Early in July of this year (2017), I took the opportunity to do some field research for my Master’s degree project and for my sabbatical. I have been exploring the topic of innovation and entrepreneurialism in the educational context, but the ultimate goal is to prepare students for the competitive context of business in the real world. This brought me to McMaster Innovation Park (MIP) in Hamilton Ontario. Under the auspices of McMaster University, this sprawling campus includes automotive research facilities  and a metals and materials research facility. My purpose was to visit the “The Atrium,” which is “home to over 40 businesses and organizations that are fostering innovation through development of new businesses, products, and research initiatives with a focus on commercialization” (MIP, 2017).

Ko and Kinsman both estimated that most start-ups fail in the first two years of operation. As mathematicians, they avoid generalisations—so when Dr. Kinsman told me that only 5% of start-ups last beyond the first two years, I knew this number wasn’t dropped for hyperbolic effect. This means that an astonishing nineteen out of twenty companies are unsuccessful. They have witnessed the demise of countless companies at MIP.  My question to them was why?

The first answer they proposed was simply this: “bad ideas aren’t dampened soon enough.” Too many companies spend too much time on unchecked and untested ideas, ideas that turn out to be bad ones. Ko and Kinsman urge innovators to kill bad ideas as soon as possible, so that good ones have time to germinate and flourish. This requires market testing, honest reflection and regular feedback.
The evaluation of ideas is fundamental to innovation. Testing products and prototypes (although expensive and difficult) are crucial to sussing out goods ideas from the bad ones. Innovators need to ask themselves if their idea is better than an incumbent; who is their target audience? Who can and will pay for the service or product?
​
Notice the reason for failure wasn’t perseverance; in fact, persevering with a bad idea often signals the death knell of an aspiring entrepreneur. The real goal is to persevere researching, reflecting and rejecting until the innovator finds a truly good idea. 

When discussing “risk taking,” both Ko and Kinsman qualified risk with education, research and analysis. As entrepreneurs, they take “calculated and informed risks” and only risks they can afford to lose if it comes to that.

​Fundamental knowledge is also key. Kinsman and Ko referenced physicist Albert Einstein, who didn’t throw out or ignore Newtonian mechanics but rather enveloped them. Both Ko and Kinsman urged educators to still teach the basics while also encouraging students to challenge foundations and develop links between competing systems. They also noted the need for growth mindsets.

This is what Dyer, Gregersen and Christensen (2011) say are the fundamental skills of an innovator: associating, questioning, observing, networking and experimenting. The reason Ko and Kinsman have been able to thrive as a start-up company is because they clearly have the DNA of innovators.

As educators preparing students for the twenty-first century, we clearly have a lot of work to do; we not only need to continue teaching the fundamental knowledge and skills, but we also need to foster growth mindsets, skills  of innovators and nurture entrepreneurial spirits.  

The term “digital natives” has been bantered around for a few years now; it is often evoked as a slam dunk argument for unqualified integration of technology. The perception this title engenders is that contemporary youth are a “just Google it” generation, alienated from traditional content and methods of teaching. I think referring to our students as “digital natives” gives rise to non sequiturs like this: since our students have grown up in a world with technology, therefore they can only learn using technology. False comparisons also abound, like the idea that a teacher teaching about “books, paper, or content knowledge” is likened to teaching “desert nomads” about goose-down parkas and Sorel winter boots. However, before I unpack my diatribe of criticisms, allow me to list a few positives.

The term “digital natives” has led to a paradigm shift in curriculum and pedagogy, causing many educators to see their students in a different light. Teachers need to consider the fact that the world of our students—saturated with technology and abundant with information—is dramatically different from the world of “information scarcity” that we grew up in.  

The “digital native” concept has helped me to be more cognizant of my students’ lack of experience with and exposure to older technologies. For example, my high school students have limited experience using book indexes, composing electronic mail, searching online library catalogues and databases, annotating texts, and many are not able to read (or write cursive). The term “digital native” has also reminded me to shift my priorities to new technology training; for example, I no longer teach my Grade 9 students to organize their course binders. Instead, I help them manage their digital files, subfolders and resources.

