Education Vs. Creativity
 

i find this an interesting topic for everyone, because it's relevant to almost everyone. i find that artistic passion and motivation are the driving forces of advances in society.

now, this is a long watch, but i find it completely worth the time, and more. Ken Robinson is basically plugging his book, but he gives a wonderful speech too. if you want, you can search "do schools kill creativity?" and watch the 20 minute version, but it's sub par compared to this.

YouTube - Sir Ken Robinson, Hammer Lectures

i agree with all that he says, it's just the problem of implementing such an idea into the society we've created for ourselves. i don't think it would be wise for a drastic change; seeing small changes along the way would be pertinent. i know that i've learned a lot from great teachers, and absolutely nothing from bad ones.

can't you have education and creativity together? Aren't they sometimes the same thing?

You can't teach creativity, but you can teach someone to use their creativity I guess. Schools really take the imagination out of kids in my opinion, they're more concerned with what's "known" rather than exploring new things.

This is true, but I think the schooling system is changing rapidly (at least it is over here) to encompass the belief that creativity and innovation is the driving force behind success and fulfillment. I remember when I was in school, a lot of things that I did actually encouraged my creativity and imagination - I probably wouldn't have fully expressed myself in a way that I'd chosen if I didn't have the comfortable school environment, as well as nurturing teachers who encouraged to use our minds in our OWN why, not in a conventionally taught way or whatever.

And at university they teach future teachers to encourage students to think in their own way and use their own abilities in the way that fits them. Gone are the days of ROTE learning, now everything is about creativity, innovation, thinking outside the square, etc. Over here the schooling system has definitely changed drastically, in such a way that education does nurture creativity.

Schools teaching creativity is counterproductive.

How can you mold someone to be another cog in the wheel if they start being "creative"?

Schools don't want you to be creative, they want you to be efficient. Creativity is for commies.

MR. AMERICA WALK ON BY
YOUR SCHOOLS THAT DO NOT TEACH

also art schools ftw

I think his point about ADD is more interesting than his point on education.

This does seem to be partly correct, boo boo, based on what I've seen while volunteering at an Iowan elementary school. The 1st grade class was so full of rules and negative vibes I thought I'd get an ulcer by just volunteering. Kids were told to *whisper* the whole time they did projects. If a child made an exclamation of joy or surprise, s/he lost a "cube" (and whichever team of kids ended up with the most cubes at the end of the day would get a prize). I understand that the teacher is trying to get strict discipline to make sure she can teach all the kids how to read, write, and do simple math, yet it was painful to watch children forced so strongly to conform, especially since I know from my own exprerience that educating children does not have to stunt their enthusiasm and creativity by loading them down with rules.

This grade school class in which I volunteer is completely opposite of the "Alternative Program" I attended in Iowa from 1st to 4th grade, back in the 1970's when people were trying to alter public education to inspire creativity. Our alternative class (for 1st - 6th graders, all in one classroom) had no desks. We got to learn at our own pace. We got to build forts and make homes for snakes we brought in from outside. We had lots of art and science projects that we could do, or not do, depending on what we wanted.

The basic model of this Alternative Program classroom was that kids (people) *love* learning and if you provide a lot of activities and opportunities for them they will naturally explore, learn, create. You don't have to force them to learn or to conform. We called our teacher Ruth. Our teachers were friends and guides. There was none of this "Mrs." and "Mr." so-and-so that is required in regular schools as a "sign of respect" for teachers. Notice how in regular classrooms the teachers don't call children "Mr." or "Mrs."--so you can quickly tell that the adults *don't* respect children as much as adults, and they feel being an authority figure is extremely important.

Eventually, the school district ended the Alternative Program class in our community...not because the students weren't doing well, but because the program so challenged the authority of the traditional school system philosophy. Luckily, I was a beneficiary of an open-minded school philosophy as a child before conservatives snuffed it out. Those were the best 4 years of my school career.

No, they don't. That's precisely what good schools don't want to do - they don't want to turn their students into 'another cog in the wheel.' Like I said, teacher training these days places so much emphasis on individuality, creativity, directional thinking, different ways of learning, etc. Everything I've seen in schools in Australia aims to teach students to be individual and creative and learn in the way that is most effective for them, rather than hypodermically learn knowledge like some kind of production line.

