Do schools kill creativity?

The question of whether schools kill creativity is a complex and debated topic, with arguments presented by various educators and researchers.

Arguments for "Schools Kill Creativity"

Sir Ken Robinson is a prominent advocate for the idea that traditional schooling systems can stifle creativity. Here are some key points from his arguments:

• Stigmatization of Mistakes: Robinson argues that schools often stigmatize mistakes, which discourages students from taking risks and exploring new ideas. This fear of being wrong can lead to a suppression of creative capacities34.
• Hierarchy of Subjects: He points out that the typical hierarchy in schools, with mathematics and languages at the top and the arts at the bottom, devalues creative subjects and talents that do not fit into the core academic areas34.
• Industrialization of Education: Robinson suggests that modern education systems are designed to serve the needs of industrial economies, focusing on producing productive workers rather than fostering creativity4.
• Loss of Creative Capacity: He believes that children are inherently creative but that this creativity is often lost as they progress through the education system, which emphasizes conformity and standardization over innovation and creativity23.

Counterarguments

Not everyone agrees that schools inherently kill creativity. Here are some counterpoints:

• Foundations for Creativity: Tim Leunig argues that schools provide the foundational knowledge and literacy skills necessary for true creativity. He suggests that creativity is based on knowledge, which is developed through education1.
• Broad Curriculum: Some argue that a rich and broad curriculum, including both core subjects and creative arts, can cultivate creativity rather than stifle it. This approach emphasizes the importance of mastering disciplines while also encouraging creative expression1.
• Epistemically Broad Teaching: The idea is to teach subjects in a way that includes understanding the discipline's structure, rules, and perspectives, which can foster creative thinking within each subject area1.

Balanced View

The reality likely lies somewhere in between these extremes:

• Potential for Both: Schools have the potential to both foster and stifle creativity, depending on their approach. A balanced education system that values both core academic subjects and creative arts, and encourages risk-taking and innovation, can help maintain and develop students' creative capacities13.
• Need for Diverse Evaluation Metrics: There is a need to move beyond traditional examination metrics, which can be restrictive, and to incorporate evaluations that account for creative thinking and problem-solving skills1.

In summary, while there are valid arguments that traditional schooling can stifle creativity, there is also evidence to suggest that schools can cultivate creativity if they adopt a more inclusive and flexible approach to education.