As mentioned above, however, the label “digital natives” isn’t entirely useful. Educational experts have noted in their criticism of the label that it seems to indicate that “date-of-birth” is the essential criterion for technology awareness. In truth, we are all “digital natives” because of our wholesale digital immersion. I can hardly recall not using the Internet, even though I spent half my life without using it at all. I signed up for my first email account (e-mail then) as an adult in university. Now, technology is as ubiquitous as automobiles, mortgages, and Tim Hortons. Technology is so inseparable from our perception of reality, that we forget that we once functioned happily without it. This is because human beings are incredibly adaptable. We adapt to technological change, absorbing it into our lives as though it was always part of our reality all along. I might redub “digital natives” with the term “digitally acclimatized,” and apply it to almost everyone in Canada (apart from those demographic groups noted in Stanford U’s “digital divide” research, which shows not necessarily a generational divide but a socio-economic one).

This leads to another criticism I have with the implications of the moniker “digital natives” being applied to all young people; my experience as an educator for over fifteen years have taught me that “young people” are not necessarily as tech savvy or tech literate as the label “digital natives” implies. Although our students are growing up in a sea of technology, not everyone can swim. There are still varying degrees of aptitude at all age levels. Some grandparents have no trouble using Facebook or Skype to connect with grandkids; whereas, some students in high school can’t figure out how to insert page numbers or centre a title in a Word document. Add Google docs to the mix, and you might as well be speaking in Greek. I have students who cannot create a blog, upload a video to YouTube, or use a Smartboard. One’s age bracket does not validate or negate one’s “tech savviness.” 

The consequence of all of this is simply to say that training learners to use their technology and capitalizing on those students who are tech savvy is becoming as important as teaching learners how to use the language they speak in. Just because you are born into an language-speaking context doesn't mean you know how to speak or write well.  I have taught many second language students who were more fluent and erudite than their "native-speaking" peers. The same is true with technology literacy. All learners, whether they are digitally acclimatized or not, still need guidance on how to be effective and efficient with new technologies. This means that teachers themselves need to become tech savvy. For all of you "non-techies" out there... become co-learners with your students and discover the joys (and trials) of living in a technology saturated world.  

In the Senior school, students have the option of taking a Small Business course focusing on entrepreneurialism. One of the culminating tasks in the course is to deliver an “investor’s pitch” similar to CBC’s Dragon’s Den.  At HSC, this is called “Trojan Trials” and it is helmed by Mr. Nick Timms, the Subject Coordinator of the Arts and Design department along with the assistance of the Alumni office. HSC Alumni, who have been successful in business, are invited back to serve on the panel of mock “investors”; this year’s panel consisted of four entrepreneurs, a couple of whom had pitched on the real Dragon’s Den themselves.

It is no surprise that a course focusing on “entrepreneurial spirit” would excel in the areas of innovation, creativity and entrepreneurialism. So what was I hoping to gain by observing a course that already oozes innovation and creativity? I was looking for three main ideas as I observed the pitches from students:

1. Transferable Skills—What did the students need to succeed in a small business or entrepreneurial context? In particular, what essential skills, mindsets and knowledge are needed or were acquired outside the Small Business course. How can we further augment, support and nurture these in other courses?
2. Motivation for Excellence—Why did the students want to do well? What motivated them to achieve excellence in their ideation, application, presentation and collaboration? Hint… it isn’t marks… even though this pitch was part of their summative assessment, weighing in at 20% of their final grade… But a mark wasn’t what drove them (at least not entirely)…
3. Innovation in Business—I was also looking for a deeper understanding of what innovation looks like in a business context and I wanted a glimpse of the ways Mr. Timms fosters innovation and creativity with his students.

​So, what transferable skills were needed for success? As an English teacher, I couldn’t help but notice the polished, passionate and personal delivery of the pitches; presenters weren’t just going through the motions of an oral presentation… they were communicating.  By communicating, I mean they were speaking to a specific audience with the intent of impressing upon them their own personal ideas. Obviously the presenters rehearsed their pitches; however, the feel of the presentations was anything but staged. The students genuinely wanted to persuade their audience (and the panel in particular). The students confidently engaged the attention of their hearers and naturally presented the merits of their ideas to us. Students spoke with their real Voice; it was professional yet personal. There wasn’t a whiff of Wikipedia. Students knew their material inside and out; they were selective and intentional in what they communicated. Their presentations were well paced and their supporting visuals actually supported their presentations (miracle of all miracles…).

