Does School Kill Creativity

Potential lies within both sides of this argument. Some say school is killing creativity, but on the other hand, others may think that it promotes creativity.  Schools may kill one’s creativity through highly funded programs, such as programs in the health, business and engineering fields. The school system is forcing students into such programs because of the potential income and benefits one would obtain once they have a job in one of these fields. One could argue that this opposes the minor income that is received in the lesser funded programs, such as liberal arts. The fact that one can barely survive with a degree in the arts versus his or her income flourishing with a nursing or engineering degree, is indirectly forcing students to leave behind something they have a true passion for. As Sir Ken Robinson stated, this displays a process of academic inflation, where the programs that are deemed as most important are the most funded. Now on the contrary there are many reasons one would say schools are not be killing creativity. This is my belief, because one can still find creativity within these highly funded programs or fields of study.  The students that are indirectly being forced into these programs are still able to engage in what they have grown to love and follow their passions during their own time. Even better, they can find a way to incorporate their passion into their career. Realistically, these highly funded programs produce doctors, lawyers, engineers and entrepreneurs, who all play a big role in the growth of our economy. We cannot reject the aspects which generate our country, but we can incorporate creativity into these aspects.

Education and schooling has had a profound effect on the human race. Sir Ken Robinson believed that education produces particular kinds of people, specifically professors. I agree that education does create professors, but by putting these professors in the school setting empowers the growth of our countries leaders and working class. Some may even argue that education is the only factor in the production in our country, but I believe that it takes more than just education. One must gain experience from overcoming adversities. By being publicly schooled I have learned how to approach such adversities. These hardships were displayed in my sporting teams, organizations and in my classroom. Most importantly, through my experiences in school I have learned to be patient, sociable, and aware of my surroundings, which all are results of the presence of school and education in my life.

Sir Ken Robinson proposed a very useful solution. The solution stated that in the future, it would behoove us to “adopt a new conception on human ecology”. The foundation of this conception on human ecology is built upon three methods. First, our conception of the richness of human capacity will be reconstructed. Furthermore, the fundamental principles of which we’re educating our children will be reconsidered. Finally, we have to be careful and use the gift of the human imagination wisely. I strongly agree with Robinson’s solution. The system in which we are educated in has caused us to be narrow-minded when it comes to the future aspirations of our country. Also, I side with acknowledging that we have been given the gift of creative abilities and that it is essential to recognize these abilities in our future generations. Educating our future generation based on Robinson’s solution can possibly prepare us for economic prosperity.   

Moreover, Robinson defined intelligence with three methods. Intelligence is first described as being diverse and we, as an intelligent human race, approach situations “verbally, in sound, abstract and in movement”. I believe that the different forms of intelligence are what deem intelligence to be unique.  Furthermore, Robinson addressed intelligence as “dynamic and interactive based on the brain”. A person with intellect should be well-rounded and all of the aspects that make that person intelligent should coincide with one another. Lastly, intelligence is said to be “distinct”. Intelligence is unique and one should be able to differentiate his/her level of intelligence in comparison to another person. The ideal intellectual person is considered to be the Albert Einstein and Andrew Carnegie of our country; one who is expected to drastically affect the growth of our country and economy. I disagree with this conception. Intellect depends on how a person uses and expands on their talents and how well that person affects the people around them, whether this affect is major or minor. In conclusion, there are ways that this video relates to standardized testing. Just as Stanley Kaplan discussed in his article, My 54 Year Love Affair with the SAT, these test are centered on reading comprehension, problem solving, math concepts, and vocabulary skills. The arts, which are based upon creativity and uniqueness, are then excluded. Do we want our future generation to be strict minded? Or will we eventually realize the importance of testing our future generation based on the creative ability.