Do "schools kill creativity?" Not really.

Carl Hendrick Academica?University of Applied Sciences

A new review suggests that while certain aspects of formal education can suppress creativity, schools also provide unique and powerful opportunities to nurture it.

One of the central challenges in research on creativity is that no-one really agrees on what it is. The authors settle on fairly sensible definition of generating novel ideas through divergent and convergent thinking.

What about the cliche that 'kids are innately curious & creative when young but then lose that when older because of the conformity of schools'? Again not really supported by the evidence. Alternative explanations suggest cognitive or biological reasons for the change.

The concept of developmental “slumps” in creativity, such as the “fourth-grade slump,” remains contentious, with some evidence suggesting declines in divergent thinking around 9–10 years of age during school transitions. Interestingly, while pressures in traditional schools are usually used as explanations for "killing creativity", recent studies show similar developmental trajectories in divergent thinking for children in Montessori schools, suggesting social norms alone may not account for these slumps.

A really interesting aspect of this review is the link between creativity and academic achievement which is good evidence that actually, schools foster creativity as opposed to 'killing' it. To me this is strong evidence that the more you know about a domain of knowledge, the more likely you are to be able to be creative within that domain.

Some research on creativity suggests that while certain settings which emphasize compliance may hinder creativity, flexible spaces and play-based approaches can foster it. Fair points here that will challenge many traditionalists. Critics of direct explicit instruction will use this as evidence to further criticise DI but this again shows a lack of understanding of direct instruction is and the highly interactive nature of it.

Interestingly, the idea that creativity means 'there are no right answers' is also challenged. Convergent thinking or focusing on a logical solution, "affords strategy selection and narrowing in using existing knowledge" and can work in tandem to produce positive effects. A study on Chinese 15–17-year-olds found that convergent and divergent thinking were positively associated with exam performance, with convergent thinking showing a stronger effect, particularly for middle-achieving students.

Teachers' ratings of creativity often do not correlate well with students' actual performance on creativity measures. This point actually does support the idea that schools stifle creativity as some teachers may tend to perceive creative children as disruptive and may discourage unconventional responses.

Ultimately this review suggests that the claim "schools kill creativity" is an oversimplification. While certain aspects of traditional schooling may hinder creativity, research indicates that schools can also play a crucial and positive role in fostering creative thinking. END

Full paper here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-024-09973-z