Schools Killing The Love of Writing?

[Komori]

May 3, 2013 17:33:54 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Komori, I want to ask you something (this is more directly related to the situation in the school the original post described):

Imagine you're a schoolteacher, and during her free time one of the girls in your class sketches really hilarious Neopets comics that remind you fondly of your own. Then, imagine the school principal telling you, "Hey, that girl who draws Neopets comics when she's done with all her other work and has nothing else to do? Yeah, you'll have to stop her from doing that." I know if I were in that position I would feel very hurt that this school official wants to stop a person who has such similar aspirations to my own.

I may be wrong, but your posts seem to say that's okay with you.

How'd you get that impression from my posts? I never said it was okay to stop students from doing extracurricular stuff when they were done with their assignments. My post was in regards to assignments only. Whatever kids do in their own time is their own business. Heck, I spent tons of time doodling on tests because I always finished them early. Only one teacher ever told me I couldn't do that, and I figured it was just because my drawings made my tests cluttered and hard to grade.

So no, I didn't say that was okay.

[Cow-winkle]

May 2, 2013 22:45:50 GMT -5 Komori said:

May 2, 2013 15:15:33 GMT -5 Cow-winkle said:

If you wish to "weed out" 4th graders for being "weak in their convictions", then yes, you are just being harsh.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the goal of a school is to help children learn more than they would learn without going to school (defined broadly to include homeschooling, etc). That is, to help children better themselves. Not just to "weed out" the losers and only pass people who were going to succeed anyway.

Sorry, if you're going to define school so broadly, why narrow my post to be intended for 4th graders? Like I said, this isn't just about the original post, and my post wasn't about 4th graders. It's not about failing anyone. It's weeding out people who aren't as dedicated to a particular subject, in this case writing.

In your post, you were talking about public school (e.g. "when they were getting education for free") which I took to mean K-12 education. You never said "Oh, except fourth grade, in which case everything I'm saying doesn't apply".

May 2, 2013 22:45:50 GMT -5 Komori said:

If school assignments are so strict and creativity-less so as to make people dislike the subject, then it's just as well that they don't major in that subject in college. You can easily despise a subject and still ace it.

I don't understand the motivation behind these sentences. In the case of writing, where creativity is important, it seems to me that a curriculum in which the teachers explicitly go out of their way to prevent creativity -- a situation which, judging by this thread (yes, I read it) is fairly common -- is, to say the least, counterproductive. You've said that you're not in favour of teachers doing this, which is good, but it has happened to other people.

As far as despising subjects, I think that the default state of education shouldn't include students despising what they're required to do, and if it is, it's the schools that need to change, not the students.

[Yoyti]

I will reiterate that there is a distinct difference between creative writing, and...non-creative writing. Writing is not just art, it is a form of communication, and while, if you want other people to read your novel, it should be able to communicate information, this is much more important when, say, you are applying for a job. Writing by a formula would be desirable in such a scenario. It removes ambiguity, and puts you in a position to be directly compared to everyone else. This is the sort of thing that has ruined opportunities for me. I actually had the reverse position. My early teachers encouraged me to be creative with my writing. And then came my first five-paragraph essay. The structure I was supposed to write according to was an introductory paragraph, and then three paragraphs before a conclusion, each detailing one of three arguments for me case. But two of my arguments were close enough that I could combine them into one paragraph while still not making that paragraph disproportionately long. And so I did, still clearly identifying my three distinct arguments.

I got penalized for it. Because I didn't follow the five paragraph outline. Not because my arguments weren't sound. Not because I was making a weak case to begin with. Because I condensed the essay into four paragraphs. Needless to say, I was annoyed at this.

A similar thing happened with math. The problem stated that if you guessed and checked against random numbers, you had to show at least three guesses. Even if you got it on the first or second guess, which I did. But my method wasn't just guessing. I used raw algebra to find a range of answers, and figured a method by which I could converge on an answer through guessing, not randomly, but systematically. I got the answer on the second guess, and in spite of my decidedly not-random method of guessing, still lost points on it.

But, given both these cases, I would still argue that I should not have been penalized for the math. I will, however, concede that the teacher was right to dock points for my four paragraphs (although she could have explained it better afterward...)

