Teaching for creativity in the common core classroom

Foreword Beghetto, Kaufman, and Baer have written a path-breaking, even a revolutionary, book. Why? Because almost every serious educator has seen governmental efforts to regulate or even to guide education as creativity-killers, not as promoters of creativity. For most educators, the idea that the Common Core, or any other set of state- or federally recommended standards might be used to promote creativity seems almost oxymoronic. This idea notwithstanding, the authors have shown in a compelling and sophisticated way how teachers can use the Common Core to promote rather than to discourage creativity. I’ve been in the field of education for more years than I care to count, and before I read this book, it would not even have occurred to me that such standards could be used to promote the teaching of creativity. Beghetto, Kaufman, and Baer have demonstrated their own creativity in showing how creativity and the Common Core can be compatible rather than essentially contradictory. The Common Core standards have many opponents. Many of those opposed to them are motivated by ideology. Nothing that these authors or any other authors write will convince them otherwise. But there will be other educators who will continue to believe that the Common Core is a creativity killer. And indeed, no one could say that the standards were written specifically to promote creativity. This book discusses how creativity can be taught, even if Common Core standards are implemented. Unfortunately, very few implementers of the Common Core, even those who read this wonderful book, will teach the Common Core in a way that promotes creativity. Why? I believe there are several issues our society needs to address before teaching for creativity becomes widespread. First, we need to believe in teaching for creativity. As a society, we may say we do, but to many educators, teaching for creativity means educating students to be flexible thinkers within a fairly rigid educational framework. As long as students stay within a small circle, they are welcome to be creative. Second, very few standardized tests make any provision for, or even encourage in the slightest way, creative thinking of the kinds the authors in xi xii Foreword this book discuss. In the United States, testing has come to drive instruction rather than instruction driving testing, so until testing changes, teaching likely won’t. Third, many teachers never learn how to teach for creativity. They may like the idea of teaching for creativity in the abstract. But they don’t really know how to do it in practice. Fourth, some educators mistakenly believe that creativity is something students display only in the arts. On this view, creativity is something you do in a class on drawing or painting. Even some educators with a broader view would draw the line at mathematics or science. But such a view of creativity is both limited and limiting, and fails to take into account that creativity can be encouraged and displayed in any field. For example, great mathematicians and scientists differ in many ways, but one thing they all have in common is extraordinary creativity. Fifth, many educators view teaching for creativity as something you do after you have taught the basic facts, rather than a means to help students learn those basic facts. On this view, creative thinking may be promoted in some future course—a course that never occurs. Finally, many teachers fear creative students, even though they might not admit this to others—or to themselves. Creative students are hard to teach, sometimes oppose the teacher’s point of view, and sometimes question why they are even doing what they are doing. How much easier it is to have students who just do what they are told without making waves! In sum, you are about to embark on reading a wonderful book. The book may even change the way you teach and assess your students. There are few favors you can do your students greater than putting into practice the precepts of this book. Give it a try. I will! —Robert J. Sternberg Professor of Human Development Cornell University 09/20/14 Acknowledgments We would especially like to thank Anna Dilley for her extensive work in preparing the manuscript for final submission. We are also very grateful to Allison B. Kaufman and Beth Leibson for their editorial help and insight on an earlier version of the manuscript. We would also like to thank our acquisitions editor Emily Spangler and everyone at Teacher’s College Press, particularly their freelance developer Sarah Biondello. We are grateful to our universities and departments for giving us the freedom that allows us to write these types of books. Ron and James, both new to the University of Connecticut, would like to thank their colleagues as they start this new journey. The chance to work together at the Neag School of Education alongside our dear friend and collaborator Jonathan Plucker is an amazing opportunity. We have been welcomed with open arms by Â�everyone at UConn—President Susan Herbst, Provost Mun Choi, Vice Provost Sally Reis, outgoing dean Tom DeFranco, incoming dean Richard Schwab, department head Del Siegle, program coordinators Scott Brown and Catherine Little, and the legendary Joe Renzulli. It is an exciting time for us! Ron would like to thank his wife, Jeralynn, and daughter Olivia for the daily inspiration and support they provide. James would like to thank, as always, his wife, Allison, sons Jacob and Asher, and parents, Alan and Nadeen. xiii Introduction The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. —F. Scott Fitzgerald Creativity and the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) may seem to be an example of Fitzgerald’s two opposing ideas—creativity is Â�often described as thinking outside the box, and the Common Core could be thought of as the box itself. In this book, our goal is to show how these two seemingly opposed ideas cannot only coexist but can enrich each other. Creativity is a hot topic today. It is listed as one of the essential 21st-Â� century skills and widely acknowledged by schools, organizations, and leaders as vital to individual and organizational success (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2013; Kaufman, 2009). Despite creativity’s recognized potential, many teachers and administrators are not quite sure what exactly it is, how it can be taught and nurtured, and whether it is even possible to assess. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS), meanwhile, represent the latest effort to better prepare all students for entrance into postsecondary education and the workforce, outlining a common roadmap of what concepts students need to learn, regardless of their geographic location. Yet, despite the fact that the Common Core initiative was spearheaded by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGACBP) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), it has become a political point of contention (Bidwell, 2014), raised questions about content coverage (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011), and led to concerns about implementation and assessment—even from supporters (AFT, 2013; Strauss, 2013). Despite these concerns, the adoption of the Common Core is moving forward. At present, 44 states (plus Washington, DC, and four U.S. territories) have adopted the Common Core State Standards (“Standards in Your State,” 2014). Creativity has not been forgotten; policymakers and educational leaders continue to emphasize the need for introducing creativity into the curriculum. Both creativity and the CCSSI are of fundamental 1