It's true that there are many schools out there that operate as businesses rather than facilitators of learning and creativity. But I can honestly say that most government schools over here encourage creativity and innovation and that this concept of schooling is heavily ingrained in teacher training as well.

Over here if you are a smarty smart pants and do well in school they pretty much let you do whatever you want... at my school atleast. The lesson plans are looser and you have the option to be more creative. I was neither smart nor creative so I became a dropout like the rest of Baltimore City... can I get my "fail at life" badge please?

^ Doesn't mean you weren't smart nor creative... it means the teachers you had weren't able to engage you or facilitate your learning and your creativity.

No, all of the most creative people I know are educated at least to some degree in university.

Good schools. :laughing:

I gotta admit, that was funny. I am of course talking from a strictly American viewpoint.

I dropped out of school in 3rd grade, and I can tell you for a fact that I'm smarter than most people I know with a high school education.

Did you at least go back and get your G.E.D.? I "dropped out" at during 8th grade and when I tested for my GED I scored within the 99th percentile for the state on everything but math, and within 90+ on everything but math nation wide,

Thel problem with America's school system is that it teaches memorization skills but not real world, problem solving or logic based skills.

Nope. I do hope to work on getting a G.E.D. though.

Schools nowadays are less about education and more about simply earning status and credibility. And like you said, it's all memorization and trial and error stuff. It dosen't encourage problem solving and creative thinking like it should.

Let's rephrase that to "strictly Tennessee" viewpoint rather than "strictly American".

creativity cannot be taught, it can only be expanded with the right knowledge. But it's either there or not. The technique on the other hand can be taught, but it shouldn't be the base. If we stick to technique there wouldn't be any experimentation, thus reducing the imaginary.

School and university tend to strictly teach technique, because it is in a way objective, and for everyone. However, teaching subjects that are restricted to imagination can be even more dangerous, as it is purely subjective. Teachers tend to define the good project following their own taste, thus undermining any project somehow different.

I feel teachers shouldn't teach theory, cause anything these days can just be googled. On the other hand it's better to have an experienced person telling us where and how to wander in our research without telling what's right and wrong. The teacher should expand our horizons, show us a different way of thinking. Unfortunately, teachers always have the urge to transform all students into their little clones.

I'm still stuck in middle school so I can probably identify with a lot of this more than you guys.

I go to public school which unfortunately enforces these fucking "CMTs" (Connecticut Mastery Test) which teach us nothing and have been basically the same since 5th grade. But luckily, while some teachers make us cram and study for these things there are also ones who don't really give a shit.

So basically in my opinion it's the teacher that matters, not the school. If the teacher is willing to let us be creative and actually teach us useful things, then it doesn't matter if there are also stupid tests that we have to take.

i agree with this. many teachers (and sadly, parents) enforce attributes of themselves to their children, some inadvertently, some not. i remember talking to a stranger who believed that intelligence was hereditary, in a genetic fashion. i think it a ridiculous notion. people may argue nature vs. nurture, but i believe there is a place for both. it cannot be denied that each individual has natural talent, but those talents must be nurtured, and it takes great teachers to foster such talent.

the problem with schooling and strict education is that it has grown archaic, and is disregarding the main proponent for its cause: the people affected by the system.

my schooling experiences weren't terrible, but the one thing i do know for a fact is that the teachers had a massive impact upon my learning. in year 8, for example, i had an ineffective math teacher. he wasn't necessarily unqualified, he just had the social ability and interpersonal skills of an old shoe. he couldn't control the class. it badly affected all of our learning. he got fired the year after. now i cannot easily perform the simplest of maths. that one experience degraded my ability and interest in maths. i'm just lucky that i had good art and english teachers.

i'm actually glad i'm out of school now; i hated it. then i went to university to study music, where i thought i'd encounter like-minded individuals; i hated that too. the worst part of compulsory schooling is that many children don't necessarily need it. the best parts of school are the personal relationships that are formed... because i'd just appropriate my level of work to which subjects i like the most. by the end i had pretty much given up.