​Much of our time in school is practice time (and rightly so). However, coaches and stage directors, in particular, know that players and performers don’t give it “their all” until game day or performance night. This assignment turned their presentation into a “game day” performance. As a result, they seemed to give it their all! Another catalyst for excellence was the presence of “creative constraints” (both real and manufactured). The “manufactured constraint” was in the parameters of the assignment itself: the students only had five minutes to pitch and five minutes to answer questions. Time constraints forced the students toward sharp and powerful concision; they had to plan each moment, prepare thoroughly, predict potential problems, practice their performance and valuate every last second of their “stage time.” What really matters? What is most persuasive? What is most memorable? Students were required to hone their presentation and be precise in order to achieve excellence. The real “creative constraints” were the real constraints of business—investment needs, revenue generation, target audience, resources, marketing, feasibility, additional costs, etc. Authenticity garnered a greater demand for excellence. This leads to the next area of observation; that is what about motivation?

​Motivation for Excellence. Why did the students seem to stretch themselves and take risks? What motivated them to do well on a school assignment? The most glaring answer is that the Trojan Trials don’t seem like a school assignment. The Trojan Trials has the hallmarks of real-world authenticity. Students had to develop a small business that could actually run; in fact, two of the four groups that I observed had already begun implementing aspects of their business pitches. One group was already making money with their business. In addition, the outside panellists added gravitas to the project; this was not a “please-the-teacher” and “jump-through-hoops” assignment—this was the real deal. The students were being judged by the people that they are seeking to emulate; that is, real entrepreneurs. In addition, the summative presentation pitches are designed with competition in mind; the judges literally judge the students’ ideas and presentation. The panellists are given investment certificates and they get to decide which business gets the “financial backing.” In our current climate of “touchy, feely, everyone wins” it was refreshing and rewarding to see competition serving as cornerstone of challenge. Herein lies the motivator for excellence. I saw students aiming for more than “good enough for the rubric” or “good enough for my report card”—they were aiming to be the best according to real standards of excellence. The competition component required them to be creative in their pitches and presentation, to exceed expectations rather than just meet them. Some of the students wore “team outfits,” had posters, props, demonstrations and handouts. This is risky behaviour. Adolescents risked looking “dorky” with their props, uniforms and their passion for their ideas… They risked looking silly with their grand business schemes. But what adolescents really dislike is being a big “phony” (cp. Holden in Catcher in the Rye). This assignment was anything but phoney; real ideas, real problems, real audience and real competition. Students are risk-takers for things they believe in. In fact, students have always taken “risks” of sorts—they risk not completing homework in order to chat online with friends. They risk doing the bare minimum on a task in order to brag to their pals about how much they achieved with very little effort. They risk doing a lousy job because of lack of preparation or sloth and they risk being apathetic in order to “stay cool” and not be a “nerd.” I have seen many students take “risks” like these. This assignment, however, encouraged real and rewarding risk taking. They owned the idea and they honed the idea; they believed in what they are pitching and they genuinely wanted the audience and the panel to believe too. I never saw Mr. Timms’ rubric, but I am not sure how to grade this sort of student effectiveness and engagement. There are not many “tick boxes” on a rubric that capture authentically what this assignment enables our students to achieve. 

Lastly, what did I learn about “Innovation in Business.” Throughout my sabbatical research I have come across a recurring definition of “innovation”—it is something “new” (i.e., an idea that is applied in a new context). Second, an innovation is something executable (i.e., it can be done); and thirdly, it adds value.
In watching an hour of pitches, I saw this threefold definition of innovation serve as the backbone of the students’ entrepreneurialism. Students needed to convince the “investors” that their idea is new, practical and enriching. If the students were weak in any of these areas, the “investors” intuitively offered up suggestions to improve in one of these three aspects of innovation. Is it new? The panel asked questions like, “What makes your idea different than other businesses already in operation?” or “How does your idea fill an open niche in the target market?” The first step of innovating new solutions, then, needs to be problem identification. A business innovation needs to fill an authentic need. Problem identification is achieved through observation, experience, conversation, empathy and experimentation. Many of the pitchers shared the experiences and conversations, the research and the other ways they tested the market and identified the key problem that their business plan seeks to resolve. Or, couched in the language of the classic economics principle of “supply and demand”—what is the “demand” that my business can “supply.”

