Reply to comment

 I think part of the reason why schools might not include/emphasize the creative subjects is that the benefits of these subjects are not immediately obvious and are a lot harder to assess. While it is possible to create tests in math and science and create labs which allow students to show off their knowledge in those subjects, it is a lot harder to do the same for classes that focus more on creativity. It isnt that these classes arent important, in fact im pretty sure I benefitted a lot more from the classes that emphasized creativity than a lot of my classes that focused on traditional subjects. Because the school system follows a rigid timeline and there is an ultimate knowledge goal (measured in terms of state assessments etc.) that has to be reached at the end of this time period, there isnt as much room as there should be for creative classes that might not adhere to this structure. Sure, PE classes might be required up to a point and during those PE classes we had assessment of our physical abilities, but most people I know saw PE as a time to goof off and I think that is a good thing. If schools tried to turn PE into structured school environments, I think they would be eliminating the only really consistent creative outlet that exists in most schools. That being said, I do think there is a lot of room for creativity in "traditional" subjects. Critical thinking is a creative process as it forces students to look at a problem and texts from multiple points of view and see when and where these points of view are important/related to the problem at hand. Perhaps before we begin creating additional creativity requirements in schools, we need to figure out how to bring creativity into the classes that are already being taught. art in math class? dance/physical education in history?