Schools (Don't?) Matter, Nor Does Creativity

Okay, I'll confess to being less than tactful most of the time.  But I gotta tell you, I'm pretty sick of one particular complaint that I hear (rather, read) again and again on education sites and FB pages dedicated to parent organizations against testing regimes in public education: "Your stealing my child's creativity!"

First, there's no such thing.

...since the criterion of creativity cannot distinguish between the artist and the nonartist, anyone who calls himself an artist is an artist, and anyone who calls himself creative is creative. 

Innovation is the norm of human behavior.  The human brain is so constructed that nobody ever gets anything right.  Innovation which is validated by the culture or by some subculture within the culture is called creativity; innovation which is invalidated is called error.  Creativity is validated error; error is invalidated creativity.  (Morse Peckham)

That is to say, these are cultural conventions that are not worth arguing about.  Sure, testing reduces the time your child spends "learning" something else in school, but what exactly?  Is there a "creativity" curriculum available somewhere?  Let me show you some creativity that sets my teeth on edge.

Competitive tennis, like money pool, requires geometric thinking, the ability to calculate not merely your own angles but the angles of response to your angles … Because the expansion of response possibilities is quadratic, you are required to think n shots ahead, where n is a hyperbolic function limited by (roughly) your opponent’s talent and the number of shots in the rally so far. I was good at this.  (David Foster Wallace, "Derivative Sport in Tornado Alley.")

That is interesting and I'd guess you agree...but what is it saying (and why is "money pool" particularly of consequence)?  I think it says this: the brain does stuff and my (DFW's) brain does this particular stuff pretty well and I think I'll describe it this way cuz there is no way to know "cause"...'n'stuff.

But the "creativity" here says nothing at all.  Or rather, and this is indeed important, it says, "terms mathematical are metaphorical, see?"  But did you think this metaphorical or mathematically incisive--in other words, did you think that "math" is "inside" all things?

In other words, is this an example of that mythical beast, creativity?

Second, schools have never encouraged creativity--it's an obedience training institution!  And who could, with a straight face, say otherwise?  Most creativity is born of a reaction AGAINST "the man" (systems and institutions of hierarchical dominance).  So, really, you should be giving your child instructions to be ANGRY and show them how to take that anger and USE it.

Third, this, that I posted on more than one FB site today:

While I, in the spirit of solidarity, am against unfettered technology in the classroom--I have to point out that Paul Goodman nailed this issue in 1966 already pointing out the perils of GE funding of education "because they have money and tech and why not"--I am also against the blanket term "creativity." It's an easy non-specific "value" that has zero meaning. Here is the issue about technology, and specifically technology "tools" like "iPads:" they are not educational learning tools. They are very simply one thing only--a consumption portal for material products and ideological products. If you worried about "brainwashing" via TV--how in the world can you not see this incursion into the classroom as anything short of revolutionary--a mind control device in every child's hands. Let's stop the blather about creativity--this is a WAR for your independence of THOUGHT--period.

I don't know how to say this more strongly.  We are fighting "distractions."  Hunker down, people.  Find your focus at home!  The national crazy is being manufactured.

***

Further to this point--i.e. that "damping" creativity is a distraction (a meaning-free zone)--Schools Matter contributor Robert Skeels offered this comment on my "Homeschooling" post:

Homeschooling. Because every child deserves to learn that humans rode dinosaurs.

Now, many of us (I wrote "most" and changed it) must wonder how in this age and time there are people who have found themselves presented with the "reasonable" explanation that Adam and Eve named dinosaurs and/or that homo sapiens lived among these behemoths.  I can certainly easily opine on this but not here.  I have thought a bit about it and written something that might be interesting to you here, "Young Earth Activists and the Gap Theory."  The easy money available for this kind of "believertainment" is almost shocking (I am hardly "shockable" any longer).

But, I don't find this an issue to worry over.  Instead it seems like the right time to "gather ye rosebuds" and so forth.

My reply to Dr. Skeels (corrected):

I wrote the following in an email to a friend who has been working to salvage a community-run school in an Midwestern city. The group is already talking about creating "hierarchy" in the management of the teaching and operational decisions and he is despairing as the community has done so much to mitigate the vicissitudes of "leadership:"

***

Institutions are not for "persons" but for a "collective" or "managed" version of a "good" that serves a species (not a man or woman or child). An institution requires an explanation and an hierarchical structure.

Otherwise, I would not call it a school and I would not pay anyone as an employee but perhaps create a fund to supply the "gift" of housing and meals for the "instructor" in residence.

Perhaps this is too Ichabod Crane, but the teacher once was a kind of itinerant, seasonal worker (agrarian) who basically was paid his keep and nothing beyond as all the community lived in a subsistence manner. THAT was what was most "communally" shared--a common life of subsistence where days were not tomorrows but only today.

Further, a teacher was primarily a basic literacy and numeracy instructor unless hired per family to tutor in the more advanced knowledge (mostly classics--Greek and Latin)--here the teacher might be seen as storing up acorns against the winter.

It seems plausible to me that this is still the most useful "form" of the occupation. We must teach students how to use the tools of language--teach the way language uses us without our "self-knowledge"--and then let them fend for themselves--let them employ these strategies against the manipulation of their "perspective" by parents, preachers, politicians, con artists, and even ourselves as teachers.

