Lone Star College - Montgomery

Creativity in the Classroom

The Unused Solution in America’s Classrooms

Brandon Galicia

ENGL-1302 4007

Professor Percival

May 17, 2020

 Galicia 1

In the American public school system, there seems to be a line of thought that is

prevalent within the way that education is conducted. This line of thought can best be described

as conformity, a code of behavior that prioritizes uniformity due to the convenience of having

every student set on a similar path. This conformity in public schools is a value that dissuades

creative thinking, with the schools typically providing only one way to resolve issues. In terms of

how this line of thinking affects the perception of public schools by the general public, it seems

that most individuals don't see much issue with how schools conduct themselves. With most

coming to the logical conclusion that uniformity in public schools results in successful students,

regardless of if students lose their ability to creatively and intuitively think. The individuals that

seem to have a stake in this matter are the higher-ups who set the rules that must be followed by

public school educators, students, and teachers. The higher-ups of the public education system

would certainly want to see this system of uniformity continue, as it would make their duties far

less demanding. The public school teachers would likely be divided, with some preferring to see

their students use their creative abilities, and others wanting to continue to see uniformity in their

classrooms. And students would most certainly prefer to see their schools become more

conscious of the fact that they have creative abilities and talents. Children and teenagers are

some of the most creative individuals in society, and they need their individuality to be fully

understood by the American public education system. And through the words of educators and

knowledgeable individuals, I will provide reason for understanding and utilizing the creativity of

students to the fullest degree. As an individual who has been enrolled in public schools for nearly

my entire life, I feel strongly that most American public schools need a change in order to ensure

that all students are learning and using their creative abilities for the betterment of themselves as

academics. Which is why I will demonstrate that while many may believe that uniformity and
 Galicia 2

conformity are the best ways to educate students, I believe that an understanding and utilization

of creativity within the classroom is fundamental in ensuring that students reach their fullest

potential.

One notable professor, namely Dr. Robert Sternberg from Cornell University, is one of

the many individuals who doesn't believe that uniformity has a place in a learning environment.

And in this case, uniformity and conformity are expressed through the means of standardized

testing, a form of achievement and aptitude measurement that ignores the creativity and

intuitiveness of children and teenagers. Dr. Sternberg makes his position on the matter known

when he claims that the content provided in standardized tests are “often trivial with little use

outside an academic setting" and later follows his statement by saying that these tests are

ignorant of "successful intelligence" (Isenberg). These statements should be strongly taken into

account, regardless of who says them. However, the fact that these statements are taken from the

words of a professor from one of the most prestigious universities in America makes them all the

more significant. As Dr. Sternberg puts it, the straightforwardness of standardized tests is

extremely linear and doesn't measure anything besides the student's ability to memorize

information.

Those who would likely feel the need to disagree with Dr. Sternberg would likely be

teachers and professors who view standardized testing as a good form of achievement

measurement, and they'd likely claim that standardized testing is a fair form of examination due

to them being objective in nature. And while these tests may be created with the prioritization of

objectivity, it should be known that some lower-income schools in America are typically

misrepresented by poor standardized testing scores, whereas higher-income schools are nearly

always successful. Oftentimes in lower-income schools, there simply isn't enough funding to
 Galicia 3

ensure that every student is accommodated with the resources that are necessary to realistically

be successful. This notion rings true in one Philadelphia school district, where "severe state

funding cuts over the past several years have meant cutbacks in the school district’s

administrative staff”, which has resulted in “abysmal test scores”, with the average students

reading score being “29.4 percent, compared with 57.9 percent districtwide” (Broussard). If

standardized testing measured more besides rudimentary memorization skills, such as the

creative abilities of young students, these lower-income school districts would likely see better

scores on their tests. Which would result in some districts finally receiving the resources that are

necessary for their students to be academically successful. However, these exams are only one

moving gear in this situation.

One of the most important issues in the public school system is the curriculum, the

American curriculum is one that has evolved to prioritize testing and constant memorization at

the cost of creativity. This narrowing curriculum has left American students with unengaging

classes, and fewer opportunities for creative expression and thinking. As one Tim Walker from

the National Education Association puts it, the curriculum has evolved to remove or limit the few

creative opportunities that were previously available for students, this has in turn led to fewer

classes such as "art, music, physical education and more" (Walker). Which as a result has led to

public schools "imposing a brutal testing regime that has forced educators to focus their time and

energy on preparing for tests in a narrow range of subjects" (Walker). The way that the

curriculum is set up is quite a disaster as Walker puts it, with students now having little to no

creative outlets while they are in school as a result of standardized testing, along with the culture

of narrow-minded thinking that has been brewing in the public school system for many years.

When students have less access to the more enjoyable classes that allow for them to creatively
 Galicia 4

express themselves, and when the curriculum demands students to spend more time working and

memorizing information, their entire academic perspective is altered to be much more cynical.

However, some would come to disagree with the assertion that the narrowing of the

school curriculum is negatively influencing students. Those who would disagree would likely be

teachers who instruct core classes in public schools, along with the staffers in schools who

manage the classes that students take for the year. Teachers who instruct core classes in public

schools would likely disagree because their classes have seen an increase in instructional time, at

the cost of time allocated towards creative and elective based classes. And public school staffers

who manage which students take whichever classes they're assigned to would likely disagree as

well, this is due to them understanding that some students perform significantly lower in their

classes than other students. Which typically results in these students having to take extraneous

classes or mandatory tutoring sessions in order for them to perform as well as their classmates.