​The ideas were all new, but were they executable? Here the practical business savvy of the panel came into play as well. Questions and suggestions emerged like defining the core business so as to avoid overextension, generating recurring revenue and base income, expansion timeline, crunching the numbers and focusing on target markets that can (and will) pay for services. Lastly, does the idea add value? Here too, the panelists as well as the passionate pitchers made their greatest pleas. Valuation of an idea is perhaps the most essential component in innovation. If it is a good idea, then we can make it work.

The Trojans Trials is a good idea and Mr. Timms et al. have made it work. Kudos to him, his students and collaborators for making real innovation in education!

One book that “rules them all” is J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. In the opening chapter of “The Return of the King” the wizard Gandalf has ridden his mighty steed for several days toward the capital city of Gondor; his goal is to warn them of the impending doom that lies upon the horizon of this unsuspecting city. Here is the scene when Gandalf arrives at the city gates; upon seeing Gandalf's approach, the gatekeepers cry out, “Now we know the storm is nigh” to which Gandalf replies:

‘It is upon you. I have ridden on its wings. Let me pass! I must come to your Lord Denethor, while his stewardship lasts. Whatever betide, you have come to the end of the Gondor that you have known. Let me pass!’ (Tolkien, 1999, p.11).

Gandalf is warning the people of Gondor that whatever happens, one thing is sure: everything they know is about to change. In many ways, this is the same situation that educators are facing. The messenger is at the gates of our educational institutions declaring that we have come to the end of the “world that we have known” and (therefore) the beginning of a new educational system the world now needs. When educational pundits talk about “the twin agendas of innovating education and educating for innovation” (Kao, 2017, p.37), they are not speaking about the latest educational fad; they are talking about a real and present reality that the ground has shifted. The world not only is changing but has changed... whether educators want it to or not. Like the gatekeepers in Gondor, teachers are sceptical—is this another false doomsday prophet? Over the last 50 years of schooling, educators have been through the undulating sea of one edu-fad after another. Harebrained schemes, silver-bullet solutions and panaceas to educational problems are regular occurrences in education.  Every educational guru is seen sceptically as a snake-oil salesman selling books, workshops and keynote speeches. Is innovation just another "buzz word"? What I am discovering in my research on innovation and creativity is that this isn’t the next flash-in-the-pan gimmick. The Director for Education and Skills for OECD writes, "The demands on learners and thus education systems are evolving fast [...] Today schools need to prepare students for rapid economic and social change than ever before, for jobs that have not yet been invented, and to solve social problems that we don't yet know will arise" (Bialik, et al., 2015, p.1). Likewise, John Kao writes, "We live in a time of VUCA [volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity]. Times of stability require only incremental adjustment and fine-tuning. Times of VUCA require bold innovation" (Kao, 2017, p.31). Kao suggests the following metaphor: the tsunami-like tidal wave of change is breaking upon our shore; we need to learn how to ride the wave or we will be swept away.

This isn't about tweaking a lesson plan here or there; this is about total, system-wide change. If the world is volatile and unpredictable, then we need flexible and adaptable students; if we need flexible and adaptable students, then we need flexible and adaptable schools. John Kao writes, “Every educational institution must prepare to navigate the Age of Innovation in the face of disruptive change” (Kao, 2017, p.34). At the epicentre of this “disruptive change” is the Internet and “online learning” (Horn, 2017, p.24); this epochal shift is equivalent to the advent of the printing press five centuries ago, which ushered in a new era of human endeavours with mass media and the creation of a global village (cp. Marshall McLuhan’s Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man, 1962). Monks in the 15th century, sitting in the local Scriptorium copying out illuminated manuscripts, faced a tsunami of printed books, pamphlets and posters. They needed to change not because fashions changed but because the world they lived in had changed. The paradigm-shifting Gutenberg Printing Press was about more than mere advances in technology; the printing press ushered in the Reformation and the intellectual achievements of the Enlightenment. The impact on education was as profound: literacy became vitally important.

This is why I am asking this central question: How can we as educational leaders foster innovation and creativity in our students, teachers, classrooms and schools to better prepare our students for life, learning and employment in the Age of Innovation?

It is time to stop doubting and to start changing.

