? (Laughter) (Applause) Children are not, for the most part, suffering from a psychological condition. They're suffering from childhood. (Laughter) And I know this because I spent my early life as a child. I went through the whole thing. Kids prosper best with a broad curriculum that celebrates their various talents, not just a small range of them. And by the way, the arts aren't just important because they improve math scores. They're important because they speak to parts of children's being which are otherwise untouched.

“不讓一個孩子掉隊”所提出的教育政策，是基於一致性而非多樣性，這種政策是在鼓勵校方以成績的高低，這種狹隘的方式來爲兒童的能力定位 。“不讓一個孩子掉隊”這條立法的一個影響便是，將公衆的視線限制在被稱作STEM學科的焦點上， [STEM:科學、技術、工程、數學]它們很重要。 我不是駁斥科學和數學的重要性，正相反，它們是必需的，但不是全部。真正的教育應當給予藝術、人文和體育 與STEM同等重要的地位。有太多的學生，對不起，謝謝-(鼓掌聲)- 據估計，如今的美國，有大約10%的兒童 被診斷出患有，注意力缺乏症的一些症狀，即注意缺陷多動障礙。我不否定有這樣的病症存在，只是我不認爲這種病會如此盛行。如果你叫孩子坐上幾個小時，做低級的文書工作， 他們會不安分，這並不奇怪。 (笑聲)(掌聲) 大多數的孩子，並沒有心理問題，他們只是在忍受童年的煎熬而已，之所以這樣講，是因爲我也有過早期的童年生涯，並經歷了整個歷程。 廣泛的課程可以使孩子們取得最出色的成就，可以展示出他們多方面的天分，不侷限於小範圍，順便提一下，藝術之所以重要，不只是因爲它能夠提高數學成績。 藝術之所以重要，是因爲它表述着，孩子們的天性與本質。

The second, thank you — (Applause)

第二條法則，謝謝-(掌聲)

The second principle that drives human life flourishing is curiosity. If you can light the spark of curiosity in a child, they will learn without any further assistance, very often. Children are natural learners. It's a real achievement to put that particular ability out, or to stifle it. Curiosity is the engine of achievement. Now the reason I say this is because one of the effects of the current culture here, if I can say so, has been to de-professionalize teachers. There is no system in the world or any school in the country that is better than its teachers. Teachers are the lifeblood of the success of schools. But teaching is a creative profession. Teaching, properly conceived, is not a delivery system. You know, you're not there just to pass on received information. Great teachers do that, but what great teachers also do is mentor, stimulate, provoke, engage. You see, in the end, education is about learning. If there's no learning going on, there's no education going on. And people can spend an awful lot of time discussing education without ever discussing learning. The whole point of education is to get people to learn.

要想生活的朝氣蓬勃，第二條法則是，擁有好奇心。如果你能燃起孩子心性的好奇之火，絕大多數，都可以主動學習，無需外援。孩子們天生就會學習，是激發或是扼殺這種天賦 ，對孩子會產生巨大的影響，好奇心是取得成就的能動力。我這麼說是因爲，如果可以這麼說的話，當前的教育文化，影響了教師的專業化程度。無論是世界範圍的教育體系 ，還是國家內部的教育機構，都不如優秀的教學團隊。教師是學校能否取得成功的命脈，教學是需要創造力的職業教學，要有適當的創作，因爲它不是單純的輸出 。教師的工作不僅僅去傳遞所接收到的信息，優秀的教師的確要這樣做，但同時他們還會指導學生的學習。激發學生的興趣，挑起學生的熱情，贏得學生的關注。 看吧，總而言之，教育講的就是學習，如果沒有學習，就談不上教育。人們花了大量時間去談教育問題，卻從來不講學習，教育的主旨就是引導人們去學習。

A friend of mine, an old friend -- actually very old, he's dead. (Laughter) That's as old as it gets, I'm afraid. But a wonderful guy he was, wonderful philosopher. He used to talk about the difference between the task and achievement senses of verbs. You know, you can be engaged in the activity of something, but not really be achieving it, like dieting. It's a very good example, you know. There he is. He's dieting. Is he losing any weight? Not really. Teaching is a word like that. You can say, "There's Deborah, she's in room 34, she's teaching." But if nobody's learning anything, she may be engaged in the task of teaching but not actually fulfilling it.

