The Idea that Schools Kill Creativity - Essay Example

SCHOOLS KILL CREATIVITY Schools Kill Creativity Situation Analysis Education systems all over the world have gone a long way in imparting knowledge and skills to students. The education sector in various countries continues to implement reforms that aim at improving the quality of education. Examples of these reforms include the development of programs that improve the engagement between teachers and students and also create a supportive learning environment. Education providers are also focusing more on encouraging students to be creative and innovative besides scoring high grades. For a long time, the education system did not concentrate on making students more productive outside the classroom but through various legislations, such developments have been made possible. Evidence of this effort is based on the No Child Left Behind Act which encourages teachers to raise the achievement of all students (Mantel, 2005). Schools have also gone a step further to support teachers who are interested in gaining extra knowledge in various fields with the hope that students will benefit in the long run. The current education system also places emphasis on the importance of encouraging the student to participate in activities that encourage divergent and critical thinking. Geist and Hohn (2009) elaborate the current situation by saying “Educators realize the importance of creativity, imagination and divergent thinking in the classroom.” This is a clear indication that progress is being made. Main Draft In recent times, schools have been experiencing a transformation in the education system with various changes extending to the workplace. Today, employers are more focused on creativeness and innovativeness. Every company wants to hire individuals who add value to the company or organization. The society in general also demands people who can positively contribute towards development. Education providers are therefore emphasizing the need of creativity among students as a way of meeting the demand of the changing society. As much as the society has continued to present more demand, the fact that creativity is required remains constant. Kaila (2005) poses the question of “How do we change the educational system?” Schools need to focus on programs that nurture creativity besides improving grades. For a long time now, the system of evaluating teachers and students based on examination results has not been fully supportive when it comes to promoting creativity among both teachers and students. Programs that have been developed have not also been supportive. The system has been focusing more on ensuring student score high grades. The lack of creativity among students cannot therefore be blamed on teachers. This is because they follow guidelines that have been set by the education system. Backer et al. (2012) explains that “ Despite a more prominent role of education in the school curriculum, creativity does not occur to a great extent in primary school practice.” It is only until recently that that schools have realized the importance of strengthening the knowledge of teachers especially in the field of creativity. From an economic perspective, schools have gone a long way in allocating resources in different areas to ensure the best academic outcomes are achieved. Unfortunately, not enough resources have been allocated towards helping students to enhance their creativity. Backer et al. (2012) allege “ Resources is an important condition in order to realize a mentality change towards creativity in education.” Limited resources are an obstacle to promoting creativity. Creativity among students allows them to be productive. Moreover, it can contribute to self-sufficiency considering the high rate of unemployment. Most schools usually consider music and physical education as special activities and very little time is dedicated towards them as compared to other subjects yet they enhance creativity to a large extent. According to Mantel (2005), a survey of school districts was conducted in 2005 by the Centre for Education Policy. According to the findings “27 percent of the districts reported that social studies class time had been reduced to a great extent and close to 25 percent said instruction time in art and music had been reduced”. This is not a very good indication. The current education system has created empowering processes that impart knowledge to students but still, students’ right of acquiring an opportunity to develop critical thinking and passions has not been fully realized. Enabling students to exercise their right to creativity can be achieved through group work. Creating a group setting for children encourages them to learn from one another based on the fact that different students are talented in different areas. According to Mantel (2005), schools which have such requirements usually have academic good standards. Encouraging students to be self-cultivating also encourages them to think independently while at the same time helping them to develop wisdom and take timely action especially when confronted by challenging situations. It also encourages mastery of specific contents and specialization especially in areas that bring out their full potential. Grazer (2013) explains “Society needs kids who can use different tools for expression, creativity, and political engagement.” The fact that most students are not creative is what has contributed to cheating in schools. This is because most students who