Senior politicians, including the Prime Minister, argue that it is vital to promote creativity and innovation throughout education. This was a theme of Tony Blair's electioneering speeches in the run up to the 1997 landslide. He made it one of the central messages of his Romanes lecture on education in 1999. Yet if the government were to design an education system to inhibit creativity, it could hardly do better. This was true of the last government though they had less to say about creativity in the first place. Governments throughout the world emphasise the importance of creativity, but often what they do in education suppresses it. Why is it that politicians argue for creativity but seem to act against it? This question goes to the heart of the debate about what it is to be educated in the twenty-first century. There is a good deal of creative teaching and learning going on in the UK and elsewhere. But this is mostly despite the dominant policies rather than because of them. There are two widely acknowledged reasons for promoting creativity and innovation, both of them economic. First, technological developments are transforming the global economies. Keeping pace with international competition requires a constant flow of new ideas and the capacity to implement them. Second, business needs people who can adapt quickly to new challenges and changing circumstances. This much is standard political rhetoric. But these issues are more than rhetorical. They must be taken to the heart of government. In my view, they are taken seriously, but the implications are not being faced, at least not on the evidence of current policies. Education has to do more than prepare people for the world of work. The British education system has always been tempered with broader social purposes, and rightly so. There have been times when philosophers of education and others have argued that education should never be seen in instrumental terms at all: that the aims of education are entirely intrinsic to it and should not be related to economic interests. However plausible these arguments may be within philosophy seminars, they run against the grain of parental expectations, the aspirations of young people and common sense. In my experience, most people assume that being educated will have some bearing on being employable and economically independent. The issue is not whether education should relate to economic development, but how, and how its economic roles should be balanced with other priorities. In the new economies, the nature of work and the balance of the workforce are changing beyond recognition. The technological changes that are now taking place bear serious comparison with the Industrial Revolution. In the last twenty years, and with increasing speed, there have been radical changes in the nature and the distribution of work. There have been fundamental changes in how business is done and who does it. The revolution in banking and financial services is just one example of many. The indications are that we have seen nothing yet. The accelerating rate of technological change suggests that we are still at the ham radio stage of global information systems. Revolutionary research in nanotechnology is leading to the extreme miniaturisation of computer components. But this is not all. Rapid developments in the cognitive sciences are generating new insights about the workings of the brain. Genetics is opening up new horizons in the nature of life itself. These three scientific frontiers are beginning to merge. It is now feasible to anticipate the convergence of information systems and human intelligence; the development of computer-enhanced intelligence and of conscious machines. These are not ideas from science fiction but realistic projections based on current knowledge and rates of research and innovation. If this is not creating a social, economic and cultural revolution, it's hard to know what would. Education is meant to be the process by which we enable people to engage with social and economic change. …
Read full abstract