I’ve previously posted about education and creativity and promoted Sir Ken Robinson’s compelling argument for the need to rethink our view of intelligence and the principles on which education systems around the world are based (from TED 2006). If you haven’t heard Sir Ken’s speech, I urge you to go and listen to it here.
Over the weekend, my wife and kids became targets for a campaign by a business venture offering “creative art courses” for young children under the name of “Art Boot Camp”. Their proposition to parents, such as me reads: “A Disciplined Approach to Creativity”. My young daughters were thrilled about the balloons they got to bring home. My wife just handed me the brochure, gave me a dejected smile and shook her head. Take a look at this she said.
When it comes to young children’s mental development and creative capacities, discipline, as much as a lot of parents love this word, is the last thing you want. Think about it for a second. Isn’t this exactly what your intuition would tell you?
If you’ve ever sat and watched children play for an extended period of time and been there next to them to try to answer their wonderfully intriguing questions, I think you would have to come to the same conclusion. In fact, I am quite certain of it. We don’t need science for these things.
The inherent curiosity, imagination and creativity in children are simply amazing. Picasso really nailed it when he said “all children are born artists, the problem is to remain artists as we grow up”. What children need, want and thrive on is freedom to explore; to let their curiosity take them places of excitement, wonder and discovery. How I wish our creative department was full of people like that (ahem). This curiosity I’m talking about is probably the most valuable gift we’re given in our short lives on this planet. We simply can’t afford to squander it.
My lovely friend, Annelie over in Gothenburg, Sweden is a child pedagogy specialist. She now works in education where she is experimenting with “teaching” and development techniques in which stimulating children’s inherent curiosity is the fulcrum of all activities. She once told me that cross-disciplinary studies in the field have shown that up to the age of about six, a child’s mental/intellectual development is optimised by an absolute minimum of disciplined instructions. Now what do you think your parents would have to say about that?
The reason part of me as a parent feels uncomfortable about this is not that I don’t believe this is true, I do, but because I’m raising my kids in an intensely competitive environment; a system predicated on the idea of academic ability. So in order to equip my kids to be able to compete in this environment, I may be “forced” to compromise on what my intuition tells me is right. Sometimes I can’t help but feel that kids aren’t allowed to be kids. And if this is the case, we may potentially be raising the uncreative generation!? Something seems fundamentally wrong with what’s going on here.
What’s apparently optimal for kids up to this age is to simply let them play together. It becomes the “teachers” task not to direct and dictate the activity but to carefully “guide” the children and naturally stimulate their play by continually introducing new stimuli that serves to further spark curiosity and exploration. This, Annelie tells me, is a much tougher and more demanding challenge for teachers than that of the more traditional, disciplinary, template-like pedagogy in which, even from a very young age, skills are taught in a relatively strict, disciplinary manner.
A couple of years ago, a Singaporean delegation of educators visited a northern European country to find out why their ten-year-olds tested well across most subjects. This seemed odd to the delegates given kids over there didn’t start school until the age of seven; at least three years later than kids in Singapore. The conclusion the delegation came back with was brief, and I believe accurate. The report basically stated that their kids were given freedom to play; to do what comes naturally to them. Something to think about.
Rob
May 24, 2007
This is another wonderful post Fred and something I absolutely agree with.
It would seem that in Asia, being a child stops at about ‘7’ – because after that society and family groom/pressure children into achieving higher and higher accademic qualifications [with emphasis on business relevant subjects] because this is what they think will help them achieve the goals set out in the culture code of the region.
While education is obviously vital, this focus on corporate accademia means the region is slowly but surely developing into the land of bankers, management consultants and the odd engineer – which potentially could end up harming the region longer term as the more creative individuals will seek out opportunities elsewhere to shine.
The thing that alarms me most is that ‘creativity’ is being labelled ‘art’ as opposed to a way of thinking, living, learning – and the irony is that in my opinion, Singapore is one of the World’s greatest examples of a country who used intellectual creativity to propser.
There was another Government/Industry creative campaign a while back and it was entitled ‘HIP’. The fact it was called that was bad enough except the letters stood for HONOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
Of course you don’t want creativity to be synonomous with ‘theft’ but to say a statement like that just smacks of a country/region which doesn’t know how to really ‘connect’ other than in the monotone of the corporate mission statement.
The bigger irony is that Asia has prospered by STEALING … ideas, processes, products … but because that is [according to them] business, it isn’t the same as music, art etc etc.
Thank God for people like Prof Mark Chong at SMU and a few others – or creativity would never stand a chance of staying alive – but with a country that runs itself like a corporation, the odds are stacked against it. I hope for their sake and the childrens, they realise before it’s too late.
fredrik sarnblad
May 24, 2007
Rob, I completely agree that the seemingly obsessive pursuit of “corporate academia”, producing more bankers and management consultants could be detrimental to the region in the longer term; not only from a purely economic (innovation-dependent) standpoint, but also in terms of “humanity”. Now I don’t mean to impose Western cultural values as regards what life is about and how people around the world should live it (I am well aware it may seem that way. I am not), but I have no doubts that if educators and leaders of any society keep missing the point about creativity – equating it with art alone – we’ll be seeing fewer and fewer original ideas with real value.