My daughter was artistic before she started school. We have always supplied her with lots of materials to create whatever she wished. She has alot of natural talent. Parents are the best "educators". If you wait for schools to teach your kids, they will already be behind when they start.

Heh, well obviously the Australian and American schooling systems are incredibly different then! Because in the last couple of decades or so our schools have taken a huge turn and focus on all the things I mentioned and steer clear of all that memorization/ROTE learning stuff.

It actually makes me sad to think that schools in other parts of the world are still stuck in that mindset.

When I was a kid, we still had the old school teachers who often were not really good to or with the kids. Learning was often by memorization or - even worse - having the teacher dictating what you have to write into your book for an hour. I was really restless as a kid and sitting quiet with my desk like that for hours every weekday was just torment. By the time I was 16, I was so fed up I dropped out .. I started again a few months later, but then I was studying art which I stuck with for 3 years. I don't think the education was that good, but it was much more freestyle and flexible. I could do things in my own pace and wasn't trapped with the desk much.

People may be surprised at this because I imagine most would think I was a pretty good pupil, but I eventually got extremely rebellious and most of my late teens, I didn't really care what grades I got. I learned a lot from school, but the way it was for me it was definetly a creativity killer and that way of learning just did not suit me as a kid at all. I think that is or was a quite common scenario for young boys with ants in their pants.

School is always changing here and so it's probably better now than it was. I'm glad I'm done with it .. Now I have lectures, but I choose to go to them. And yeah, I still get ants in my pants but I've learned to cope .. mostly. :p:

The primary strand of the NZ high school curriculum is bloody appalling in this regard. When I was in school, maths/chem/physics for the most part involved blindly plugging in numbers to formulas sans creativity. English involved memorising the essays the teacher would write on the board and regurgitating them during exam time. French and Latin were my only subjects which were stimulating for their content alone. I did have some great teachers but it can be hard even for them to inspire anyone when tethered to such a dull curriculum where the underlying goal is to ensure as many people as possible meet the bare minimum requirements. The exception to this is the scholarship exams which actually involve some sort of creativity, ingenuity and understanding. I really wish I stayed in Australia for high school.

As for our universities, I think they're pretty similar in standard to those elsewhere in the world. I'm sorely disappointed that my university insists on pigeon-holing students to one language (Java) for 99% of programming assignments (even the 'open-ended' ones) but I'd say in general that creativity is encouraged, not stifled.

The thing with software engineering is that aside from fundamental theory, a lot of information is ephemeral in nature - information has a half-life and learning a new technology is often done as necessary rather than for the sake of it. And that is what makes it even more insulting when students are dragooned into rote learning flavour of the week (or on the other hand, stupidly archaic/obsolete) technologies at the whim of a lecturer whose teachings are distorted by whatever he/she happens to be researching at the time... it's exactly that kind of 'teaching' which stifles creativity... I've had to tolerate it in a few of my papers so far.

^ I didn't realise the NZ schooling system would be that different from Australia's. I'm also actually really interested in NZ secondary schooling at the moment because I'm thinking about moving there for a year or two once I finish my course and am a qualified teacher. So that's pretty interesting to hear.

And yeah I have to say that most the public schools in Australia are pretty fantastic. I've done teaching rounds at both private schools and government schools and the government schools are always better by a mile. Private schools teach by memorisation and very uncreative techniques, and spoon-feed their students because all they want is their school to perform well and get high marks. Government schools over here have come a long way and are really open-minded, creative and innovative in terms of schooling.

I believe that what is being thought about here is this. As per a professor friend of mine: We are all born with a poets mind, all born geniuses and the crap that school fill your head up from very young kind of quashes that genius and creativity out of you. He gave the example of G.B. Vico, the historiographer, who cracked his head on some steps and thereby needed to be homeschooled (or maybe even taught himself) and therefore became one of the greatest intellectuals to postulate the beginnings of man, his institutions and his language.

