Does school kill creativity?

To what extent is it true that school "kills" children's creativity?

Does school kill creativity? This is a question that has long been asked by many parents concerned that schools focus too much on teaching subjects that are not creative at all, such as mathematics, language arts or environmental science.

Many parents feel that their children, who are potential artists, see their abilities wasted because there is hardly any music or art in their school curricula. School is seen as a place where they are gridded, where any hint of imagination is eliminated, where they are prepared to work in uncreative jobs.

What is true in these statements, is creativity a death wound in schools, and is it possible to be creative in science? These are all questions that we are going to discuss, all of them related to the idea of whether or not school kills creativity.

Is it true that school destroys creativity?

The question of whether school "kills" creativity is as old as compulsory education itself. While this topic has been widely debated for a long time, it is only in recent years that it has gained particular prominence..

In part, one of the people responsible for the popularity of the view that school kills creativity in children is Sir Ken Robinson, an educator who a few years ago gave a talk at TED talks, the famous cycle of conferences, in which he affirmed that yes, school does kill creativity.

Robinson said that creativity is not cultivated in educational centers, that children are taught not to step out of the line.. It is as if it gives strength to those who believe in the typical image shared on networks of a teacher taking a pair of scissors and using them to cut out the thoughts of her students, making the sandwich that represents it go from circular to square. The school cuts out the thought, it grids it.

But what is so true about this statement? Undoubtedly, Mr. Robinson is a knowledgeable person, since he is an educator. However, once he opened his lecture, there were quite a few, also very knowledgeable in the field, who claimed just the opposite. Robinson's detractors were of the opinion that not only did the school not kill creativity, but that it even encouraged it, only in a way that at first glance did not seem so typically creative.

For Ken Robinson, creativity is something that should be encouraged as another skill, with the same status as literacy. Others, such as Tim Leunig, scientific advisor to the British Department of Education, who also gave a talk at TEDx talk, took the opposite view. For Leunig, true creativity is based on knowledge, which is acquired through reading and writing.. To be creative, you first have to know how to do the basics. Then comes originality.

• You may be interested in "What is creativity, are we all "potential geniuses"?"

How does the way we define creativity influence us?

One of the most striking things about Robinson's and Leunig's TED talks is not only their contrarian stance, but also the fact of how they define what creativity is. For Ken Robinson, creativity has to do with imagination, self-expression and divergent thinking.

In contrast, Leunig explains that for him creativity shows how, through the use of logic and the application of scientific principles, acquired knowledge can be concentrated and used to create totally innovative new solutions to old problems.

While Robinson considers that creativity is an alternative to literacy, to the acquisition of literacy, and that it is usually manifested by students with academic problems. Robinson's vision of creativity would coincide with the non-cognitive intelligences of Howard Gardner's model, such as kinesthetic or musical-auditory.

For Leunig, creativity is indeed a cognitive competence that is nourished by the acquisition of particular knowledge.knowledge to which a person with severe literacy problems or who is directly illiterate would not have access.

For Robinson, creativity is something natural, something people are born with. Leunig, on the other hand, considers that it is more dependent on the acquisition of knowledge in life, which can be learned and practiced.

Definitions of what creativity is influence whether or not school "kills" this competency. In fact, these conceptions of creativity illustrate how meaningless it is to speak of creativity in abstract terms, as if the term means what it means to be creative.as if the term meant the same thing to everyone. As evidenced by the views held by Robinson and Leunig, the idea of creativity is something that varies greatly from person to person, even among education professionals such as these two experts.

Science is creative

When we talk about creativity in school, the first thing that comes to mind is the subjects of art and music. Painting is creative, playing the flute is creative, but... What about making a model of the human body for biology? What about making a model of the human body for biology? What about mixing potpourri in the chemistry lab? Or figuring out how to solve a math problem? We have a hard time associating the idea of creativity with science subjects, even though all scientific all scientific breakthroughs are in one way or another the product of creativity.. And, of course, language and literature subjects can greatly foster this competence.

