Hi, Sue via Sarah,
Posting this across from another area where I cannot reply because 
the topic interests me a lot.

>creativity has been largely pushed out of the curriculum in schools 
>at least, over the last 20
>years or so. This is based on anecdotal rather than more 'rigorous' 
>research but  I BELIEVE that a
>large body of anecdotal evidence from many sources, has a role to 
>play in research. Even medical
>research  (the gold standard perhaps)often starts off this way!

I think (but yes, I believe as well) that it has not been pushed out 
so much as categorized as "belonging to the Arts".  It is therefore 
"being done there" so it does not have to appear in other areas. One 
less thing to do - GREAT! But how sad for the children.

>  I have often argued (with some colleagues supporting) that most 
> (if not all) of the more 'academic'
>cuurriculum could be taught through the expressive arts. This is, 
>perhaps, harking back to the
>70's and primary education in particular.

I agree although the "expressive arts" stills really suggests Art in 
the mind of most people and excludes the wider sense of creativity of 
practical innovation - that can occur in any problem solving or 
opportunity developing situation as I see it. Creativity can be 
allowing children to dream in a practical sense and if they have a 
product at the end the look in their eyes says it all - aesthetic OR otherwise.

>Many of these kids are very creative- also enjoy any practical activity -
>mostly kinaesthetic learners. ART, in particular, has been a channel 
>for many of them and they
>often achieve very high GCSE results in art even if in nothing else!

Imagine if they met the same openness and risk taking in other 
subjects? This channel for their energies CAN be used in other areas 
but it is not encouraged from my view.

>At moment I am using art in this
>way with 2 boys (Even though I am NOT a specialist art teacher - I 
>am taking advice from art
>teachers but not everyone agrees that a non-specialist should be 
>teaching art. I think that having
>ideas/being creative/able to engage and motivate (I hope!) is more 
>important than technical skill ).

Absolutely! When one is creative in terms of developing activities 
that are meaningful and fun as well as covering the necessary content 
motivation follows - passion begets motivation. I just saw three 
teachers working with computers and it was amazing what they were 
doing and the depth of learning the children expressed - it was far 
more than the technology; it was the passion with which the teacher 
used the technology and incorporated it into their needs. They were 
living what McLuhan saw.

I see part of the dilemma as the boundaries that "subjects" present. 
Strange that although education in a public sense has been around for 
so long that we still have the same basic structure of subjects to a 
large extent. In Ontario each subject appears to be in battle with 
every other subject - they each can prove that if you had more of 
their subject then the world would be a better place. This echoes the 
idea expressed a little by you Sue (not meant to be negative at all 
but giving a perspective!) and is probably true in some ways but the 
school day has not lengthened and if anything more factors have been 
added. Nobody seems willing to "throw anything out" - it is an 
additive system only.

Would it not be better if the underlying techniques of creativity 
were found throughout the curriculum if we must continue in the 
subject model? If we could get to the underpinnings of our subjects 
(the hidden curriculum?) and see that we can use the same tools while 
respecting the value of the content of each others "subjects" would 
we not have a common language? If we spoke that common language would 
the system  and children not benefit?

It would be difficult for us all to become really skilled in the 
content of all subjects but perhaps it is possible to become 
knowledgeable in the underlying techniques around creativity and 
curiosity - to do that we have to strip away content and talk about 
how we inspire and motivate children as I see it.

>The role of the generalist/specialist is another huge area for 
>discussion and was also one of my
>M.Ed topics) Music/Creative  English/Drama can also be used 
>effectively, particularly with the
>disaffected and should have more of a place in mainstream I BELIEVE!

As one who has specialized in being a generalist you have my vote! By 
being a generalist one is open to everything and you know that you 
are not "an expert" - that is healthy for children to see IMO.

>Hope I have rattled a few cages! It seems to be my mission at the 
>moment1 Now I'll get back
>inside mine! All the best to all on the various lists.  Sue

Thanks for rattling and providing an opportunity to vent. Know the 
feeling Sue! Our voice is not a big voice.

Geoff