Do schools really kill creativity?

[Ralph Oei]

Sir Ken Robinson's talk Do schools kill creativity? has been a web hit since its release in 2006. His core message that "we are educating people out of their creativity" hits home with many TED fans. Of course, I want to believe this. The idea that creativity is an innate human quality that is somehow squashed by the system, sounds plausible. Something must be causing the transformation from curious kid to weary adult, right? And that education coincides with it, is at least suspicious. But is it true? Geologist Steven Dutch disagrees, which I find kind of refreshing:

The commonplace observation that children have short attention spans is direct refutation of the notion that they are creative and curious in any deep sense. The tragedy of our society is not that so many people outgrow their childlike curiosity, but that so few do. The adult equivalent of childlike curiosity is channel surfing and the ten-second sound bite.

If this quote angers you, please do not read his piece Why is there Anti-Intellectualism?

[salima Essakkati]

Hi there,

I just became an ambassador to a very nice school project in Nepal. Now that you all have started discussing schools and creativity, I thought this school has it all: creativity, children and ........the first eco friendly school of Nepal..........I just wanna pay it foreward by adding this 'amuse' to your discussion...............

http://www.pifworld.com/widget/widget-1028-40.xml

[Ralph Oei]

Well, I did warn you ;-)

As a believer in the 'standard model', I need to read opposing views sometimes. I think creativity is important and perceive a lack of it, which I tend to chalk up to institutional stupidity. But I also have a motto: "Don't believe everything you think." That only leads to confirmation bias. So that's why I am posting this here.

Dutch is a well-known skeptic - not an inspirational speaker - and it shows. He's harsh and unapologetic, but I think he has a point: developing creativity - like developing any talent - takes hard work. That's why most people don't bother.

So on the one hand we have Robinson, who says we don't nurture our childrens' talents enough and implies that's why we grow into sullen, unimaginative adults. On other hand we have Dutch, who says (amongst a lot of other things): "Hey, that's just natural. When people get older their development and curiosity levels off. No one is forcing them to watch reality tv instead of creating exciting stuff. They want to. And by the way: your kid's drawings suck!"

I think both have a point. Of course our schools should be stimulating environments that provide the utmost care for the minds, bodies and souls of children. But they are not. We all have our war stories about boring classes, archaic practices and out of touch teachers. It's too convenient however to solely blame the system. People also have their own responsibility to develop their talents. And too many don't take it, even if they have the opportunity.

Why? Dutch gives an alternative reason: you don't need to be creative to survive in our world. The status quo is sufficient if you merely want to exist. Which is sobering, but might be true.

[Yolanthe]

'Kind of refreshing'? Can you please explain what it is you find so refreshing in this professor's heavy-handed essay?

Enough of labeling every little utterance or drawing by child or adult 'creative'?
O.K, you have a point there. There is a lot of junk being produced with the label ‘creative’.

But, contrary to this professor's opinion, there's degrees of creativity, from tinkering with cork to sophisticated constructions that take deep concentration and steady application (The sweat after the inspiration). Professor Dutch just bulldozes everything out of the way in his effort to prove his point.
I find his discourse harsh, dogmatic even, without compassion for human needs and frailties. Above all I find it joyless and humorless.
While I would not mind having my college-age kid taking his courses I would hate to have my 5-6 year old grandchildren under his tutelage.

Perhaps it has to do with his chosen profession, geology, that he needs hard evidence like the soil and rocks he studies. Or his militant stance may be related to his military experience. Of course that is all speculation on my part.

Actually comparing Sir Ken's light-footed (!) utterances with the manifesto of Professor Dutch is comparing apples and oranges. Sir Ken is making a plea for more attention to the needs of individual kids instead of trying to press them into a pre-determined mold of academic excellence.
Professor Dutch is advocating rigorous standards and an almost military discipline in all forms of education. Nowhere in hjs writing is there any indication that he is attuned to individual needs of students or kids.
Like the geology he studies, his opinions are rock hard and inflexible. It takes a zillion years of the bird with a silk scarf in it’s beak to whittle down this kind mindset. Eventually everything turns to dust.

Last but not least I don't agree with comparing childlike curiosity with channel surfing and the ten-second sound bite.
And for someone who studies the physical matter that constitutes our earth, the ephemeral flow of facebook, fotolog, flickr and twitter is probably incomprehensible.
If consumed wisely these ephemera can greatly contribute to joy, fun and a sense of connection with a wider world. In between the Grand Canyon and Twitter there are a zillion nuances to be discovered and enjoyed. Teachers have a responsibility to foster that kind of wonder and excitement in themselves and their students. Without wonder and excitement life would be very dull.