See, the people who are going to be reading things like job applications are in the same situation as the teachers grading essays. They need to read a lot extremely similar papers within a nonspecific but still very real time constraint. It is so much easier for them to do this if all the papers have the exact same structure. One paper slightly different will throw them off, and no one likes that. And even you're following that structure, if you let your voice through, like I do, it might confuse the readers, tired of seeing the same thing over and over again, who at this point may not even be reading the papers thoroughly anymore. If I make one joke remark, and the teacher is tired of reading essays (my name begins with a Z, so I'm usually among the last), that teacher is liable to not pick up on it being a joke, think I said something stupid, and take off points. I'm not saying I like the paradigm, but we're all humans here, and humans do get fatigue.

I regret to say it, but I think learning how to write just like everyone else is more important even that any math you learn beyond algebra-- maybe geometry. And I hate English classes, but love math.

I would offer a solution that schools, rather than lumping all writing under one "English" category, actually make the distinction between creative writing and communicative writing. Either split them into separate classes, or drop the creative aspect entirely. A lot of schools have elective bands/orchestras/choruses for musical creativity, and student-distributed papers and the like for creative writing. It is not the school system's job to encourage creativity--and, it may in fact make things worse. Because creativity is not how you secure a steady income. Creativity is not how you directly better society. Creativity second, measurable results first.

This is actually somewhat painful for me to say. I know most of us here are writers in the creative vein. We are linked by the common trait of having written for the Neopian Times at some point, and Neopets doesn't exactly do the analytical sort. In the past, my grades have suffered because I sacrificed strict methods for creativity, and while the whole grading paradigm is a rant for another day, if teachers, who, by the end of a given school year, are familiar with the people who's papers they are reading, would penalize a student for creativity, what do you think that person reading your resume whom you've never met is supposed to do. Maybe he'll find your wit amusing. Maybe he'll take it the wrong way and think you're sneering. But the most likely scenario is that he won't care. Your voice impedes upon his system. Figuring out your individual meaning is an obstacle. An obstacle that he does not have the time for. It may be a molehill, but this guy is on a veritable mountain covered in such molehills.

Maybe I love math so much because it's distinct. There is no ambiguity. And while there can be creativity, there is no (easy) way for creativity to get in the way of the raw material.

[Cow-winkle]

Yoyti, I think there's a good case to be made for distinguishing between literary writing and communication. My understanding is that that's how things used to be before universities became the way they are now, with professors doing both research and teaching. There's not much research to be done in the area of communicative writing, so they lumped writing and literature together and got literature professors to teach it, which trickled down into high school English courses as well. More info here. Somewhat off-topic rant below:

SPOILER: Click to show

Another thing the link mentions is that typically, when they tell you to do any writing in school, they tell you to come up with a thesis statement first, THEN do the research and writing to defend your thesis. This always bugged me, because it's not how any rational person learns things in real life. A rational person updates their beliefs based on new knowledge, so their position on an issue might change by the time they're done. But schools teach people to latch onto a belief, then cherry-pick arguments to support it. This is a damaging habit to instill in anyone.

However...

It is not the school system's job to encourage creativity--and, it may in fact make things worse. Because creativity is not how you secure a steady income. Creativity is not how you directly better society. Creativity second, measurable results first.

(You said that this is painful for you to say, and I appreciate that. However, I'm still going to offer a rebuttal.)

I'm not sure I can express how much I disagree with this. All problem solving is a kind of creativity. Creativity isn't some segmented, tiny, ornamental part of life; it IS life. In real life, you don't get predetermined essay questions and multiple choice tests. You have to work in reality as it is, and you get pushed to the limits of your abilities. Sure, there are small packets of order (offices, schools) which are designed to seem as though they're under control, but they're not representative of the randomness you have to deal with in real life. Living without creativity is fine as long as you have your mindless office job, but what do you do when you're fired, or replaced by a computer? You have to find a way to use your skills to make a living in some new way. This is a non-trivial problem which takes creativity to solve.

"Creativity is not how you directly better society"?! Creativity is the only thing that has ever directly bettered society. Without new ideas (e.g. technology, scientific breakthroughs, philosophical ideas, art and entertainment), things just stay the same.

As far as "creativity second, measurable results first" -- why the dichotomy? Are you implying that creativity doesn't give measurable results?

