Do Schools Kill Creativity: the Issues of Music Education

In the TEDx video entitled, 'Do schools kill creativity?' Sir Ken Robinson discusses what he believes to be the main problem with our education system, providing a series of funny anecdotes and facts appropriate for his argument. After watching this video about 'Do schools kill creativity' I've decided to write this essay as I did not see any truly persuasive points of his arguments. So here I will make literature review to find out stronger arguments.

We typically view the art’s as a creative outlet within the high school environment. This may consist of students participating in an art class, marching band, or concert band. These specific activities represent a group that strives to open their mind to new possibilities, investigate for new knowledge, and to further develop their skills. It is very rare for someone to question if a discrete section in the arts is killing creativity. Michael Patrick Wall is a limited-edition critical thinker as he debates this concept around the school band.

Whether Current Education System Kills Creativity

In his article, “Does School Band Kill Creativity? Embracing New Traditions in Instrumental Music” Michael is focused on revealing that marching band and concert band in schools kill creativity, for his essay he has done some scavenging in the Music Educators Journal, which was published in 2017, to provide information based upon his thesis. This journal illustrates that traditional teachings in music are being analyzed closely including the organization of the program, and how these models are failing the youth to persevere their own interests within the arts. A segment of a TED talk was located within the article that was titled, “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” Sir Ken Robinson conducted this explanation proclaiming that holding math and English at an unequal level with drama and arts deprives students of exploring new opportunities of their school. Michael states that this talk is relevant information for educators to reflect upon.

Being narrow-minded in any art program can cause individuals to not reach their full potential in creating new concepts for themselves. This is recognized strongly with the band program. Most of the music departments concentrate on select methods for competitions and performances that have grown into the branch of tradition. There is no wiggle room for time to be set aside experimenting with notes or tunes. How did these routines come into play? Many of the music education teachers were also performers in their high school band. People would normally view this as a productive piece when it comes to teaching the arts. However, there are some outlooks that have gone unnoticed. Due to the music teachers being in the same routine since high school, this leaves them resisting to change. They have become fond of the structure that has been engraved in their mind for years. This drives them more into the direction of conditioning, rather than training the students.

The article begins to evaluate the term “traditional band model” and arrives to solutions that could improve new paths to creative opportunities. A typical band model consists of one band director that oversees every big decision in the department. This includes planning out concerts, parades, and rehearsals during class time. The classes specifically start with warm ups and then diving into pieces that will be executed during performances. These specific routines are called a closed forum. Michael suggests that we take an open forum approach which can be defined as flexible, student-driven, and being able to embrace new creativity among the students. The article asks us the question what steps we can take to bring an open forum in the music program. Michael suggests four main areas in ways we can construct a new system. One area is performing ensembles and this a responsibility that will take time. It is suggested that teachers can give the students the option to research the pieces they want to perform, while they could offer a songwriting club to compose original music. Both activities require for the student-teacher relationship to be fluent in communication skills. This would provide beneficial areas in concert band with adding new ensembles such as electronic, brass, jazz, improvising, and others added onto this as well. No certain performance would be the main focal point, rather the students would be encouraged to be in as many ensembles as possible.

Another branch that the article covered was rearranging the group lessons with band music. If the lessons could use their valuable time with improvising, composing, and doing dialogues, students can offer multiple explanations with the music. The teacher would be able to offer concepts and collaborations to help the development and growth with the students understanding in their appreciation for music. This would also wrap into the topic of concerts within a perspective that teachers could change for the better. It has been suggested that to turn things around, students would be advised to think critically on the music they perform, and how they view themselves when it comes to playing in ensembles. Instead of considering a role as “second flute” they may see themselves as taking on more such as creating the music and sharing their ideas with other students. This would be beneficial for open discussions and constructive criticism to help the student body guide them into roles.

The last conclusion that Michael addresses is the teacher roles within the school. Although teachers should be the one to take charge with many decisions that arrive in their classroom, they should involve the students with picking out music, and give them homework on composing pieces for the classroom, or to perform at ensembles. This could help with sharing the responsibility in relationship to how the music is produced. Michael also suggests that silence within the classroom would provide a direct concentration that could become effective. Having the teachers give students time to think on the questions they ask would allow students to develop ideas and shape an advanced critical thinking process. This would give them time to consider different options and let them do some trial and error on pieces.

Conclusion

This is important since music education is one of the few creative outlets we have in our schools and to find that it is killing creativity is a topic we must act on right away. Students need to understand how to channel their creativity not in a sense of traditional ways. Rather, they need to understand that the way they think and how they compose music, is unique. Everyone has their own interpretation and it is important that we value this information we have gather throughout the years. If we are killing music, we are killing culture. We are diminishing new experiences for people in exploring the world of trial and error. If we do not let them explore within music, we have already set them up for failure. I respond very strongly to this article. I never knew that this was an issue within the creative field of schools, but I can see where they are coming from. When I was in high school, I was taking advanced drawing. I thought this class was going to help me broaden my knowledge on different medias, and to help me enhance my critical thinking on projects I was wanting to explore. I was far from the truth. The whole year was nothing but my art teacher telling me to go find a picture off the internet and to copy that. I had learned nothing new that year. It was honestly a waste of my time. We are running creativity to the grave. Another question to think about is should creativity be taught in schools? Although we may not want to admit it, these suggestions that Michael assembled need to be looked at with precision. This way, we can help students not feel so stuck in old ways.

Citations

• Wall, M. P. (2018). Does school band kill creativity? Embracing new traditions in instrumental music. Music Educators Journal, 105(1), 51-56.