This is the third or fourth time that I have seen the video by Sir Ken Robinson "Schools Kill Creativity - http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html. I have watched this video in classes and at conferences. I really enjoy listening to Ken Robinson talk and I think I have seen all his RSAnimate talks and I take the chance of listening to him. 

I really enjoyed the part when he talks about the little girl in the art class drawing a picture of God and his son’s play where the kids will take chances when they don’t know what the right thing to do or say is. I think this is a great part of working with kids, they are not afraid to take chances and make mistakes!  It is like Ken says “If you are not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original.”

My question is: Why do you think that schools use the hierarchy that he suggests where arts are at the bottom (and in my experience get about an hour of representation a week) and does not put the same focus on all subjects, is it not feasible? I know that the ministry has a breakdown of how much time each week should be spent on each subject, but why do you think it is that way?

 As a secondary question, just because I am curious, has anyone
had the student in their class that needed to move to think? 
I remember having a grade 2/3 class and had 4 students that I could
relate that to.  If you did, what
did you do with them – did you foster their need to move or have to suppress
it?

I strongly believe in a few things, I think it is best to know these right off the bat and it might help my model make more sense. Firstly I believe that teaching is a life-long process and if we allow them to, our students have the potential to teach us just as much as we can  teach them. Secondly I believe strongly in inquiry based learning that helps to foster a community of learners, if students can make their own connections and meanings then they will in turn remember everything that much more easily because they are doing it in a way
that makes sense to them. In my model these two beliefs are shown with having the student and the teacher both at the top and both moving to the inquiry. This is so the student can focus on using the inquiry approach while the teacher helps to reinforce the tools within the students ‘arsenal’ to help them make all the connections possible to them.
                 
You will see all three schools of learning as gears working together. This is because I believe not just one school of learning should be executed for the greatest success but in turn all three schools of learning working together would work best. Siemens talks about how “learners have to learn how to learn and evaluate new information” and “learners of the future need to be exposed to different fields so that they can see the connections between the information in the fields” and I could not agree more. Bloom’s taxonomy also shows that the most active learning method is remembering (which is shown by the ‘next step’) but to get there, students need to be able to apply the information they have learned, as well as evaluate and analyze it. Connections are the biggest gears as I believe that making connections is the greatest asset but having the contributions of the other two (constructivism and behavior) are a great help as well. If we are trying to give our students as many tools as possible to achieve the highest level of success possible, why only let them take one route to get there?  
                  
Finally my funnel shows the learning outcomes and assessment coming together to lead to the next step. 
As a teacher it is our job to make sure that learning outcomes are reached and to do so we must use assessment but if we just use one form of assessment then I believe we are missing some things that we wouldn’t when we use both. Once we have hit all the learning outcomes and assessed them, we are able to see within our students, what might need to be reviewed and what is mastered and with that information it
can be used to inform future lessons and teaching practices. All of this information I believe is my philosophy of not only online learning but also face to face learning; as technology progresses and as we as teachers expand our thinking, the two forms of teaching and learning are moving farther away from being exclusive to one another and closer to a complete overlap.