And if you're suggesting that kids should be taught raw technical skills before they're taught to express themselves creatively, I take issue with that. Teaching basic skills first is how you program a computer. But children are not blank slates. They come into a classroom with personalities and ideas, and they have the potential to be highly motivated and focused. This is not a bad thing; the only bad thing is that schools often fail to take advantage of this energy that kids bring into the classroom. You can weave the basic skills into a curriculum without making them pure torture -- my parents taught me to read by the time I was three, and it wasn't by giving me rote drill exercises, it was by reading to me and letting me play with alphabet blocks and word games.

I think when the word "creativity" comes up in the context of education, people think about poetry and finger painting. They think about people like Van Gogh, who was talented but sold hardly any paintings in his lifetime. And yeah, that's a kind of creativity. But I also think about MacGuyver, making guns out of paperclips (or something along those lines). The ability to see something as simple as a paperclip as such a wide variety of tools is a kind of creativity I think people don't consider often enough. And I think about people like Steve Wozniak, who worked with computers because he loved it, and created things for the sake of the pure joy of creation. There are countless other examples I could bring up.

The impression I get from a lot of people is that they think that creative thinking is optional, like it's a luxury only for the rich and the lucky. But historically, every single culture in the world, rich and poor, has found the time and resources to have music, dance, art and stories. To deny our creative sides is to deny our humanity. A life without art and ideas is a life not worth living, and if a school is meant to prepare students for life, then it seems to me like a crime to deprive them of the freedom to use their imaginations.

[Breakingchains]

Is it me, or are we off on a tangent here? I mean, there's being creative with problem-solving and then there's being creative with writing, I.E., being artistic--I suspect Yoyti was referring to the latter. While it's true you need creativity in life, it's not true you need to be able to write creatively in life; creative writing is a niche thing, something not every child has even the most remote interest in or aptitude for. As such, IMHO, it shouldn't be something all children are forced to learn about. On the other hand, writing with clarity and accuracy and being able to express yourself within the limits of a pre-determined format is something we all need unless we decide to be reclusive hermits, which is why it should be included in the main curriculum.

[Yoyti]

First off, Cow, I agree wholeheartedly with your spoilered rant.

I'm not saying that creativity is useless or optional. Just that schools should stay out of it. Creativity is something very unique to every person. To quote Vihart, "teaching how to think is an individualized process whereas teaching what to think can be done with one-size-fits-all bullet points." One-size-fits-all bullet points are not necessarily bad, though. Particularly not when dealing with raw facts. I don't have a problem with schools not teaching how to prove the Pythagorean theorem Schools give the students tools which they can then use to prove it themselves.

See, the point I'm trying to make is that public education should be left out of schools entirely. They don't encourage it, they don't suppress it. Creativity can be fostered outside of school, when each child can do his own individual thing. Because creativity simply cannot be taught, and trying to teach it is counterproductive. It actually defeats the purpose of creativity if two people later in life find that they were taught to be creative in the same way. Within school itself, electives can help achieve the desired affect, as can extracurriculars. That's where a student can pick and choose based on their own preferences.

I think the school curriculum can actually be cut significantly. Mandatory subjects, I think, up through high school, should include:

Math
Assorted sciences
Communication through print
Computer science (I can discuss this at length later if you want me to.)
History/Literature (I can discuss this at length later if you want me to.)

That's it. Electives would now include assorted creative writing classes, music classes, other literature classes with different book selections, and foreign language. (I will concede that one year (maybe two) of required foreign language would be useful just to introduce the subject. Students might not realize they have an interest until after they take the class. But after that, I don't see the use in keeping it a required course).

And so, to recap, I think schools should remove themselves from creativity as much as possible, because creativity is too individual to each person. Creativity needs room to grow, and is certainly not something we can always count on--hence my saying it doesn't produce measurable results. It's more along the lines of not producing reliable results. You can't count on every student becoming the Mozart of their field. Learning math, however, is something that can be done through drilling, and which does have many immediately praticable applications. Maybe you're not the mathematician that writes beautiful proofs, but you know the formulas, and if a contractor needs to know what's the ideal slope of a ramp to balance out space and ease of use, you can tell him. That example was also probably very poorly chosen.