cheat have not been trained to think outside the box. Concerning the issue of cheating in schools, Grazer says, “Everyone is now in a world where it is much easier to copy, remix and create.” Although students have been cheating for many years, it is only until recently that schools were able to develop keen interest on the issue of cheating due to its rampancy. One myth that surrounds creativity is that only a few people have the ability to be creative. The truth is that every individual has a great capacity and capability to be creative, but very few receive the needed support and motivation to develop. The approach used by teachers to teach is a very good example of how creativity is killed. In class sessions, for instance, it is difficult to come across a teacher asking children to develop and come up with original functions that say a particular tool can perform. Alternatively, maybe ask them to alter a particular tool in order to make it more functional. Instead, children and given a defined set of functions which they are expected to master and remember. This is an example of how instead of nurturing creative abilities, the education system has forced education providers to insist on standardization and uniformity without realizing that it damages students. The way schools reward students do not make the situation any better. For a long time, rewarding and praising children for outstanding academic performance and good behavior has been the norm in many schools. To a small extent, children in lower grades are the ones who are mostly rewarded for beautiful artistic drawings. It is due to such laxity that students do not also find it important to enhance their creativity. Instead, much of their effort is dedicated to trying to maintain good behavior and acquire good grades so that they can be recognized and eventually rewarded. One problem with this kind of system is that it does not create room for innovation and creativity. The anticipation of rewards has been carried forth to the job market. Instead of people focusing on how creative they can become and how this creativity can bring tremendous change to an organization, they are focused on how well they can perform the tasks they have been assigned. The motivating factor behind is usually the reward of a better pay or a promotion. The education sector should look into the long-term impact of such outcomes and take necessary action. Geist and Hohn (2009) explain that besides rewards, students should be encouraged because, “Encouragement attempts to allow students to feel the pride in their accomplishment”. They also claim “Encouragement promotes the child to talk about their work and discuss their creative process.” Robinson (2006) and Mantel (2005) have a similar view regarding the current education situation. According to them, the changing social and economic trends awaken the need for students to be given room to flourish. Passion and curiosity cannot flourish if students are not given the support they need. Teachers have the role of ensuring every student acquires foundational skills and knowledge by insisting. Enhancing creativity in schools requires a whole new lot of concepts in the education system with the education sector making it possible. Through efforts by various stakeholders in the education sector, negative factors that kill creativity can be assessed and necessary changes made to contribute positively to already existing reforms. Kaila 2005 claims that school systems that promote creativity likely go a long way in providing new meaning to the education system. The author also states “Children should be free to follow their passion and to take control of their lives.” This should be encouraged with little or no interference from teacher or guardians. If such efforts are put in place, students will be in a better position to engage in creative activities. Besides students, parents also need assurance that the education their children are receiving is of high quality. References Backer, F., Lombaerts, K., Mette, T., Buffel, T & Elias, W. (2012). Creativity in Artistic Education: Introducing Artists into Primary Schools. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.indianapolis.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f9a5e246-c1e1-41f4-820e-a7867e4ce074%40sessionmgr114&vid=0&hid=115. Geist, E & Hohn, J. (2009). Encouraging Creativity in the face of Administrative Convenience: How our Schools Discourage Divergent Thinking. Education, 130(1), 141-150. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.indianapolis.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=41c2f2b0-8561-491e-b9679f5bd62c2ab4%40sessionmgr4003&vid=0&hid=4112. Grazer, S. (2013). Plagiarism and Cheating. CQ Researcher, 23(1), 1-27. Kaila, H. (2005). Democratizing Schools across the World to stop killing creativity in Children: An Indian Perspective. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 18(1): 1-6. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.indianapolis.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b0d73c9c-f15d-42fc-9826-5be8fe81eb3b%40sessionmgr4003&vid=0&hid=4112. Mantel, B. (2005). No Child Left Behind. CQ Researcher, 15(20), 471-490. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com.indianapolis.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/cqresearcher/getpdf.php?id=cqresrre2005052700. Robinson, K. (2006. How Schools Kill Creativity? Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity/transcript?language=en#t-90346. . . Read More