Teachers will love this video. It will make you laugh. And this is my testament to the value of considering learning styles in teaching: I was a kid who really benefited from my acting classes because I could move around while learning. When you connect with a student's learning style cross-curricullarly (for example: using the student's interest to motivate them to learn math when they really love music) you give them motivation for struggling with the areas they might try to avoid. They also have to feel safe in making mistakes.

One point I loved in Sir Ken Robinson's case for creativity is that he emphasizes  the importance of making mistakes, and thus for creating an environment where it is safe to make mistakes (others in this forum have also stressed this importance, so I want to give them credit as well). I don't think that we should underestimate this point. In my spare time I often do community theater, and while I was in secondary and undergraduate programs drama helped me to hang on to my concept of self so that I could stick with the other subjects that weren't my favorite.  Drama classes pretty much saved me.

Then, while I was in college (this was in the 1990s) I had an acting teacher say to me that you have to be really bad at acting before you can be really good. This concept blew my mind, so much so that I kept thinking about it for years to come. At first I didn't get it. Why would you ever want to be bad at something? Now I understand that what she was saying is that you don't have to actually be "bad" at something, but you have to be WILLING to risk taking a mis-step (a mistake) and having your peers see your choices as bad. This is the way that anything truly new, original and creative is discovered, which is one point that Sir Kenneth Robinson was making in the video.

Robinson, K. (Feb., 2006). How schools kill creativity. (Feb., 2006). http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en. Retrieved on 02/06/2015

Q: Do Schools Kill Creativity? A: Maybe, but they don't have to.

There is an interesting video published on Ted Talk that asks the question, “Do schools kill creativity?” (Robinson, 2006). I found the video to be insightful, entertaining, apt, and intelligent. I am not convinced, however, that standards and creativity cannot peacefully co-exist, and I believe that Dr. Robinson would ultimately agree with me. Schools may kill creativity, but they don’t have to.  In considering the InTASC Standards and the philosophy discussed in the video, I still don’t see standards and creativity as an either/or issue. In other words, we can have standards and help students to find creative ways to meet them. The purpose of the standards are to see that teachers help students to develop cross-curicullar intelligence, multiple perspective knowledge, and problem solving skills. (InTASC: Model for Core Teaching Standards, 2011).

I just don’t see a conflict of interest in inspiring creativity and meeting standards. I see that some teachers have not been able to find the approach that works for embracing both creativity and standards, but that doesn’t mean that it cannot or should not be done.  I understand that in this time of upheaval and great transition in the field of education many teachers are struggling because their roles are changing, and the expectations are changing. These teachers may take years to fully adapt (not days, weeks or months), but creative people have always been able to find ways to approach problems differently. I actually think that challenges inspire creativity if given the space and resources to look at the situation from different perspectives.

Upon further reflection, I actually don’t think that the problem is the teachers or the standards. I think that the problem is in the administrators’ ability to enforce standards with an understanding that there are different ways to meet standards, and right now there is a prevailing rigid and severe approach to assessment that many administrators are taking in addressing this challenge. Most teachers really understand that the best way to teach is to get to know their students as individuals, and to find a way to connect learning goals with their strengths and interests. Therefore, the answer is not severe rigidity, the answer is in allowing for a flexible approach to individual learners, and then measuring learning gains without set-in-stone ideas of how learners achieve those gains. This is what Universal Design (UDL) for Learning is about. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an educational planning method for teachers to create a way to meet standards with an individualized approach. The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) is the organization that created the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach, and their mission is “To expand learning opportunities for all individuals, especially those with disabilities, through the research and development of innovative, technology-based educational resources and strategies,” (CAST: Transforming Education through Universal Design for Learning, n.d.). I think that UDL is the best practice when seeking to inspire creativity and still meet today’s standards. More administrators should consider the benefits of UDL and share them with their teacheres, and then creativity can flourish in high-achieving classrooms.

References

 InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards. (2011) http://www.ccsso.org/intasc. Retrieved on 03/06/2015

CAST: Transforming Education through Universal Design for Learning (n.d.) http://www.cast.org/index.html. Retrieved on 03/06/2015

Robinson, K. (Feb., 2006). How schools kill creativity. (Feb., 2006). http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en. Retrieved on 02/06/2015