Thursday, September 1, 2016

2nd Blog - Do Schools Kill Creativity?

I recently watched a TED talk featuring Ken Robinson where he asks, “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” Ken Robinson is a former professor of Arts Education and advisor on art’s role in education. Robinson believes that the important role creativity plays in student learning has been largely ignored by traditional educational systems. Creativity and the Arts are given less attention than other subjects. Robinson states that, “every traditional educational system has the same hierarchy of subjects.”  Mathematics and sciences are valued more highly than the Arts. According to Robinson, this hierarchy exists because of the modern university system, a system designed to produce students with skills valuable for an increasingly industrialized society. Robinson claims that an educational system that values subjects like math or science over the Arts causes a loss of creativity in students. Ken Robinson believes that, “creativity…is as important in education as literacy.” I agree that educators should place a higher value on creativity and attempt to foster creativity in students. I think that any education would be incomplete without some instruction in the Arts. As a future educator, I will take Robinson’s message to heart and strive to encourage and foster creativity in the classroom.
However, I don’t fully agree with Robinson on the extent of which we should focus on creativity and the Arts. Are they important? Of course. But how important? How much of the limited time that children are in school should be devoted to creative arts? What subjects would be diminished by more time spent on instruction in creative arts? The Arts are an essential part of a complete education, but are they more valuable than basic scientific or mathematical knowledge?  Isn’t it more important to provide a foundation of general knowledge to students that allows for later specialization? Does public education even have the ability, time, or resources to develop individual talent, like dance, considering the small percentage of the student body these students represent? I was actually involved in the Arts throughout my school career. I did theater and dance for years. Regardless of how much I enjoyed dance, I would never have wanted my public education to revolve around it. Dance was an extracurricular activity completely separate from my public education. Robinson would have schools focus on providing opportunities for students interested in such creative arts to an extent that I find unrealistic.  I agree that creativity should be fostered in the classroom, because we recognize the important role it plays in both society and the individual. But I think this can be achieved without completely rethinking our current educational system.


No comments:

Post a Comment