This is excellent.  Another analogy would be piano.  Pianists spend countless hours practising (rote learning) before being able to play, and can chord or improvise creatively only after they’ve done rote learning.  Not a single one of these people who advocate that rote learning stifles creativity could play the piano without drill.

“The answer to both of these questions, I believe, is yes. And a recent discussion on the BAM! Radio Network in which I participated focused on this very topic—the value of rote memorization. The conversation, hosted by Rae Pica, featured Daniel Willingham (a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia), Joan Almon (executive director of the Alliance for Childhood) and me.

Because “rote” learning and “memorization” have negative connotations for most people, it might be better to speak of learning things by heart. And, as Willingham points out in our discussion, learning things by heart is something children automatically do. That is, it comes naturally to them—whether it’s being able to recall all the words to a nursery rhyme or knowing the plot of a story (if not the story itself, word for word) before one is actually able to read. Willingham says that the key is engagement: “If you’re really engaged, memory comes pretty automatically.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-snider/rote-memorization-testing_b_817170.html

However, in Asian cultures, rote learning is a must dealing with a written language of over 100,000 characters to memorized, compared to the Western alphabet of 26 letters, and their associated sounds. Rote learning is deeply ingrained in Asian cultures, but in NA it is discourage within the current education system of K to 12, “Yet in a subtle bit of linguistic sleight of hand, the pejorative term “rote memorization” is commonly used as synonymous with memorization tout court. It’s almost always contrasted with comprehension and critical thinking—as if knowing things and thinking about things were mutually exclusive.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/300cczpb.asp

“Rote learning is sometimes disparaged with the derogative terms parrot fashion, regurgitation, cramming, or mugging because one who engages in rote learning may give the wrong impression of having understood what they have written or said. It is strongly discouraged by many new curriculum standards. For example, science and mathematics standards in the United States specifically emphasize the importance of deep understanding over the mere recall of facts, which is seen to be less important, although advocates of traditional education have criticized the new American standards as slighting learning basic facts and elementary arithmetic, and replacing content with process-based skills.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_learning

The process-based skills is a horrid little invention to dumb down the curriculum as well as the education of individual students, and especially the students who struggles in the basics of language. A teacher has no choice but to dumb it down for a student, when rote learning of the basics takes a back seat to process-based learning and skills. Throw in the constructivist learning theory, constructing one’s knowledge,  and the disconnected facts found in any curriculum, North American education systems is the polar opposite of Asian education systems, not having an equal balance between rote learning practices and the stuff that promotes deep learning and critical thinking skills, both results in negative outcomes of students, and society is less equipped to innovate and progress. 

Neither can North American education systems produce creative students, , using process-based practices and skills. Our brains are equipped to used rote learning practices, to kick start the cognitive processes of critical thinking, and the cognitive processes of the brain than craves practice of the rote skills, to obtain deeper understanding. Of course the NA education practices have the cart before the horse, and as a result, condemns many students to suffered the consequences as young adults, when the real world realities confronts them, not appreciating the young adults self-constructed knowledge base, with weak foundational skills.

I agree with you Bev.  I read an autobiography of a famous violinist who wrote of the hours and the pain involved in the practice of arpeggios, or variations of scales; up, down, up, down, halfway down, etc….

Among other things, this builds in muscle memory and enables perfect rhythm and pitch.

Thus, with these core elements grounded, the artist is able to improvise, focus on expressive elements, etc.

It is most ironic that while these guardians of progress brag about eliminating the dark ages from education, a renewed focus on the elements of genius is making the rounds of the public square and, surprise! The difference between mediocrity and genius seems to be related to the difference between six thousand and ten thousand hours of practice.

Perhaps it depends on whether the rote-learning requires the learning of useful facts or is simply pointless time-wasting memorisation, such as learning the totally insane irregular English spellings of the ‘blue shoe flew through to you’ kind.

Korean spelling is highly systematic and requires no learning other than its basic code. Learning to read and write English involves much rote-learning of exceptions, in addition to the basic code - as explained at http://www.EnglishSpellingProblems.co.uk

Perhaps Korean children are more able to learn other facts because they do not have to spend so much time on learning to read and write?