Do schools kill creativity? This is a question that has been asked by educators and students for many years. Some people believe that the traditional education system squashes creativity, while others argue that it is actually the opposite. In this analysis essay, we will explore both sides of the argument and come to a conclusion about whether or not schools kill creativity.
One of the main reasons people believe that schools kill creativity is because children are often forced to learn in a rigid, standardized way. They are told what to think, rather than being encouraged to think for themselves. In addition, there is a lot of pressure on students to perform well academically, which can lead to them feeling trapped and stifled.
On the other hand, some people believe that schools actually promote creativity. They argue that by providing children with a safe and supportive environment, educators are able to encourage them to take risks and be creative. In addition, schools offer a variety of opportunities for students to express themselves, such as music, art and drama classes.
So, do schools kill creativity? In our opinion, the answer is no. While there are certainly some aspects of the education system that can squelch creativity, there are also many ways that schools can foster it. We believe that it is up to educators to create an environment that allows for exploration and expression, and that when they do, students will be able to thrive creatively.
Children adore taking chances and are not afraid to be incorrect. Ken claims that this is exactly what allows children to become more in touch with their creative minds. According to him, mistakes aren’t the most harmful thing that can happen. Mistakes indicate that something new has been attempted.
Making errors may result in producing innovative and unique ideas. However, he thinks that as the educational system moves at such a breakneck speed, youngsters are forced out of their ‘creative capacity.’ In today’s world, making an error is frowned upon and considered shameful.
This is especially apparent in education. When a child makes a mistake, they are often scolded or punished. This sends the message that making mistakes is bad and should be avoided at all costs. As a result, children become more afraid of making mistakes and become less likely to take risks. They become less creative as they grow older because they have been taught that taking risks is not worth it.
In order to encourage creativity, schools need to start valuing mistakes more. They need to create an environment where children feel comfortable taking risks without the fear of being reprimanded. Only then will children be able to develop their creative potential to its fullest extent. Schools should also focus on teaching children how to be innovative. Innovation is about taking the things that already exist and making them better.
Children need to be taught how to come up with new ideas and how to execute them. This can be done through various exercises and activities in the classroom. When children are given the opportunity to be creative and innovative, they will thrive. Schools should not kill creativity; instead, they should nurture it.
Ken states that kids should be able to express themselves through not just their mental but also their artistic intelligences, such as dancing and drawing. The world over, the teaching of arithmetic to pupils is insisted upon, yet dance isn’t given the same attention. Furthermore, he goes on to question the educational system’s hierarchy, which is based on two concepts. One is that the disciplines considered to make a person more “successful” are those that get most emphasis in school.
The second is that education mainly relies on the ‘sage on stage’ teaching method, where the teacher imparts their knowledge onto the students through lectures. Ken believes that both of these methods are flawed and do not give children the opportunity to truly engage in their education. Instead, he suggests a more child-centered education system where creativity is nurtured and children are given the opportunity to succeed in their own unique way.
The first is academic aptitude; individuals believe that they are not intelligent enough to be accepted into a university when they fail to do well in subjects such as science and history, but when it comes to art, many people think differently.
Ken then moves on to discuss the shift in meaning of the term post secondary education throughout time. In the past, obtaining a degree meant you were guaranteed employment; however, this is no longer true. A bachelor’s degree is now only viewed as evidence of having completed higher education. People must go beyond a bachelor’s degree in order for them to truly succeed and get a permanent position.
The fourth myth he addresses is the one surrounding intelligence. Intelligence is relative and it cannot be measured; it changes with age, education and experience. Schools do not kill creativity but rather the lack of creativity in schools is due to the way education is structured.
We are taught to conform and think in a specific way which ultimately kills our creativity. Schools should encourage students to be creative by providing them with different outlets like music, visual arts and writing. Creativity should not be discouraged but nurtured in order for people to become successful and innovative individuals.
In conclusion, in order to reconsider our perspective on intellect, what is understood about it must be evaluated, which includes diversity, change, and distinction. Ken explains that intelligence is interactive and includes visual, kinaesthetic, and abstract forms of knowing. Ken discusses a dancer named Gillian Lynne to tie everything together: her childhood was restless and she was late handing in homework.
She was often told off and made to sit on the naughty step. Gillian was diagnosed with ADD and put on Ritalin, a drug used to “normalize” children. Thankfully, her mother took her to see a doctor who specialized in children’s creativity. This doctor explained to Gillian’s mother that she wasn’t sick, she was a dancer. And so, Gillian was pulled out of school and put into dance classes instead.
Ken argues that if Gillian had been forced to stay in school, we would have never seen her incredible talent as a world-renowned dancer. This story is just one of many examples which points to a larger issue at hand; the education system is not effectively teaching children how to be creative.