我的一個朋友，是老朋友了--他本身也很老了，已經去世了。(笑聲) 恐怕最老也不過如此了，他是個很了不起的人，是位出色的哲學家，他過去常談到做事與從中獲得成就感 。兩者之間的不同，有些事你會去做，但不一定有所成就，就好比節食，這是個非常典型的例子，你看他，他最近在節食。他有瘦一些嗎?沒有啊，教學和節食很像。 你可以說“那就是黛博拉，她在34號教室授課。” 但如果學生沒從她那學到任何知識，她就可能只是從事教學這項工作，但並沒有真正的完成它。

The role of a teacher is to facilitate learning. That's it. And part of the problem is, I think, that the dominant culture of education has come to focus on not teaching and learning, but testing. Now, testing is important. Standardized tests have a place. But they should not be the dominant culture of education. They should be diagnostic. They should help. (Applause) If I go for a medical examination, I want some standardized tests. I do. You know, I want to know what my cholesterol level is compared to everybody else's on a standard scale. I don't want to be told on some scale my doctor invented in the car.

教師的職責是令學生學習得更容易，就是這樣。我想，部分原因是，因爲當下的教育文化主要關注的，是考試，而非教學。如今，考試很重要，標準化考試很有影響力 ，但它不應該作爲教育文化的主導方向。相反，考試應該用於診斷問題。並且，用於幫助改進。(掌聲) 如果我去做個醫學檢查，我當然要做些常規檢查，我想知道，同大衆標準值範圍相比 我的膽固醇含量在什麼水平，我不想參考那些，醫生隨便編出來的數值。

"Your cholesterol is what I call Level Orange."

“你的膽固醇含量在橙色水平。”

"Really? Is that good?""We don't know."

“真的?是好消息?”“沒法判斷。”

But all that should support learning. It shouldn't obstruct it, which of course it often does. So in place of curiosity, what we have is a culture of compliance. Our children and teachers are encouraged to follow routine algorithms rather than to excite that power of imagination and curiosity. And the third principle is this: that human life is inherently creative. It's why we all have different résumés. We create our lives, and we can recreate them as we go through them. It's the common currency of being a human being. It's why human culture is so interesting and diverse and dynamic. I mean, other animals may well have imaginations and creativity, but it's not so much in evidence, is it, as ours? I mean, you may have a dog. And your dog may get depressed. You know, but it doesn't listen to Radiohead, does it? (Laughter) And sit staring out the window with a bottle of Jack Daniels. (Laughter)

但這些考試應當對學習有利，不應該像常表現出的，阻撓學習的熱情，當前教育的文化核心，不是激發好奇心，而是要求服從，我們的孩子和教師都被鼓勵。遵循常規算法， 而不是激發想象力與好奇心。第三條法則是，人的生命具有與生俱來的創造力，這就解釋了爲什麼我們有不同的人生履歷，我們創造不同的生活，我們一邊經歷着一邊享受着 。這是作爲人類通用的生活模式，這就是爲什麼人類文化如此有趣、豐富 充滿活力，其他動物也可能擁有想象力和創造力，但明顯又沒那麼多。不是嗎，難道跟人類一樣? 你可能養了條狗 ，你的狗也有可能情緒低落 但它不會去聽收音機頭樂隊的音樂，不是嗎? (笑聲) 它也不會拿着酒瓶坐在窗前凝視遠方。(笑聲)

And you say, "Would you like to come for a walk?"

你問“要不要出去散散步啊?”

He says, "No, I'm fine. You go. I'll wait. But take pictures."

它回答“不用了，我沒事。 你去吧，我在這等你。記得拍照。”

We all create our own lives through this restless process of imagining alternatives and possibilities, and what one of the roles of education is to awaken and develop these powers of creativity. Instead, what we have is a culture of standardization.

我們的生活就建立在這種無休止的經歷上，設想着其他的選擇，其他的可能，而教育的一個作用，就是喚醒並開發人們的創造力。相反，我們的教育文化是標準定型的。

Now, it doesn't have to be that way. It really doesn't. Finland regularly comes out on top in math, science and reading. Now, we only know that's what they do well at because that's all that's being tested currently. That's one of the problems of the test. They don't look for other things that matter just as much. The thing about work in Finland is this: they don't obsess about those disciplines. They have a very broad approach to education which includes humanities, physical education, the arts.

其實不是非得這樣做，不是的，在芬蘭，傳統優勢教學科目有數學、科學以及閱讀我們只知道他們在這些方面做得很好。因爲這些科目通常都是要考試的，這就是考試引發的一個問題。 人們會忽視同等重要的其他科目。關注蔡雷英語接收更多英語資訊在芬蘭教育工作是這樣的： 人們並不執著於這些學科，他們的教育很全面，包括人文、體育和藝術領域。

Second, there is no standardized testing in Finland. I mean, there's a bit, but it's not what gets people up in the morning. It's not what keeps them at their desks.

