The Argument for How Schools Kill Creativity - Literature review Example

The Argument for How Schools Kill Creativity The Argument for How Schools Kill Creativity Situation/Problem AnalysisIt is universally accepted that education is an important aspect of human life. As a result, all education systems across the world focus on ensuring efficient delivery of different skills to suit the learners. In a bid to improve the quality of education offered to students, educationists have continually pushed for reforms meant to ensure quality delivery. Some of the noticeable reforms include the creation of programs meant to increase the interactivity between the learners and the teachers. In addition, the reforms are also aimed at ensuring that students are taught in a good environment that could promote their talents and creativity and not just focusing on grades. Kaila (2005) argues that while education systems have been in existence for many years, most of them have been grade-centric with little focus on nurturing the learners’ innovativeness and creativity. Nevertheless, Mantel (2005) reports on new legislations in the education systems that address these needs. Particularly, the No Child Left Behind Act has been seen as being quite instrumental in ensuring that teachers work towards raising the performance of all students. The various reforms in the education sector have also seen teachers lay more emphasis on identifying and supporting unique talents among their students. It is hoped that such a move will create a favorable environment for identifying new talent and creativity among students and will, consequently, help in building holistic students (Geist & Hohn, 2009). Main Draft The tremendous increase in the world population has led to more problems and demand for more services. In order to provide solutions to these inherent problems, Grazer (2013) observes that there is a need for creative and innovative solutions. The high competition in the workplace also demands creative employees with the ability to tailor their offering in accordance with the needs of the customers. The challenges facing the society also need creative and innovative solutions. As a result, there is a great demand for creative individuals in almost all spheres of life hence the need for education systems to focus on churning out holistic students. In order to achieve this, Gearon (2007) argues for the need to change the education system that has for long been perceived as impeding creativity and instead emphasizing the importance of high grades. While everyone looks upon schools to churn out people who can offer creative solutions to various challenges in the society, Swallow (2012) argues that these expectations do not reflect in the education system. In particular, Robinson (2007), critics the education system that offers a subjective evaluation of students based on examination results. According to Robinson (2007), the current education system is structured in a way that is more concerned with the students’ scores and ignores other variables that could as well be vital in gauging a student’s ability. It is often the case that a student who fails to score highly in class is regarded as a failure. Such a myopic view has been blamed on the education system has failed to provide robust assessment criteria; consequently, students are left with no choice than to simply memorize concepts rather than understand them. In tandem with the skewed assessment criterion, the teachers also end up drilling students in order to score high grades. It is only recently that many schools have realized to integrate creativity into their curriculum. The integration has seen a significant number of changes including the creation of different departments in the school set-up. In addition, there has been a significant allocation of resources to these departments with the main aim being to produce students who are not only intelligent but also creative. Nevertheless, Backer et al. (2012) observes that although resources remain a critical component in facilitating a paradigm shift towards creativity in education, most schools have not been able to provide enough. As a result, creativity lags behind in many educational institutions. The importance of promoting innovation and creativity among students cannot be overemphasized. In the first place, creativity can enhance the productivity of an individual. Additionally, creativity can help students to curve a niche for themselves and earn a living especially now that formal jobs have become scarce, and rate of unemployment continues increasing each passing day. For a long time, subjects such as music and physical education which require direct application of creativity have been looked down upon in favor of subjects such as mathematics. In a survey to determine the time allocated for arts and music subjects, Mantel (2005) reported that findings showed that up to 25 percent of the time initially allocated to these subjects had been reduced. Clearly, this is not impressive and could be argued as the main reason for the deteriorating creativity among students. Although the current education system is being criticized, it is important to note the critical role it has played in creating an empowering process that facilitate imparting knowledge to learners. The major flaw of this system, however, is its failure to create a conducive environment that enhances critical thinking abilities among the learners. Geist and Hohn (2009) posit that one of the ways that the system could encourage creativity among students will be through allowing them to participate in group activities. The group setting allows the students not only to learn from one another but also to showcase their talents in different areas. Consequently, schools that provide such settings to their students have been shown to produce better students. The benefits of fostering creativity amongst students have far-reaching impacts. For instance, creative skills help them to broaden their thinking capacity, and this can enable them to develop solutions to their personal challenges not only class but also outside school. It is also argued that creative skills can help in the mastery of certain contents and the process assist in bringing out the full potential of students. Gazer (2013) posits that unlike the old society, the modern society need of people who can express themselves creatively and also with the ability for political engagement. The memorization oriented form of education with little creativity is what has led to most students being involved in acts of cheating. The fact that the students are not thought creative skills hampers their ability to think. As a result, they tend to go for easier options such as copying. Although the issue of cheating has been in existence for a long time, Gazer (2013) observes that it is only recently that educationists have begun giving it attention in a bid to underscore its causes. For a long time, people have had a false belief that only a few people have the instinctive ability for creativity. This is, however, not true as everyone can be creative provided they are raised in an environment that fosters creativity. Steve Jobs (late Apple.Inc CEO), for instance, dismissed this fallacy through his reality distortion field (RDF) theory. In the theory, people are seen to do task that they initially perceive as ‘impossible.’ Under pressure, the people develop creative skills that enable them to accomplish tasks initially thought as ‘undoable’ (Isaacson, 2012). This demonstrates that with sufficient support, all people have the ability to be creative and can use this ability to enhance the lives of humanity. Sadly, the education system is not doing enough to encourage students be more creative and can as such be termed as killing creativity (Geist and Hohn (2009). Another downside of the education system is the rewarding criteria used for awarding students. In many cases, the reward system focuses on students who excel in class with little or no recognition given to students who excel in other fields such as art. The disadvantage of this reward system is it makes students focus more on class work at the expense of developing their talent. The result of such an emphasis is it leads to poor creativity development while promoting a unidirectional individual development (University of Virginia, 2015). The same reward system has inevitably found its way into the workplace. In a bid to promote performance, many managers have resorted to rewarding those employees with outstanding performance in the jobs assigned. While this might be seen as good for the organization, following a routine procedure rarely promotes any creativity. Swallow (2012) argues that creativity is born out of making mistakes. However, this is not the case in the workplace as people who make mistakes are often rebuked and this results in the loss of the urge to try something new (Swallow, 2012). The drive for innovation is also quite sluggish; managers are satisfied with the way things are done and no one is willing to go an extra mile to do things differently. The University of Virginia (2012) reported a declining numbers of startups in the U.S over the recent years. This is can be explained by the lack of to lack of creativity and innovation by the students who have undergone through the grade oriented system of the US. Unless, this is addressed the situation is bound to get worse in the future. The opponents of the current system, however, have different views. They claim that the American education system is far much better than systems such as those of India and China. Wadwa (2012) argues that the American education system gives allows the students to develop both socially and academically, and this gives them a competitive edge at the workplace. In comparison with other countries, the opponents argue that the American system brings up holistic students, and this is one of the reasons why America remains the world leader in innovation. As a result, some countries have resorted to sending their students to the U.S to study in the U.S. schools. It is apparent that there is a need for innovation and creativity, and this can only be nurtured in schools. Some of the benefits of creativity is it will make people be self-reliant and be in a position to provide solutions to some of the common societal challenges. It is, however, discouraging to note that while the current education system should provide a good environment for creativity to thrive; it is silently killing creativity among student. The constant focus on grades as a proof of the merit of students is not only demeaning but also discouraging to students who excel in other creative fields. The American economy need innovative and creative minds that will be able to move the country forward and this call for serious considerations on the current education system. There is an urgent need, therefore, for the different education stakeholders to come together and chat the way forward. References Isaacson W (April, 2012) The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs, Harvard Business Review. Retrieved April, 19th 2015 from https://hbr.org/2012/04/the-real-leadership-lessons-of-steve-jobs De Backer F, Lombaerts K, De Mette T, Buffel T, Elias W. (2012). Creativity in Artistic Education: Introducing Artists into Primary Schools. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 31(1):53-66. Geist, E., & Hohn, J. (2009). Encouraging Creativity In The Face Of Administrative Convenience: How Our Schools Discourage Divergent Thinking. Education, 130(1), 141-150. Kaila, H. L. (2005). Democratizing schools across the world to stop killing creativity in children: An Indian perspective. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 18(1), 1-6. Robinson, K. (2007, June 6). How Schools Kill Creativity? TED Talk. Retrieved April 19, 2015 from http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en. Wadhwa, V. (2011, January 12). U.S. Schools Are Still Ahead—Way Ahead. Bloomberg Business. Retrieved April 19, 2015 from http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/technology/content/jan2011/tc20110112_006501.htm Swallow, E. (2012, April 25). Creating Innovators: Why Americas Education System Is Obsolete. Forbes. Retrieved April 19, 2015 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericaswallow/2012/04/25/creating-innovators/ University of Virginia (2012, June 6). The Great Startup Slowdown. Forbes. Retrieved April 19, 2015 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/darden/2012/06/06/the-great-startup- slowdown/ Gearon C. (2012, September 17). High School Students Need to Think, Not Memorize. US News & World Report. Retrieved April 19, 2015 from http://www.usnews.com/education/high-schools/articles/2012/09/17/high-school- students-need-to-think-not-memorize University of Virginia (2015, March 19). How Americas Education Model Kills Creativity and Entrepreneurship. Forbes. Retrieved April 19, 2015 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/darden/2015/03/19/how-americas-education-model- killscreativity-and-entrepreneurship-2 Read More