Jade
May 28, 2007
Hi Fredrik, I like this post. I don’t have children, but I often wonder how I would raise them if I did.
I have two nephews who were born one day apart, one belongs to my half sister and the other to my sister in law. Both go to school in Australia, one goes to a Steiner School, the other to a Systemic Catholic School. They are 7 (I think – what a horrible Aunt I am).
My nephew who goes to a Steiner School, still couldn’t read or write the last time I saw him – 1 year ago. He is highly creative though and asks why a lot which is great. My nephew who goes to a Systemic Catholic School, could read and write and was good at maths, loves making models etc. I don’t know a lot about Steiner Schools, but from what I have heard, they don’t push children to learn until they are ready – my Steiner School nephew was being encouraged to be held back from the more structured learning environment they have for another year. Their philosophy is:
“We shouldn’t ask: ‘What does a person need to know or be able to do in order to fit into the existing social order?’
Instead we should ask: ‘What lives in each human being and what can be developed in him or her?’
Only then will it be possible to direct the new qualities of each emerging generation into society. Society will then become, what young people, as whole human beings, make out of the existing social conditions. The new generation should not just be made to be what present society wants it to become”. – Rudolf Steiner
I think this is probably a very intelligent way of raising generations, but, understand your comment: “I’m raising my kids in an intensely competitive environment; a system predicated on the idea of academic ability. So in order to equip my kids to be able to compete in this environment, I may be “forced” to compromise on what my intuition tells me is right.”
I think if I had children, I would want to equip them to deal with the society I know, whilst trying to foster their creativity. I dropped out of Uni with 2 subjects left to finish cause I was already working full time and moved to another state for a job. I later went back and finished the degree and found that more job opportunities were opened to me, that were closed before. Working off-shore, or for a govt department in Aus both would have been a lot more difficult. As a parent, I guess you want what is best for your child… what is best is very subjective though.
This also reminds me of a while back when I used to make and sell a range of childrens clothing and accessories including fairy costumes. I remember a 10 year old boy who wanted a fairy costume, his mother debated with him, and then brought it for him, he put it on and left. A strong part of me thinks that I too would have let my son have the costume – who am I to put gender restrictions as to what is right and what is wrong. Another part of me struggels with this, I know how tough the world can be, and I would want to make my child’s life as easy as possible.
Charles Frith
May 29, 2007
Art boot camp.. Depressing.
fredrik sarnblad
May 30, 2007
Jade, thanks for your comment and for sharing your perspective.
I completely agree with: “The new generation should not just be made to be what present society wants it to become”. And I like the question: ‘What lives in each human being and what can be developed in him or her?’ I think you’ve pretty much summed up my parenting philosophy in these words – what we try to live by anyway. We’ve put our oldest girl, who is 5, in an international school that focuses on play and creative learning whereas the alternatives are heavily academically focused even at this age. She really loves her school (luckily for her because it costs a bomb. Ha!).
It’s not that I’m concerned about the future of creative planning in advertising. God no! I simply want “what’s best for my kids”; to let them explore whatever they’re curious about and let them make the most of their creative potential, whatever it is. I think that’s what will make them the happiest in life.
I have two daughters and a son. My son who is 1½ spends a lot of his time playing with his sisters. And as you can imagine, they’re not exactly playing testosterone intensive games of brute masculinity. The best way to sum it up for you is through the words ‘pink & purple’. So my wife and I have also been faced with the gender role issues that you touch on when you mention that 10 year old boy and his desire to have a fairy costume. I hope I would let my son buy that fairy costume at that age. I really think I would actually, but I couldn’t tell you for certain, which bothers me slightly actually.
The other day my wife and I were offered a little sample of what’s to come. “PANTIES ARE NICE” said my son emphatically with a big grin on his face. At least at 1½, that’s hysterically funny.
Jade
May 31, 2007
Hey Fredrik,
Sounds like your children are very lucky. My feelings about the gender issue really bother me as well. I think you just have to let kids be who they want to be, rather than fitting them into a mould that is expected. I think in any situation freedom of thought leads to greater creativity anyway.
Your son’s comment made me laugh.
Have a great day.
fredrik sarnblad
May 31, 2007
You said it well. You have a great day too!
Rob
June 28, 2007
OK … I know you’ve been on holiday and have a lot of work on, but it’s time to update your blog. Come on …
fredrik sarnblad
July 2, 2007
I will as soon as I get a chance. Ha!
Rob @ Cyni
July 8, 2007
Still waiting!
Rob @ Cynic
July 8, 2007
Whoops … it’s Rob from cynic, not cyni