[Cow-winkle]

May 3, 2013 22:57:58 GMT -5 Breakingchains said:

Is it me, or are we off on a tangent here? I mean, there's being creative with problem-solving and then there's being creative with writing, I.E., being artistic--I suspect Yoyti was referring to the latter. While it's true you need creativity in life, it's not true you need to be able to write creatively in life; creative writing is a niche thing, something not every child has even the most remote interest in or aptitude for. As such, IMHO, it shouldn't be something all children are forced to learn about. On the other hand, writing with clarity and accuracy and being able to express yourself within the limits of a pre-determined format is something we all need unless we decide to be reclusive hermits, which is why it should be included in the main curriculum.

In my experience, the creativity involved in making a poem work within a given rhyme and rhythm structure is not drastically different from the creativity involved in making an essay fit into 500 words. And as a math major who draws comics, in my experience, the creativity of problem solving is not drastically different from the creativity of making your art the best it can be. When you write a story, you're not just spewing content onto the page and calling it a masterpiece. You rewrite to refine it and optimize it, and you learn as you go along, discovering new things and getting better each time. A lot of art is about searching for solutions given a set of restrictions (e.g. in a cartoon panel, how do I arrange the character's dialogue in the sequential order I want while still making the composition appealing?) which is essentially what you're doing when you solve any problem. So no, I don't think I went too far off topic.

I don't necessarily think that schools should force students into creative writing if they don't want to. But I don't think that they should actively prevent it either, which -- again, as seen in several posts on this thread -- happens in a lot of schools.

[Breakingchains]

Fair enough, although I have to wonder--is there any way to work creativity into a classroom setting without the risk of many of those classes turning it into drudgery? Because there is always the risk of, as many writers have experienced, some neurotic teacher thinking they've cornered the market on the "right" way to write a story, or doing mind-numbing analysis of writing that needs no analysis, or similar pretentiousness that, instead of fostering real creativity, turns some kids off art for life. How do you prevent that sort of thing and keep these classes productive?

I do like Yoyti's idea of all artistic pursuits being elective, and spelling/composition/etc. being a separate class and separate concept from creative writing, but still--it seems that many, many classes centered around "creative" writing end up being more damaging than inspiring to kids. How does one go about fixing that issue?

[Cow-winkle]

Yeah, that's definitely a tricky one. I agree with Yoyti in that I think creativity develops differently in each individual, although I think it's important enough that public education should play a part in developing it. I suppose a perfect universe would have a different curriculum tailored to each student to incorporate the requirements in a way that suits them. And I know we don't live in a perfect universe and never will, but I maintain that there's room for improvement.

[Komori]

Mm, I had a creative writing class in high school. It was probably one of the most useless classes where I learned nothing. It's hard to grade people's creativity, so what usually happened was sitting in a classroom for an hour, having to write to music with whatever lame prompt she'd put on the board. But we could write whateverrr. Poetry, stories, stream-of-conscious ramblings. I mean, she probably wasn't that great a teacher, but it was still a pretty useless class.

Besides, I agree with Huntress about learning how to wiggle within constrictions. THAT is how you help foster creative thinking. You wind up thinking far more creatively if you were given a set of rules instead of a blank slate. Blank sheet of paper, write whatever vs sheet of paper, but it must be five paragraphs, written in first person, and include a man vs man conflict. It's also a more practical life-use FOR creativity. You're not going to be given free reign to do whatever you darn well please, and then people throw money at you. Everything's going to have rules and restrictions and impasses, and you might as well face that in school before the big ol' real world.

[Huntress]

May 3, 2013 17:50:23 GMT -5 Komori said:

May 3, 2013 17:33:54 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Komori, I want to ask you something (this is more directly related to the situation in the school the original post described):

Imagine you're a schoolteacher, and during her free time one of the girls in your class sketches really hilarious Neopets comics that remind you fondly of your own. Then, imagine the school principal telling you, "Hey, that girl who draws Neopets comics when she's done with all her other work and has nothing else to do? Yeah, you'll have to stop her from doing that." I know if I were in that position I would feel very hurt that this school official wants to stop a person who has such similar aspirations to my own.

I may be wrong, but your posts seem to say that's okay with you.

