"Comparison is the thief of joy." Our late, great president Theodore Roosevelt believed in, and backed this theory. As do I. I propose that, despite all the government’s efforts, an all-encompassing mold cannot possibly be made to fit the current idea of the "perfect" student due to different thinking and learning styles.
I bring these propositions to light because, lately, there has been a great deal of controversy in the discussion on standardization in schools. Many people tend to view this type of policy as nothing more than a business scheme that is potentially harmful to their children in the long run. It seems as if parents are becoming more concerned that new testing standards are putting too much stress on their students and taking the joy out of learning.
Among sources such as Sir Ken Robinson, Laura Pappano, and John Calhoun to name a few, there is a fear that creativity is being diminished
with the idea that we can produce these “perfect” students via standardization.
However, these opinion-holders don’t completely agree on how we should solve
our creativity issues. One possible
solution to this problem is a combination of various ideas from the above
writers.
I believe that the ideas behind Robinson's argument are spot on when you think about the way that we often ignore and/ or suppress many young people's greatest talents in light of greater education. On top that, we can't expect a child to enjoy anything that he/she is flat-out forced to do. For some children, school is like being sentenced to fifteen years in prison without the chance of parole.
Creativity, such that is used in fine arts (visual, musical, dance, etc.), is being watered down by the constant, heavy pressure of scholastic performance on students who would otherwise be much happier and more driven to succeed in fields of their own interest versus what they are told they should be interested in.
This is not at all to say that traditional schooling should be forgotten or lessened. I just mean that sometimes incredible talent is overlooked because of the emphasis we place on education. However there is no denying the fact that a strong education is most often a key factor for a successful life after school. This, however, is not to go without saying that creativity within education, and those involved, is diminishing.
With the standardization of tests and school work nowadays, students are being taught to be just good enough rather than excelling past what is considered to be proficient. Teachers are also forced to teach only certain pieces of subjects. In a sense, it could be compared to a scenario where we taught an incomplete alphabet, because someone thinks that certain letters are used less than others and are therefore less valuable. Superficially, this may not seem all that bad considering many letters in the English alphabet have the same phonic sound. However, could you imagine trying to read something from a person, very knowledgeable of the alphabet, who uses letters you've never seen?
This analogy is a bit extravagant, I will admit. But this same concept applies to entire subjects in school. If parts calculous or physics are left out in order to teach a student no more and no less than exactly what he/she will need to know for the standardized test at the end of the course, then that same student could be set up for failure later when the skills need to be applied in real life situations. This same problem could also potentially leave gaps in the connective bridges between subjects such as calculous and physics, which are extremely intertwined. This completely goes against what creativity is; the convergence of multiple ideas and concepts to create new solutions to problems.
On a different note, there are now classes and even majors dedicated to teaching creativity alone. The argument for these classes is that they can teach resourcefulness and develop an outside-of-the-box method of thinking in students who otherwise would not be able to access these parts of their minds. I argue that this is not the correct approach either. A hammer is useless without a nail, and a nail is useless without a hammer. As is creativity without prior knowledge and the reverse.
For these reasons, I desire to see a change in education policy in this country. There need to be more chances for students to stay active in, and develop, their greatest interests and talents, as well as more encouragement to do so. There should also be different versions of the class, where applicable and possible, to accommodate for different types of learners (audible, visual, tactile, etc.). And finally, creativity classes should be coupled with traditionally general education classes to promote the bridging of multiple subjects, thus creating a more holistic approach to education.
