Session Information
03 SES 07, Curriculum Change in Scotland: Policy and Practice
Paper Session
Contribution
Interest in creativity in education is not new but policy makers’ interest in creativity in education has been renewed through a conceptualisation of creative capacity as a component of economic growth. It has been argued that ‘creative capital’ (Florida, 2002) is a prerequisite for the kinds of innovation needed to sustain economic growth in new times (Bilton, 2007). Policy change to promote creative learning has been promoted internationally (Sefton Green, Thomson, Bresler, and Jones, 2010). However, a recent survey of teachers across the EU Member States suggests that teachers’ perception of the role and relevance of creativity in the curriculum, and the provision of professional education to support creative teaching and learning, varies considerably between countries (European Commission, 2009).
This paper offers a critical examination of the promotion of creativity across the formal curriculum for maintained schools in Scotland (LTS/IDES Network, 2001; SEED, 2006; HMIE, 2006; LTS, 2009). Successive polices have sought to reconcile creativity, curriculum innovation and enterprise, including Determined to Succeed, the Future Learning and Teaching programme (2001-2007) and the Schools of Ambition school improvement programme (2006-2010). Creativity-oriented teaching and learning processes are increasingly deployed in a repertoire of sponsored interventions designed to tackle disaffection, promote ‘better behaviour’, and improve retention and attainment of the lowest attaining twenty per cent of pupils. In addition to targeted interventions, new opportunities for professional creativity are extended in the relaxation of curriculum prescription expressed in Ambitious, Excellent Schools (Scottish Executive, 2004) and the revised school curriculum, Curriculum for Excellence (3-18 years) (Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2009).
Two significant trajectories are evident from this review of recent curriculum reform: (1) a stronger focus on individual capacities, which emphasises the development of ‘creative thinking’, ‘creative teaching’ and ‘creative learning’; (2) a discernible ‘affective turn’ evidenced in renewed interest in the management of emotions and dispositions in the educational process (Furedi, 2004, 2009; Ecclestone and Hayes, 2008).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Bilton, C. (2007). Management and Creativity: from creative industries to creative management. London: Wiley Blackwell. Craft, A. (Ed.). (2005). Creativity in Schools: Tensions and Dilemmas. London: Routledge. Ecclestone, K. and Hayes, D. (2008) The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education. London: Routledge. European Commission (2009) Creativity in Schools in Europe. A Survey of Teachers. [Online] Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC55645_Creativity%20Survey%20Brochure.pdf (Accessed: 15 January 2010) Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books. Furedi, F. (2004). Therapy Culture: Cultivating Vulnerability in an Uncertain Age. London, Routledge. Furedi, F. (2009) Wasted. Why Education Isn’t Working. London, Continuum. Hartley, D. (2003) The instrumentalisation of the expressive in education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(1), 6-19. HMIe (2006a) Emerging Good Practice in Promoting Creativity. Livingston, HMIE. IDES Network and Learning and Teaching Scotland (2001). Creativity in Education. Dundee: IDES Network and LT Scotland.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.