There’s a big debate about whether Schools in the UK,
promote a child’s ‘creativity’ or suppresses it. (NACCCE 1999) considered
creativity to be a ‘function of education’; and should be used throughout the
curriculum, not just during one lesson.
According to (Compton 2010), in order to identify the role of creativity in Educational documents, paper or on-line versions of them were searched using the string ‘creat’ in order to locate use of the words create, creation, creative and creativity. All of the documents were also examined for terms related to the creativity pyramid; so that a wide range of creativity could be identified. This search indicated that there were three main documents promoting creativity: The Hadow Report (1931), the Plowden Report (1967) and Excellence and Enjoyment (DfES, 2003). All three reports promote creativity within education, but whether or not schools follow these guidelines and promote creativity in a positive way is what causes many different opinions on creativity within education.
In the following video, Sir Ken Robinson talks about how school education kills creativity. He believes that creativity is as important in education as literacy and should be treated as the same status. This however is not the case as the Arts are bottom priority in the order of lessons around the world, with maths and languages being at the top and humanities in between. Ken believes that art, music, drama and dance are all being pushed down compared to maths and English, educating people out of their creative capacities.
According to (Compton 2010), in order to identify the role of creativity in Educational documents, paper or on-line versions of them were searched using the string ‘creat’ in order to locate use of the words create, creation, creative and creativity. All of the documents were also examined for terms related to the creativity pyramid; so that a wide range of creativity could be identified. This search indicated that there were three main documents promoting creativity: The Hadow Report (1931), the Plowden Report (1967) and Excellence and Enjoyment (DfES, 2003). All three reports promote creativity within education, but whether or not schools follow these guidelines and promote creativity in a positive way is what causes many different opinions on creativity within education.
In the following video, Sir Ken Robinson talks about how school education kills creativity. He believes that creativity is as important in education as literacy and should be treated as the same status. This however is not the case as the Arts are bottom priority in the order of lessons around the world, with maths and languages being at the top and humanities in between. Ken believes that art, music, drama and dance are all being pushed down compared to maths and English, educating people out of their creative capacities.
One of the themes Ken talks about is that schools focus too much on
educating children’s minds, rather than letting them express what they enjoy
learning. Children are imaginative and willing to take a chance, not being
frightened of getting things wrong, and being prepared to be wrong is important
to be original. Subjects that people like, such as music and art, are often
seen as not important in education. People are often steered away from these
subjects, being told that in order to get a job they should focus more on
subjects like English and maths. The whole education system came into place to
meet the needs of industrialism, and therefore is based on the most useful
subjects for work being top priority in education.
Ken also talks about the education system being predicated on the idea of academic ability. He believes that this dominates intelligence, with the system of education revolving around university entrance. This then causes the talented creative people to think that they’re not, as the things they are good at are not valued in schools and education. All people have talents, but within education a lot of those talents are squandered with them focusing on more academic subjects than creativity subjects.
I agree with some of Ken’s views of how creativity isn’t seen as very important in schools as I do think education is based around educating for work. However the Foundation Phase goes against his views as it encourages children to be creative, learning through play. I think that with the foundation phase it encourages children to use their imagination and show them different ways of learning, and I believe that the way of teaching is developing. I think more creative learning is being put into education, with children now being taught more about living modern life rather than purely academic in order to get into a job; however there is still a lot of room for improvement where promoting creativity s concerned.
References
Ken also talks about the education system being predicated on the idea of academic ability. He believes that this dominates intelligence, with the system of education revolving around university entrance. This then causes the talented creative people to think that they’re not, as the things they are good at are not valued in schools and education. All people have talents, but within education a lot of those talents are squandered with them focusing on more academic subjects than creativity subjects.
I agree with some of Ken’s views of how creativity isn’t seen as very important in schools as I do think education is based around educating for work. However the Foundation Phase goes against his views as it encourages children to be creative, learning through play. I think that with the foundation phase it encourages children to use their imagination and show them different ways of learning, and I believe that the way of teaching is developing. I think more creative learning is being put into education, with children now being taught more about living modern life rather than purely academic in order to get into a job; however there is still a lot of room for improvement where promoting creativity s concerned.
References
Compton,
A. (2010) ‘The Rise and Fall of Creativity in English Education’, Educational
Futures, 2 (2), (January)
Hadow, W. (1931) Report of the Consultative Committee
on the Primary School. London: HMSO.
National Advisory Committee on Creativity and Cultural
Education (1999) All our Futures,
www.culture.gov.uk/PDF/naccce.PDF.
(Accessed: 4th December 2014).
Plowden Report (1967) ‘Children and their
Primary Schools’, Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education in
England. http://www.dg.dial.pipex.com/documents/plowden.shtml.
(Accessed: 4th December 2014).
No comments:
Post a Comment