They say curiosity killed the cat. Let’s be more concrete. Before democracy became the bee’s knees and freedom of speech became a protected right, curiosity killed the heretic. It’s a little less appealing to say it that way, and it definitely would be harder to explain to a child, but this is really what the phrase means.
Let’s pretend that our modern cliche phrase was actually the heretic edition. You would have to explain to the child that, according to Merriam-Webster, a heretic is someone who “dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine.” Governments and societies destroyed those who were curious enough to seek answers outside of the stock phrases that they would give about why life is the way it is and why their systems are supposedly the best. Some famous heretics were Galileo, Joan of Arc and Darwin. Without people like them — people who were curious enough to say, “What would happen if I did or thought something different?” — we would still believe in male dominance, geocentrism and intelligent design, among other things.
Creativity is the product of curiosity. This means all the answers to making better medicine, solving world hunger, making sustainable energy or solving (insert world crisis here) will only be solved by someone who is curious. It is the main ingredient in human progress and, as such, we should try to cultivate it in our citizens so that we may better compete.
The best way to cultivate curiosity is through our school system. Sadly, our schools kill curiosity.
From kindergarten through high school graduation, our school system systematically squashes creativity. Every school is an assembly line. Fifty-minute class. Bell. Fifty-minute class with a new teacher. Lunch. Repeat. Homework. Not only does this structure make school as boring as possible, but it also makes sure a student is taught in modules that can fit into 50 minutes. The system is made to be as impersonal as possible. Every person has his or her little bubble. The briefness of each encounter with your history, math or English teacher makes only the most superficial of relationships possible. David Brooks put it best when he wrote, “Since people learn from people they love, education is fundamentally about the relationship between a teacher and student.”
Kids won’t take the risk of thinking creatively with a teacher or class they don’t know. Instead, they will try to conform to what they think the teacher might want. It is said that it takes a village to raise a child, and surely there is much to be learned from the ideas and strengths of your peers. So why are our school days filled entirely with lists of facts and test-taking techniques to memorize instead of a better balance that includes more creative expression?
Even worse for student creativity is the current assessment system, which emphasizes a very narrow, test-oriented approach. Kids are told they cannot think differently or daydream because their school will fail them, their teacher will be fired and their parents will be disappointed. Our test-centric curriculum obscures the reason we are teaching kids. The curriculum leaves them asking over and over again, “Why am I learning this again?”
Instead of focusing on tests, classes should emphasize more of an engineering project style of teaching. Projects in which kids try to physically make something using the scientific theories and methods they are taught will go a long way toward relieving boredom. As any mother knows, “Because I said so!” isn’t a sufficient explanation in the eyes of a child. These projects will give kids an inherent reason for why they are learning seemingly random physical laws or even historical facts on innovation.
A great part of President Obama’s education reform initiative, Race to the Top, is that it emphasizes a system of teacher accountability. But a huge part of how officials gauge teacher performance is through these tests. Why not spend a little more money preparing a test that not only rewards good reading comprehension, but also creative problem solving and a willingness to think more boldly? These assessments could use a light mix of the old reasoning and comprehension tests and combine them with outlandish prompts like “Explain the color orange.” These questions may be hard to answer and may be biased toward kids who were raised in a certain type of family, but this inherent bias is exactly why the scores should be ignored in favor of any sign of improvement. If a teacher demonstrates his or her students improved in their creative thinking and reasoning from the previous year, and they receive good assessments from students and families, then they should be rewarded.
For a country that spends nearly 5 percent of its GDP on education, we sure do not get a good return on our investment. Every day, there is an article in the paper about the growing wealth disparity in the United States. Liberals cry for increased taxes on the rich, lower taxes on the rest and more direct government aid for the poor. All of these solutions are artificial fixes that have not changed the widening gap. Our government can do the easy thing and play the paternalist by throwing money and keeping its citizens dependent on the system — or it can choose to foster curiosity and interest in education so these future job seekers can be empowered. Curiosity is what will make us “Win the Future.”
Nicolas Enriquez ’16 is a member of the empirical generation. He can be reached at nenriquez3@gmail.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