I think that Australia has always had slightly higher academic standards than NZ which is perfectly fine, but then NZ switched from SC/HSC to NCEA in 2004 and that was the downfall. NCEA is a standards based system where subjects are broken down into modules assessed as achievement standards or unit standards. Unit standards are pass/fail. Achievement standards allow students to score Not Achieved/Achieved/Merit/Excellence depending on how many questions they answer correctly at each level - no numeric score is actually given for any standard but it is implied that the bands correspond to sub 50%/50%/75%/90+%. My main gripes with it are:

* In the situation where a student answers enough A/E questions correctly to easily satisfy the Achieved/Excellence bands but misses out on the Merit band by one question, their final score will be Achieved. In HSC that question might be the difference between 90% and 85% - in NCEA it means that your grade plummets from Excellence to Achieved... botching up one question out of 15 can completely jeopardise your grade in NCEA.

The reverse applies too - there is no distinction between someone who just makes a low merit (maybe 60% in SC) and someone who makes a high merit (say 85% in SC).

* NCEA was devised to ensure that more people 'pass' their courses and meet university entrance requirements - as long a student scores an Achieved mark for a standard (which is ridiculously easy since NCEA is so dumbed down), then they get the full number of credits for that paper. This blurs the division between people who just scrape through and people who perform flawlessly. The sad part is that it encourages students to think it's acceptable just to scrape through and learn the bare minimum. A lot of people in my school would walk into an exam, do only the achieved questions leaving the merit/excellence questions blank and walk out because it's been instilled in them that the only important thing is passing... as long as they get the credits, it's all good.

* The marking schedules for internal standards can be quite vague which makes it difficult for teachers to apply them and this results in a lot of variation between schools in this area.


Perhaps NCEA has improved since I was at high school but I doubt it. The idea of handing out bluntly unspecific qualitative scores for standards is flawed from the start, and the motivation behind the system is malign. It promotes underachievement. After all, what's the incentive in going for 75% over 60% if you don't think you can get 80%... because either way, you're going to end up with a merit? And why go for a merit when an achieved is good enough?


To be honest, I am slightly embittered that I didn't stay in Australia and do high school there. I was at a selective primary school before I left and I was well set to get into a good selective hs (quite possibly even James Ruse). Instead I ended up going to a random public school here and becoming lazy. Not that it ever prevented me from doing what I wanted to do at uni in the end, but still, I feel like I've missed out.

^ Wow, that is very different from our marking system! NCEA sounds to me like such an odd way to assess; I had never heard of it before. Some states in Australia are still based on the HSC system but Victoria has switched to the VCE. For every subject you get a score out of 50 based on assessments during the year and exams at the end. Then all these scores are translated to an overall percentage, which is called an ENTER score. For example, if you get an ENTER score of 80% it means that you performed within the top 20% of the state. Entrance into university depends on what your ENTER score is - each university course will have a required ENTER score that you need to be successful in entering the course.

The system we have is good as far as assessment goes but it does have it's downfalls. For example, some subject scores get scaled up and some subjects get scaled down. Mathematics, sciences, and languages get scaled up while arts and humanities subjects get scaled down. There is a formula to how it works but it basically sends the message out to students that maths, sciences and languages are harder subjects so therefore your score will be scaled up while the arts and humanities are easy subjects so your score will get scaled down. Which I think really sucks because it makes students who are arts/humanities inclined to think that they are dumber than students who are more mathematically or scientifically inclined.

Another downfall is that a lot of students think that the score they get at the end of the year will determine the rest of their life. A lot of students will purely choose subjects and perform in a way that they think will get them the highest score. The score at the end of year is not what determines the rest of your life and if you don't get into the university course you desired it's not the end of the world and there are still many ways of pursuing ambitions.

So I guess in that way our system is kind-of the opposite of the New Zealand NCEA system - instead of students not trying and thinking it's okay to just scrape through, students are pushed to perform in a way which gets them the highest ENTER score they possibly can. So in a way both systems are quite stifling in terms of students' creativity.

S I guess assessment in schools is one way in which creativity can be stifled - as students will perform in a way which will get them the 'highest score' and not in a way which will allow them to be creative. But on the other hand, assessment is a really difficult thing. It must be done for many purposes but it can never be truly fair or objective.

memorization is a mindless use of a mind. You only really learn when you apply your novice knowledge of a subject to something of merit to the individual persona.

Most oxymoronic thing ever, kudos

haha thanks.