Improving education by embracing teachers’ creativity
A large number of methods for improving schools have embraced external accountability. Inherent in this view is that teachers are unable to effectively carry out their tasks without being given directives from leaders. However, the complexity that occurs in schools and the relationships that teachers have with their students make it impossible to mandate what should be done in individual classrooms that inevitably cater to diverse student needs. Teachers are expected to be student-centered in their teaching approaches while using standardized curriculum methods. This reality is contradictory and often leaves teachers confused.
A more effective approach may be to empower teachers to be able to recognize signals within their work environment and be able to effectively handle those signals in order to maximize students learning. Such an approach would challenge the traditional power relationships within schools and may make school leaders uncomfortable. However, if sustainable change is to be achieved in schools that are operating in a rapidly changing environment, then the job of school leaders should be to empower teachers through the construction of an environment that encourages their creativity and learning. This is by no means an easy undertaking as leading and managing such an environment remains a challenge for most organizations(Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). The need for power and control within organizations is stubbornly difficult to dislodge.
One of the first things that could be done to produce such an environment, may present the greatest challenge for school leaders. Teachers need to be given more autonomy and freedom if they are expected to show creativity in their teaching practices. Placing too tight of a control on employees limits creativity by making them adopt routine uninspiring approaches towards their tasks which can lead to demotivation (Amabile, 1988). Effective teaching relies on diversity that caters to the diversity of students. Therefore, routine approaches lead to one-size-fits-all methods that are uninspiring. Fixed procedures and policies, while making the management of teachers easier, can serve as procedural barriers that can limit creativity and innovation (Davis, 1999). Such views of the importance of time for creativity are already evident in high-performing school systems such as Singapore where free time for teachers is mandated so that they can be more creative in their teaching (Hargreaves, 2010).
A work environment that supports learning and creativity for teachers has supportive leadership. While supportive leadership sounds like the perfect idea, most leaders who are used to traditional methods of leadership find difficulty in implementing a more participative style of leadership. As schools increase in complexity, there is a greater need for leaders to be able to predict outcomes by controlling the behavior of teachers (Zhou & George, 2003). However, the teacher’s work environment is defined by uncertainty. A lesson may not go as planned. An event may have occurred in a student’s life that has to be addressed.
Runco (2004) argues that creative individuals are better at handling the constant changes that make up everyday life and are flexible enough to take advantage of situations. Therefore, providing leadership that supports teacher creativity would enable teachers to be better prepared at handling the challenges and uncertainties of the classroom. In addition, it would open them up to being more comfortable with rapid changes that occur within education. The progress shown throughout human history indicates that humans can be excellent creative problem-solvers if they are given the opportunity. Teachers, therefore, can be tremendous creative problem solvers in their schools if they are given the space to do so.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol 10 ed., pp. 123–167). JAI Press.
Davis, G. A. (1999). Barriers to creativity and creative attitudes. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1 ed., pp. 165–174). Academic Press.
Hargreaves, A. (2010). Change from without: Lessons from other countries, systems, and sectors. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 105–118). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6
Isaksen, S. G., & Ekvall, G. (2010). Managing for innovation: The two faces of tension in creative climates. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00558.x
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 545–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(03)00051-1