How'd you get that impression from my posts? I never said it was okay to stop students from doing extracurricular stuff when they were done with their assignments. My post was in regards to assignments only. Whatever kids do in their own time is their own business. Heck, I spent tons of time doodling on tests because I always finished them early. Only one teacher ever told me I couldn't do that, and I figured it was just because my drawings made my tests cluttered and hard to grade.

So no, I didn't say that was okay.

Eheh, this takes me back. I doodled all the time in classes. Primarily while the teacher was giving a lecture/presentation that only really occupied my ears. Was always a bit on the edge in case they tell me off for doing other things, and I remember countless times when I tensed up mid-coloring when a teacher walked past talking about WWII or how genetics work and there I was with my Sailor Moon fanart, but nobody ever said a thing. Or if they did, it was praise for the drawings. I figured that they figured that I always got good test results and was actually following the class regardless of doodling, so they had no reason to care what I did to occupy my time otherwise. (And a quiet student doing her own thing is much more likable than the one who decides to play cards mid-class >>)

Re: how curricula should be built up: the reasoning I always heard about why creative classes like music/art/creative writing are mandatory (and they are here, although we don't really have electives to speak of anyway, they only recently started bringing some in when I was well out of highschool) was that 1) classes like music and art are there to space out the schoolday and shake up the brain a bit so that it's not just drone-drone-drone and constant stress to work on high gear, and 2) there should be a balance between scientific subjects and creative subjects in every kid's curriculum because they're equally important in their own ways. Although the question of how to grade music and art is always getting bounced around, yep.

[Crystal]

May 4, 2013 6:13:53 GMT -5 Huntress said:

Re: how curricula should be built up: the reasoning I always heard about why creative classes like music/art/creative writing are mandatory (and they are here, although we don't really have electives to speak of anyway, they only recently started bringing some in when I was well out of highschool) was that 1) classes like music and art are there to space out the schoolday and shake up the brain a bit so that it's not just drone-drone-drone and constant stress to work on high gear, and 2) there should be a balance between scientific subjects and creative subjects in every kid's curriculum because they're equally important in their own ways. Although the question of how to grade music and art is always getting bounced around, yep.

There's no reason why you should force particular classes, though. I think the idea was to specify "You must take X amount of electives'', and then leave it up to the child to decide which.

We didn't really have electives when l was in school, and 1 have to say 1 agree for more with the elective system. That said, my parents were very into the idea that whether you liked it or not, you should have a certain amount of non-school education, so 1 also took piano, cello, art and ballet lessons, despite despising all of them except art. l would never have taken non-art classes, were it left up to me, but now that I'm older, I'm forced to admit that it was a good idea, and that I'm sorry 1 managed to talk them out of Chinese lessons and guitar lessons too. l would have much appreciated the ability to do both later on in life.

TL:DR; kids don't understand what's good for them and mandatory isn't bad.

[Deleted]

I just found out something that I think is relevant to this.

Apparently, schools are now expected to have their students read less fiction so that more people will want to become scientists and engineers.

I think this is horrible!

Because 1. that's pre-conditioning someone to want a job and thus killing a part of their personality, and 2. that's actively trying to weed out creative individuals like myself. I was drawn to fantasy novels, and thus want to publish one someday. I do NOT want kids to be forced to take a certain path in life. Let every child decide for themselves what they want, and as long as no one else comes to any harm by it any lifestyle's perfectly okay!

[Crystal]

May 12, 2013 9:24:00 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

I just found out something that I think is relevant to this.

Apparently, schools are now expected to have their students read less fiction so that more people will want to become scientists and engineers.

I think this is horrible!

Because 1. that's pre-conditioning someone to want a job and thus killing a part of their personality, and 2. that's actively trying to weed out creative individuals like myself. I was drawn to fantasy novels, and thus want to publish one someday. I do NOT want kids to be forced to take a certain path in life. Let every child decide for themselves what they want, and as long as no one else comes to any harm by it any lifestyle's perfectly okay!

Not only does that sound silly, it also makes no sense - sci-fi's a great place to get kids started in on techy stuff. Where did you hear this from?

[M is for Morphine]

Weeding out creative individuals because you want engineers would be a stupid, stupid move. Because engineers often need to be creative. MIT recognizes this, and who knows engineers better, eh?