Why schools kill creativity

Teachers often have biases against creative students , fearing that creativity in the classroom will be disruptive. They devalue creative personality attributes such as risk taking, impulsivity, and independence. They inhibit creativity by focusing on the reproduction of knowledge and obedience in class. I am a graphic artist and a writer for a living.

I remember when I was in school the idea of getting a degree in something creative was frowned upon by my parents. But I had to self-teach myself the basics of good design. I spent hours online watching videos and studying how to use the tools I needed to create and do what I am truly passionate about. I have friends who went to design school and when I look at their portfolios I am amazed.

I feel like someone who is a gifted chef but has never been to culinary school. I understand and can craft great design based on my experiences, but there are so many subtle techniques that can be taught in the classroom. When you go to cooking school they teach you to put all the things you need together before you start cooking. It is creativity that leads us to innovate.

What if we stopped creating smartphones with the Palm Pilot? What if the Wright Brothers had never tried to take flight? What about Thomas Edison when he created the light bulb, he failed over times before he got his invention to work — that requires some serious creativity. Recommended Posts. Subscribe to Blog Updates.

Recent Posts. Return to Top. Refer a friend! She wants to adversely impact through her writing and build a career out of her passion. Amritanshu, a geek, an explorer, traveler and innovative creator by heart. Experimenting with new ideas and exploring innovative technologies are his break-through talent. Endless craze for technology and creativity. Associated with editorial team at OpenGrowth and keenly serving great stuff from startup world.

Do schools kill creativity? Like Share Loved it? Share with others. Please select the following Summary of The Topic Sir Ken Robinson states that creativity is as significant as literacy and that, further, all children are talented and not afraid to be wrong.

Review The talk is intriguing for everybody who is interested in education or is working in the educational sector. Read the below link to know more: Do Schools Kill Creativity — A Response to Ken Robinson Robinson argues that schools are primarily concerned with conformity and that this has a negative impact on creativity.

To read more, Click Here We at, OpenGrowth , are continually looking for trending startups in the ecosystem. Contributor: Beauty Kumari An eloquent individual, love to express a myriad of topics through her words. Question or Message. Creativity in mathematics is not the same as creativity in visual art. There is some evidence that students who learn to work well with others in one setting may be more effective doing so in other settings, so some transfer is definitely possible. However, the really important message from the research in this area is that if you want students to be creative in mathematics you have to teach this in mathematics classrooms.

If you want students to think critically in history, you have to teach this in history. This means ensuring that all subjects are taught in what Guy Claxton calls an epistemically broad way.

Considering how contested is the question of what and how to teach school children, it is remarkable how broad is the consensus about the indispensability of the disciplines — each with its own structure and rules, language and logic, perspectives and habits-of-mind. The ancients talked about the importance of understanding what is true and what is not ; what is beautiful and what is not worth lingering over ; and what is good in terms of being a worthy person, worker and citizen.

It is worth dwelling on this briefly. First, that if the maximum number of children are to be given the greatest possible chance of realising their creative potential, schools need to provide and rich and broad curriculum that includes the so-called creative subjects that are the visual and performing arts.

And second, that if they are serious about cultivating real creativity across the curriculum, they need to remember that creativity describes a whole collection of similar, but different processes. In other words, they need to understand the central place of the disciplines in education, and take them as their starting point in curriculum design.

Why the teaching-to-the-test culture in our schools is failing to prepare pupils for the future they face, and devauling education. The example cited by Robinson is thought-provoking, but it doesn't, in itself, address creativity.

Dance is no more creative than writing. It is a medium of expression and as such gives tools to be creative. When the girl in the example found herself at dance school I have no doubt she would have been subjected to rigourous, disciplined training to perfect her plies, her jettes and her pirouettes. Once she had mastered them, I expect she had much more scope to creatively interpret the dances or the music, or to choreograph a new piece.

The arts are no more inherently creative than the sciences. We just think of the arts as creative endeavours but creativity is not confined to them. I find this a strange piece. I'll confine my comments to the opening sentences citing Tom Leuning's arguments:.

Fair enough, but not the whole story - and one which could go hand in hand with Robinson's arguments - no need to set up these versions of creativity in opposition to each other. Is all knowledge "based on literacy"? Do the illiterate have no knowledge? Some contemporary English schools do indeed help some children develop the kinds of literacy skills which enable them to become enthusiastic readers and writers, collecting, explaining and pursuing knowledge.

Other schools do not - and there are many reasons why some schools do and others do not.