First, if you haven’t spent a significant amount of time on TED.com, you need to. Technology Education and Design (TED) is an annual event in California where some of the world’s leading thinkers share ideas about practically everything. All of these talks are available for free online.
One particularly riveting and hilarious TED talk (watch here) was given by Sir Ken Robinson on the topic of how schools kill creativity. Robinson argues that public education systems were designed at the dawn of the industrial revolution and governments structured the curriculum to meet the rapidly growing needs of the industrial system. This way of thinking about the purpose of education is still with us today, as evidenced by the consistent hierarchy of priorities in public education; math and languages at the top with music, art, and dance at the bottom. In other words, the skills most useful and marketable are the ones that are prioritized and rewarded at the expense of more creative pursuits.
Robinson goes on to say that in our rapidly changing world, creativity is as important as literacy and ought to be treated that way by our institutions. He states that all children are born artists and are relentlessly educated out of their creativity. Robinson asserts that if you are afraid of being wrong, you cannot come up with an original idea, which is a basic component of creativity. Our current system is built on the stigmatization of mistakes, which slowly deteriorates our willingness and ability to take risks, be wrong, and thus think creatively. I think I prefer a “fail often, fail early” approach.
I believe Robinson is correct on two big points: 1) kids are typically not rewarded for creative endeavors early on and 2) the current education system is designed to churn out middle managers in major corporations. I have no problem with corporations as such, they are perfectly appropriate vehicles for doing business. What I am not sure of is whether our schools should be categorically designed and structured to meet the needs of industry.
What do you think? Do we need to radically rethink the aims of education and institutionalize new priorities? Should we treat creativity as seriously as we do literacy?
Dec. 17, 2008 at 11:27 am
Its funny you mention creativity… this morning I stumbled upon an article about the role of tenure for academics (and really acculturation) on really important work. The article is by Mark Bauderline, and a relevant quote is here:
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2008/12/is_tenure_doomed.html
“And as for academic freedom, sad to say, tenure has devolved from a system that encourages independence into a system that ensures conformity. Tenure is supposed to protect against-the-grain thinking so long as it observes academic norms, but after five years of graduate training, a year or two as post-doc or adjunct, then six years as an assistant professor, individuals fortunate enough to win tenure have other ambitions than challenging reigning ideas and practices. They’ve spent too many years adapting to professional etiquette and internalizing protocols to change at age 40. Those things got them hired, published, and promoted, and the acculturation is set.”
I sometimes feel like education, while improving my analytical thinking ability, has constrained the ability to think outside the box, and perhaps made me risk averse with regards to what I write/ think about.
still thinking this over…
Dec. 17, 2008 at 12:24 pm
In my opinion creativity is an extremely important aspect of education. I also think it totally depends on the teacher on how much they support and foster creativity. Some teachers are just not that creative so they would have a hard time with having creativity being of importance in their classroom. I am probably at the extreme opposite as my entire classroom and daily activities are based around creativity. I think that creativity can be fostered but it is also something that some people just have. Can you really teach creativity? Literacy on the other hand is one of the most important aspects of education. Without literacy you have nothing. Most of the world’s poverty is the result of a lack of literacy. Without literacy you cannot go anywhere in the world. You cannot be successful if you do not have literacy. The ability to read and write is of utter importance. Creativity on the other hand – people can survive without it. It would be a boring world, but I don’t think it’s a make or break thing. Most people can develop creativity on their own, or with support from their family, and perhaps with the support of the rare teacher out there who is encouraging in that way. I distinctly remember my teachers who encouraged my creativity and those who did not. Those teachers inspired me to continue being creative, even after I left their class. There are also schools out there that focus on the arts. High schools are known for a great drama, music, or art programs just as others are for their sports or high academics. Even in elementary schools there are music and art classes. I do not think creativity needs to be treated with the same significance as that of literacy, but I do think more teachers could recognize its importance. If the education system needs to improve anything it should be with bilingual programs, less standardized testing, and more support of their teachers.
Dec. 17, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Perhaps we need to address a few things:
Is creativity the same as the arts? I would say no… art is one specific type of creative contribution, but not the only one. So, adding creativity is not the same as adding art outcomes
Can creativity be taught? Probably not as much as we would like, but probably more so than we think. If creativity is in part a type of critical and divergent thinking skill set, then perhaps we can at least address strategies of people for increasing their creative contrribution, even if we will never be able to make the non-creative individual a picasso
Does creativity require a separate curriculum? I would say no… so to address Melanie’s point, perhaps its not that we have to replace other things (such as literacy) with creativity teaching, but rather that we need to develop teaching throughout all disciplines that allows us to think creatively in our sciences, literature, arts, so on and so forth.
pb
Dec. 18, 2008 at 1:57 am
Great comments, thank you! I would like to make a couple of points that may not refute yours, but at least help synthesize our opinions:
1) Literacy is fundamentally important, period. All Robinson and myself are saying is that it need not be at the cost of creativity.
2) Perhaps we don’t have to “teach creativity.” Maybe we just need to stop unteaching it.
3) Creativity need not be defined in terms of the arts. Robinson says that creativity is having original ideas that have value. I think our neglect of art is merely a symptom of our lack of prioritizing creative pursuits.
4) Robinson points out that kids entering the education system today will be retiring in 2065. We do not know what the world will look like in ten years, let alone 60. Perhaps we should be training people to create a better future instead of prepare them for the demands of today.
At the end of the day, yes, this is all difficult to institutionalize and could be chalked up as idealistic coffee house chatter. However, let’s put away our skeptic caps for a moment and imagine a world where all kids’ creative faculties are honed and nourished in their own unique way. While that world is clearly unreachable, let’s move toward it.
Dec. 18, 2008 at 9:19 am
There seems to be a movement of late, people talking about left brain-right brain. In the schools, in the corporate cubicles.
Common thread, creativity, as in, letting thoughts, ideas flow, valuing the individual. Seems to make sense as we face obvious changes. This might lead to more arts exposure for children, which is needed , but it might also lead to other ways to structure conference calls or flow charts.
Sir Ken has a powerful message. Don’t suppress creativity in the young.
Viki
http://blog.madcaplogic.com/?p=16