其次，在芬蘭沒有標準化考試。我是說，幾乎沒有，即使有也不會是那種叫人要一大早起牀，守在桌旁學習才能通過的考試。

And the third thing, and I was at a meeting recently with some people from Finland, actual Finnish people, and somebody from the American system was saying to the people in Finland, "What do you do about the dropout rate in Finland?"

第三，最近我出席了一個會議，對方來自芬蘭，是的的確確的芬蘭人。一些美國人向芬蘭人問道 “在芬蘭，你們怎麼應對輟學率?”

And they all looked a bit bemused, and said, "Well, we don't have one. Why would you drop out? If people are in trouble, we get to them quite quickly and help them and we support them."

他們當下看起來很困惑，然後說 “我們那沒人輟學，爲什麼要輟學呢? 如果有人遇到困難，我們會很快的聯繫他們，幫助他們，甚至支持他們。”

Now people always say, "Well, you know, you can't compare Finland to America."

有人會說“要知道，你不能拿芬蘭同美國比。”

No. I think there's a population of around five million in Finland. But you can compare it to a state in America. Many states in America have fewer people in them than that. I mean, I've been to some states in America and I was the only person there. (Laughter) Really. Really. I was asked to lock up when I left. (Laughter)

的確不能，芬蘭人口只有大約五百萬，但可以拿它同美國的一個州來比較。在美國許多州的人口比芬蘭的要少，我去過美國的一些州，那裏就我一個人，(笑聲) 這是真的。還有人告訴我走之前要鎖門 (笑聲)

But what all the high-performing systems in the world do is currently what is not evident, sadly, across the systems in America -- I mean, as a whole. One is this: They individualize teaching and learning. They recognize that it's students who are learning and the system has to engage them, their curiosity, their individuality, and their creativity. That's how you get them to learn.

但是世界上所有的高效體系，用在美國身上，很遺憾，通常作用都不明顯--作爲整體而言。做法之一是，他們將教學個性化，他們認爲學生是學習的主體。教育體系要做到吸引他們，引起他們的好奇心，他們的個性以及創造力，這樣才能讓學生主動學習。

The second is that they attribute a very high status to the teaching profession. They recognize that you can't improve education if you don't pick great people to teach and if you don't keep giving them constant support and professional development. Investing in professional development is not a cost. It's an investment, and every other country that's succeeding well knows that, whether it's Australia, Canada, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong or Shanghai. They know that to be the case.

第二種做法是，他們爲教育行業，造就了崇高的地位，他們意識到要改善教育水平 就要選擇優秀的教員，並給予他們不斷的支持，以及專業化的發展。投資教育專業的發展不是單純的花費 它是有收益的，所有在教育方面取得成功的國家都深知這一點 ，無論是澳大利亞、加拿大、韓國、新加坡 香港還是上海，他們知道事實就是這樣。

And the third is, they devolve responsibility to the school level for getting the job done. You see, there's a big difference here between going into a mode of command and control in education -- That's what happens in some systems. You know, central governments decide or state governments decide they know best and they're going to tell you what to do. The trouble is that education doesn't go on in the committee rooms of our legislative buildings. It happens in classrooms and schools, and the people who do it are the teachers and the students, and if you remove their discretion, it stops working. You have to put it back to the people. (Applause)

第三種做法是，他們幫助校方知道他們的責任所在，並且要求校方負起他們應有的責任。大家可以看出這與我們教育體系中的指揮和控制模式差異巨大，但這的確是某些教育體系的真實情況。 中央政府或州政府認爲，他們是最好的決策者，他們會告訴你做什麼，問題是人們不會在立法機構的會議室裏進行教學。而是在教室和校園裏，講授者是教師，受教者是學生 。若要奪走他們的決定權，教育體系就無法正常運行，政府必須把決定權交還給人們。(掌聲)

There is wonderful work happening in this country. But I have to say it's happening in spite of the dominant culture of education, not because of it. It's like people are sailing into a headwind all the time. And the reason I think is this: that many of the current policies are based on mechanistic conceptions of education. It's like education is an industrial process that can be improved just by having better data, and somewhere in, I think, the back of the mind of some policy makers is this idea that if we fine-tune it well enough, if we just get it right, it will all hum along perfectly into the future. It won't, and it never did.

