This statement has reverberated around my head for weeks now since  David Clarke mentioned it during his and Lihua Xu’s presentation on alignment- His further musings regarding “why assessment should be relegated to the tail of the dog as an after thought appendage?”, coupled with his notion that “assessment is the most explicit statement of those performances that a school system values”, had a profound impacted on my thinking about creativity in education. That is, if we were to turn assessment on its head and predominately or possibly only assess for key indicators of creativity across all curriculum areas, I wonder what the impact would be on curriculum design and therefore teacher instruction?

According to Maslow (1970) the creative individual is also a fulfilled one. He also puts forward the notion that creativity is not experienced by only a few, but rather it is an everyday phenomenon experienced by everyday people (Maslow 1970). Maslow’s assumption here is that creativity is evident in everyday occurrences such as doing housework or professional occurrences where there is specialisation of knowledge and experience and that it’s not exclusive to individuals who participate in art. Goldman et al (1992) also argue  that much innovation and problem solving occurs in everyday life. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi goes on to say “Of all human activities, creativity comes closest to providing the fulfillment we all hope to get in our lives. Creativity is a central source of meaning in our lives. Most of the things that are interesting, important, and human are the result of creativity.” (Csikszentmihalyi 1996). The idea that an element of a fulfilled individual is one who is creative emphasises the importance of linking creativity and innovation in education.

For my leading educational idea I would like to explore the idea that if we were to assess for the key indicators of creativity  and then if we apply alignment theory,  curriculum and teacher instruction would have to change/adapt in alignment. Thus shifting us away from the current malaise where we are fixated on a reductive methods of teaching to a narrowing curriculum. To a place were ‘teaching to the test’ is valued because creativity produces an outcome that adds to the richness and complexity of ones future. (Csikszentmihalyi 1996)

Issues I have with this idea…

Proof of creativity as a means of sustenance.

What are the key indicators of creativity (this could be an thesis in itself)

Could I use the Cropely model to indicate creativity?

Fantasy? Is it unrealistic?

References so far

Csikszentmihalyi, M (1999, 2011) http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199607/the-creative-personality

Goleman, D., Kaufman, P. and RAY, M. (1992) The Creative Spirit (New York, Dutton).

MASLOW, A. (1970) Motivation and Personality, Third Edition (London, Harper

Collins).