And these points are completely fair, since some students actually do need more time to

understand and retain the information that is taught to them. However, the notion that more time

should be allocated towards class time in order for students to be successful is quite misaligned

and is ignorant of the fact that some students simply can't learn with straightforward teaching

methods. The use of creativity in the classroom is the key to making students enjoy and

understand some subjects, rather than trying to make them memorize information as quickly as

possible. In her research at a Connecticut public school, where she observed various teacher-

student interactions among third and fourth-grade classrooms, one Denise de Souza Fleith found

that both students and teachers agreed that a creative classroom environment "provides students

with choices, accepts different ideas, boosts self‐confidence, and focuses on students' strengths

and interests" (Fleith). Whereas when Fleith observed a more rigid and narrow classroom
 Galicia 5

environment that followed a strict curriculum, she found that "ideas are ignored, teachers are

controlling, and excessive structure exists" (Fleith). So in the end, repetitive memorization and

subject-specific remediation do not seem to be the actual solution to the problems that exist in

the current American curriculum, due to the classrooms themselves being the root of the issue.

When creativity is encouraged, and ideas are exchanged healthily, classrooms clearly see some

improvement. However, the American curriculum isn't the only issue plaguing creativity within

public schools.

The final issue that has severely affected the flow of creativity within the American

public school system is actually a result of the previous two issues, and it's the issue of how time

is utilized. With public schools being highly motivated to have all their students pass their

standardized tests, and with the curriculum being as tight-knit as it is, there simply isn't enough

time for teachers to accommodate for the needs of every single student in their classes. Which

has resulted in an environment where everything moves far too quickly, and students are being

demanded to learn at the same pace as the curriculum. While researching the curiosity of young

children, Paul Howard-Jones, a professor of neuroscience and education, makes the claim that

"there is not enough time in schools for creativity and following up on curiosity" (Berliner). A

teacher who also played a part in this research, namely Matt Caldwell, shared his thoughts on the

pacing of schools when he says that "it's not the fault of teachers, they have so many targets to

meet" (Berliner). With the understanding that the pressures for success are not only being placed

on the students but also the teachers, the fast-paced flow of the public education system is much

more understandable. However, that doesn't make the situation any better. The fast-moving and

creatively-devoid environments of these classrooms are creating students that aren't capable of

utilizing their own creative minds to solve issues, but rather, they're creating students that are
 Galicia 6

dependent on the information of others to be successful. Thus creating students that have

severely stunted critical thinking skills.

On the other hand, some would come to disagree with the notion that fast-paced learning

environments are harmful to most children's creativity and critical thinking skills. Those who

would disagree would likely be the teachers of gifted classrooms, this is due to them mostly

working around students who are taught subjects at a much faster pace when compared to regular

classrooms. These teachers for gifted classrooms would likely make the claim that fast-paced

learning environments actually work for gifted students, and that while some may need a slower

pace to learn at, most gifted children are very comfortable when it comes to working at a faster

pace. Thus dispelling the notion that fast-paced learning environments are bad for children. And

while this may be true, since many successful students have been put through the fast-paced

gifted learning programs. One would likely be unknowing of the fact that there's an unusual

percentile of gifted students who dropped out of high school later in life. While conducting her

research on creativity in classrooms, Kyung Hee-Kim found that "gifted students are

underachievers and up to 30% of high school dropouts may be highly gifted" (Kim). This

percentage of gifted high school dropouts is quite uncanny, and it begs questions for what led to

these students dropping out. And while there may be several answers to this question, one of the

likely answers would be the fact that these students were never taught to think creatively. But

rather, they were rushed through a program that incentivized them to learn and memorize

information as quickly as possible, which led to them having stunted critical thinking skills that

affected them all the way up to high school. Altogether, these issues create one much larger

problem that has affected American students for many years.

 Galicia 7

Whether it's standardized testing, the curriculum, or the usage of time in the classrooms. All of

these aspects of the American public school system have worked to create an environment in

which creativity is neglected, and the quick consumption of information is rewarded. When

creativity is intrinsically valued in classroom settings, students are much more responsive to the

content that their teachers are trying to make them understand. Which makes it all the more sad

when classrooms seemingly haven't improved at all over the course of the last ten years. The

creativity that exists within all young minds should be nurtured and treated for what it is, a

problem-solving mechanism. Intuition and creativity are some of the most important aspects of

human intelligence, and when neither of these are promoted or encouraged within the

educational system, more issues will be created, except there won't be any answers. When

society chooses to ignore the inherent creativity that exists within all people, that creativity

slowly dwindles into nothing, thus creating a far less proactive society that seemingly always has

unsolvable issues.

Works Cited

Isenberg, Ben. “Standardized Tests ‘Narrow," Don't Assess Creative Skills, Sternberg

Contends.” Hamilton College, 27 Oct. 2015,

www.hamilton.edu/news/story/standardized-tests-narrow-dont-assess-creative-skills-stern

berg-contends.
 Galicia 8

Broussard, Meredith. “Why Poor Schools Can't Win at Standardized Testing.” The Atlantic,

Atlantic Media Company, 15 July 2014,

www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/why-poor-schools-cant-win-at-standardi

zed-testing/374287/.

Walker, Tim. “The Testing Obsession and the Disappearing Curriculum.” NEA Today, 3 Jan.

2017,

neatoday.org/2014/09/02/the-testing-obsession-and-the-disappearing-curriculum-2/.

Fleith, Denise de Souza. “Teacher and Student Perceptions of Creativity in the Classroom

Environment.” Taylor & Francis Online, 20 Jan. 2010,

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02783190009554022.

Berliner, Wendy. “'Schools Are Killing Curiosity': Why We Need to Stop Telling Children to

Shut up and Learn.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 28 Jan. 2020,

www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jan/28/schools-killing-curiosity-learn.

Kim, Kyung Hee. “Underachievement and Creativity: Are Gifted Underachievers Highly

Creative?” Taylor & Francis, 21 May 2008,

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10400410802060232.