美國的教育工作還是很出色的，我得承認這一點，儘管在這種教育文化下，卻不受其干擾，就像有人總是逆風航行。我認爲原因就是，當前的許多政策都是基於對教育的刻板印象 ，他們認爲教育就像一種工業流程。關注蔡雷英語接收更多英語資訊只要有了更好的數據便有更好的發展，我想決策者會有這種想法，源於這樣一種觀點，如果我們將數據調整的足夠精確，整個體系在將來都會運轉的很好。 其實不會的，永遠都不會。

The point is that education is not a mechanical system. It's a human system. It's about people, people who either do want to learn or don't want to learn. Every student who drops out of school has a reason for it which is rooted in their own biography. They may find it boring. They may find it irrelevant. They may find that it's at odds with the life they're living outside of school. There are trends, but the stories are always unique. I was at a meeting recently in Los Angeles of -- they're called alternative education programs. These are programs designed to get kids back into education. They have certain common features. They're very personalized. They have strong support for the teachers, close links with the community and a broad and diverse curriculum, and often programs which involve students outside school as well as inside school. And they work. What's interesting to me is, these are called "alternative education." You know? And all the evidence from around the world is, if we all did that, there'd be no need for the alternative. (Applause)

因爲教育不是機械化的系統，它是人性化的，它的主體是人，想學習的人，不想學習的人。每一個輟學的學生都有自己的理由，源於每個人不同的生活經歷， 或許是覺得學習很無聊，或許認爲學的東西無關緊要，也或者是他們發現這些，與校園以外的生活相矛盾。大潮流始終存在，但每個人獨特的故事，同樣存在，最近我在洛杉磯參與了一個會議。 被稱爲可選擇的教育方案，策劃這些方案的目的是要讓孩子重新接受教育，他們有些共同特徵，個性化程度高，對教員支持力度大，與社區聯繫緊密，課程廣泛多樣化。這些課程方案往往將 校外和校內的學生都包含了進來，而且都很奏效，有趣的是，這些被稱作“可選擇性教育”。 想想看，環顧世界所有的證據都顯示，如果我們都這樣做，那就不存在選不選擇的問題了。 (掌聲)

So I think we have to embrace a different metaphor. We have to recognize that it's a human system, and there are conditions under which people thrive, and conditions under which they don't. We are after all organic creatures, and the culture of the school is absolutely essential. Culture is an organic term, isn't it?

所以我想我們應該採用一種不同的說法，我們應當認識到這是個人性化的體系，在一些環境下人們可以取得成功。有些卻不能，畢竟我們都是有機的生命體 ，而校園文化絕對是我們最根本的成長要素，文化也是個有機的術語，不是嗎?

離我家不遠處，有個地方叫死亡谷。死亡谷是全美最熱最乾旱的地帶，在那裏沒有任何生物可以存活，因爲那裏從不下雨，所以，它叫做死亡谷。2004年冬天，死亡谷卻下起了雨， 短時間內降雨量達七英寸，2005年春天，那裏出現這樣一種景色，整個死亡谷鋪滿了鮮花，持續了一段時間 ，這證明了一點：死亡谷並非沒有生命，它只是在休眠。地表下潛伏着的種子 待條件成熟便伺機而發。有機系統內，只要有適當的環境，生命的出現不可避免，這是自然規律。 你選擇一個地方，一所學校，一個市區，你改變環境，讓人們對可能性有了不同的感受 對希望有了不同的期許，機遇也更廣泛。你珍惜並重視師生間的情誼，你給予人們自主權來發揮創造力，革新他們的成果，學校裏曾一度缺失這種盎然生機。

卓越的領導者清楚這一點，在教育體系中領導者的真正作用，無論在國家級，州級還是校級上，其真正作用不是也不應是指揮和控制。領導者的真正作用是控制教育的風氣， 製造一種充滿可能性的傾向，如果你這樣做了，人們便會追隨，實現你預料不到，也不曾期待過的成果。

在此引用本傑明富蘭克林的一句格言： “世界上有三種人，第一種人雷打不動，得不到是因爲他們不想要，他們力求不變;第二種人伺機而動，他們認識到改變的必要性，準備去做 ;第三種人先發制人，他們主動讓事情發生。” 如果我們可以鼓勵更多的人去做，那將會成爲一場運動，如果這場運動有足夠的執行力度，從最好的角度來看，那將會是一場革命， 而這正是我們所需要的。

Thank you very much. (Applause) Thank you very much. (Applause)

謝謝大家 (掌聲) 謝謝(掌聲)

閱讀原文