***

I'm not sure that we're not missing an opportunity to dismiss the institutional coercion that keeps us fighting for an "obedience center" rather than a locus of learning and human community.

In some sense I may be arguing that schools don't matter.  That is that we are clinging to an institution that we "idealize" as PUBLIC without considering it's actual mission and impact.

My wish is that we come together to agree locally on what indeed IS a public education--that is, one that we agree upon in our own places--of worship, of business, of concern.

Creativity and Education: Contradictory Impulses?

From The Hindu:

ANURADHA KHATI RAJIVAN

If education is seen and practised as an activity of regimentation, then creativity, by definition, would have no place in it. Is that what we want for our children?

This anecdote is based on a real life incident. Teachers in a school found a seven-year-old boy quite odd. Though he was well mannered and never got into fights, his answers were often seen as “different”. So the teachers tried their best to “educate” him.

Teacher: What does the cow give us?

Boy: The cow gives us cow dung.

Teacher: That’s not a good answer. You should say “the cow gives us milk”.

Boy: But why, Miss? Does the cow not give us dung?

Teacher: Stop acting over-smart! Why can’t you be like a normal child? I will send a note to your parents! You are the fellow who drew an amoeba in art class, right?

Boy: Yes, Miss. We were asked to draw an animal. I picked an amoeba that my big sister told me about! You see, I liked it because it has no fixed shape! And it moves about using pretend feet…

Teacher: Enough! Why do I get these oddballs in my class!?

Is “creativity” in opposition to “education”? Education is commonly treated as a standardised and sequential activity — like training, providing identical skills and transmitting predetermined information. Students are fed received doctrines, positions and views. First standard followed by second, third…tenth board exams, plus-two and then preparing for college admissions…

Notion of educaion
How many times have you heard young students say something like, “I byhearted and byhearted all the expected questions but the question paper was different …even our teachers agreed!” Or parents say “… the American system is different…children have to think. No use just learning things.” Teachers and even parents sometimes find creative children difficult to handle. They might even consider a creative child too fruity, a trouble maker, hard to “educate” like the boy in the story above. Of course, there are a few “alternate” schools that allow “creativity” to flower. But as the child comes closer to the eighth or ninth standard, many parents start to become uncomfortable about their choice of “alternate” schooling systems. The pressures of board exams cannot be wished away. Some switch — at times with a bit of reluctance — putting their children through regular “education” rather than “creativity”.

Examinations and standardised testing techniques tend to incentivise homogeneity and undermine creativity. That does not, of course, mean that standardised testing has no value. In the medical field, for example, standardised tests can be very useful. Such tests can provide information on whether your red blood corpuscles count is within the normal range or not or whether your body mass index, or BMI, is within acceptable limits. However, the problem arises when doing well on a standardised test becomes the ultimate aim of learning.

Is creativity really in opposition to education? Let us think again. There is quite a lot of misunderstanding about creativity. Creativity is not haphazard — creative work requires system and discipline to actually produce something. Take musicians for example. How do you think A.R. Rahman produces such superb music? Not by being haphazard! You need to be very good in your field and also have the freedom to speculate and innovate. Creativity is not limited to specific fields like art or music, creativity is seen in all fields. Medicine, physics, cooking, and even policing, benefit from creative input. Creativity is not opposed to intelligence — it is organically linked to intelligence. Top mathematicians and writers are highly intelligent people. That is how they think of new ways of doing things. Creativity does not make you do your work badly. In fact, if you are good at something and like what you do, you will not just find fulfilment, you will also be able to contribute by innovation and resourcefulness. Thus we need to counter at least three popular myths that surround creativity:

Myth 1: Creativity is limited to special fields, like art or music so it is no use trying to be creative if you are an electrician or a journalist; in fact all fields have the inherent potential for creativity.

Myth 2: Creativity is limited to special people; in fact all people have a streak of creativity in them.

Myth 3: Creativity is what it is, you either have it or not and there is not much one can do about it; in fact you can develop and build upon your creativity.

Education experts have argued that the old model of sequential and standardised education can, in fact, “train students out of their creativity”. Learning by rote, memorising and reproducing preset information is not the essence of education. It can help in doing well in standardised tests, but not much more. Once you actually start to work, you may find that it is people who are resourceful, who innovate, can find ingenious ways of doing things that are much in demand.

Encouraging diversity
Standard education may try to suppress diversity and inspiration (including in fields like art or music seen as inherently creative) but it is very difficult to eliminate them. Cars or bottle caps can be manufactured. It is much harder to “manufacture” people. Nor should education attempt to do so. On the contrary, teachers should be equipped to build and encourage creativity as part of their professional training. And how is that to be done? Teachers and parents should further not just knowledge about the subject, but also nurture divergent thinking, many different angles and answers to a question. They should build confidence among students to speculate, to experiment, to think differently, however unorthodox it may seem. It does not mean that they should be ignorant in the subjects. Students need to be on top of a discipline and also speculate, innovate, explore many different angles, as an inherent part of learning the discipline. Young children can have enormous confidence in doing things that may seem different — going ahead without any fear of failure. Adults can quite easily undermine this confidence by discouraging them.

Here is an example of a little girl in class two and her art teacher.

Teacher: What are you doing?

Girl: Making a picture of God.

Teacher: But no one knows what God looks like!

Girl: They will, in five minutes…as soon as I am done.

Now, do we really want to discourage this little girl? And the little boy at the beginning of this piece?

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu