How Academic Should Schools Be?

Continuing the theme of education from earlier this week:

In the U.K., the Commons education committee has warned that creativity is a “second-order priority” in the country’s schools, but should be a fundamental part of learning, with adequate funding. “We believe that the best education has creativity at its very heart,” they say.

I couldn’t agree more. I’m concerned, however, about their suggestion that “there should be an assessment of creative skills alongside academic tests.” How does one measure creativity? “Here, kid, show us what you can make with these Legos”? I’ll concede there has to be some evaluation to determine if the teaching is effective; I just hope it does take the form of a broad “assessment” rather than a grade, and considers the many ways people can be creative. My mom, for example, is a fine watercolor artist, but not so good with the Legos. My dad is a great photographer, but couldn’t paint anything more complicated than the kitchen ceiling (and I’m talking Sherwin Williams Bright White, not a reproduction of the Sistine Chapel).

On a related note, the New York Times discusses the movement for universal prekindergarten (UPK), and tackles the question of what the goals of such a hypothetical program should be. Writer Ann Hulbert notes a socioeconomic split, with well-educated (and thus likely to be more affluent) families preferring the “‘whole child’ end of the pedagogical spectrum.” Their children are already learning the ABCs, so the parents favor classrooms with “individualized exploration and creative classroom collaboration to promote social and emotional growth. That entails having well-trained teachers at hand to comment and facilitate, like attentive parents, rather than overtly direct. Not cheap, it’s what many child experts consider developmentally correct.”

In contrast, she says, lower-income families and families from other cultures may “expect more work than play in school. Bolstering kids’ deference to adults, not just boosting kids’ confidence, is also valued in many families. Early reading and math readiness often counts most of all, and teachers hold the key. It’s an invitation to ‘direct instruction,’ which appeals to school administrators eager for a cost-effective jump-start on “skilling” for the No Child Left Behind testing that starts in third grade.”

Hulbert takes the middle ground and feels that “at each end of the spectrum there are pedagogical lessons the other end wouldn’t get otherwise and that everyone could benefit from.” She notes, however, that although many (including Hillary Clinton and John Edwards) are touting the benefits of affordable and available (though not necessarily mandatory) pre-K, “There is little mention of, say, pretend play in the pitch for government-subsidized pre-K.”

Elsewhere in the Times, Sara Rimer looks at stress levels throughout elementary and secondary education. She points out that in Needham, Massachusetts, “school officials had responded to youth surveys indicating troubling rates of alcohol and drug use and depression—rates like those at other affluent high schools—by establishing an initiative, starting in elementary school, to help students develop better emotional and social skills.”

Again, what say you? Are programs for creative, emotional, and social development a perk for the rich, or a fundamental part of any education? To what extent should schools, rather than parents, teach these skills? Thoughts from both homeschoolers and those with kids in traditional education are welcome.