Creativity varies from subject to subject. We can understand this better if we compare it with another competency to which something similar happens. Critical thinking is a very important skill in most disciplines and, if we ask any expert what he or she wants, we will probably find similarities between historians, mathematicians, biologists and literati. They seem to be referring to the same thing, describing the same thing. But the truth is that this is not the case. It is not the same to be critical of history as it is to be critical of mathematics, biology or classical literature..

The same goes for being creative. Creativity is not a single thing, but a set of processes that, although similar, are different. Creativity in mathematics is not the same as creativity in visual art. A student who decides to be creative in mathematics by deciding that 2 + 2 = 3 is not really being creative, but is simply inventing a result and acting contrary to the nature of this discipline. On the other hand, it is creative in mathematics if you invent a new method to solve a mathematical statement.

Creativity can be used in any subject, but you have to teach how. Absolutely any subject in school can be used to foster creativity, but students cannot be expected to be creative. you can't just expect students to be creative by magic.. It is necessary to teach this competence, which is not a skill, transversally, in the same way that if you want students to make use of critical thinking in a certain subject, you must teach them how to do it.

The effect of formal education on creativity

But... does school kill creativity yes or no? The short answer is no, although we must understand that there is a lot of work to be done regarding this competence in the school curriculum. As we have mentioned, the definition of creativity has influenced the perception of how this skill is fostered among students.

If it is believed that being creative means painting or playing an instrument, since the school curriculum is focused on the acquisition of more scientific and literary skills, it is easy to believe that creativity is not encouraged. But the truth is that it can be acquired in practically any subject. And it can even It can even happen the other way around, that the more traditionally creative subjects such as music, arts and crafts or plastic arts do not encourage this quality..

For example, if in art, boys and girls are asked to simply paint a picture identical to that of a model, or if in music they are asked to play a score to the letter, creativity itself is not being fostered. However, as we have said, these may be the first steps for students, once they have learned how to paint and how to play an instrument, to compose their own creations later on.

Two points can be drawn from the whole debate on whether school kills creativity. The first is that, assuming that there are going to be more creative children than others, the maximum amount of creativity should be given to as many children as possible, as many children as possible should be given opportunities to develop and put into practice their creative potential.. To this end, schools should provide their students with a curriculum in which so-called creative subjects are incorporated as compulsory subjects, so as to give those who are more creative in the plastic aspect the opportunity to put their skills into practice.

The second point is that real creativity should be incorporated and cultivated throughout the curriculum.. As we have discussed, creativity actually refers to a set of similar but different processes. It can manifest itself in multiple ways and it is the task of each teacher of each subject to find out how.

When it does kill it...

Although as we have commented the school does not kill the creativity in most of the cases, yes that there are certain situations that can limit it. There are some situations that are repeated very often in schools that can really limit creativity, even if it is unnoticed even by the teachers themselves.

One of the ways that seems to limit creativity the most, according to some researches, is to focus excessively on the importance of assessment.

As one might think, children want to do their best and they also want to be praised for their work. If the subject teacher prioritizes the assessment and the end result rather than the whole mental process to get there, the kids in the class are going to be less likely to take risks. Basically, they're going to want to get a good grade.

Another way that you can limit creativity is by offering highly structured activities. When a teacher offers very concrete, step-by-step instructions and very specific examples, students in the class are more likely to follow his or her lead as closely as possible. They are less likely to create something new that looks different, which is just the opposite of being imaginative and creative.

Highlighting and criticizing mistakes is another way in which creativity is limited, in this case in a way that may even be traumatic for some students fearful that getting it wrong is synonymous with failure. When the teacher only highlights a student's mistakes, especially if it is in front of their peers, kids are going to feel very embarrassed. Since this is going to be a very negative experience, kids are going to be less likely to take chances with alternative paths. They will associate being creative and innovative with being embarrassed in front of others.

Another way in which creativity can be mortally wounded in schools, whether in the subject of biology or art, is by through excessive monitoring of students' progress.. Teachers must give their students some guidance and structure, but it is also important that kids are given the opportunity to take an active role in their own education and are given independence. Excessive control of what they do and "hand-holding" in virtually any task they do limits student creativity.