References

• Bialik, M., Fadel, C., and Trilling, B. (2015). Four-Dimensional Education.  Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign.
• Horn, M. (2017). The Job of Innovation. Independent School, 76(3), 22-28.
• Kao, J. (2017). Education in the Age of Innovation. Independent School, 76(3), 30-37.
• Tolkien, J.R.R. (1999). The Return of the King. London: Harper Collins.

I spent a glorious couple of hours chatting, listening and learning with Garth Nichols, the Vice Principal Student Engagement & Experiential Development at Havergal College. Nichols’ job title is a mouthful, and we both had to glance down at his brass name tag to remind ourselves of the official wording. The title, however, seems only to capture a slice of the role he is seeking to fill and the goals he is working to achieve at Havergal. An independent school for girls in Toronto, Havergal is an historic institution with a rich academic tradition; but it is also a school that recognises the changing times we live in. Like most CAIS and CIS schools, Havergal is seeking to transform itself.

In the recent Independent School magazine, author and researcher John Kao notes bluntly, “Like it or not, education must transform; there is simply no alternative” (Kao, 2017, p.34). Educational institutions need to prepare students to be creative and adaptable for an undulating and unpredictable future. Garth called this “preparing students for a VUCA world”… VUCA is a military acronym meaning “Volatility Uncertainty Complexity Ambiguous.”  A “war zone” is a fitting metaphor for the future employment market.  Kao observes, “traditional jobs are giving way to an unknowable future landscape of employment;” what is now needed are the skills of a soldier on the battlefield—“the ability to quickly learn new skills” and adapt to new situations (Kao, 2017, p.32) This volatile and uncertain future was underscored in a recent Pew Research study on the future of jobs and employment training: “People will create the jobs of the future, not simply train for them” (Anderson & Rainie, 2017). It is imperative that students develop creativity, entrepreneurial spirit and innovative thinking skills if they are going to be successful and adaptable for the global labour context they are facing; likewise, Garth points out, it is imperative that “educational systems” (not just lesson plans or classroom activities but whole educational systems) need to transform to meet the needs of students in the 21st century.

When I arrived at Havergal, Garth toured me through parts of the historical school buildings to his office, situated between classes along a vibrant and busy hall.  As we chatted in his office, I glanced at the white boards filled with the battle scars of brainstorming and innovation: block letters, arrows, circles, sticky notes and underscoring. I knew I had climbed the mountain and was sitting at the feet of an innovation guru—humble and unassuming as Garth actually is.

My first question for Garth was how do we create a “culture of innovation” in our schools? This is something that George Couros considers crucial in implementing innovative thinking in our schools; Couros  calls this the “groundwork” for empowering educators and students to take risks and innovate (2015, p.65). Garth began answering my question by citing another innovation expert, Grant Lichtman, who says, “Change isn't hard, it's uncomfortable.” Teachers like challenges; they don’t like discomfort. What is it going to take to engage teachers with change? Garth says, we need a “compelling vision” (here again, Garth cites his source: John Kotter, Corporate Culture and Performance, 2011). One overarching vision is to view teachers as learners and transform our schools into learning organisations. This sort of transformation takes time. Ironically, schools are often slow to learn. Transformation of this sort also takes a series of “short term wins,” Garth says. “Show your colleagues that innovation works.” This isn’t about “change for change’s sake”—innovation is about new ways to contribute “real value,” Garth points out. Innovation also isn’t only about adding something new: “sometimes taking something away is innovation.” Along this vein, Garth commented on the “layer, upon layer approach” of many independent schools when attempting to innovate. Garth was fundamentally clear that this doesn’t work: “if you add one new thing, you should take two things away.” Instead of doing a lot of things mediocre, Garth argues, we should do “fewer things well.”

This may also apply to curriculum. Referencing Four-Dimensional Education: The Competencies Learners Need to Succeed, Garth points out that some of the courses offered by Ontario secondary school curricula are “overloaded” with content and skills, some of which were relevant in bygone days but are no longer pertinent today. So, what content and skills are redundant? What content and skills do students need to master and what can they be exposed to? How can we leverage technology to expedite student learning? To achieve this bird’s eye perspective, Garth is an advocate of curriculum mapping (a dirty word at my school). But with Curriculum Mapping, educators can look at the curriculum and determine what can be removed and identifies the places where students can go deeper. So goes the old adage: less is more. Making room for innovation is the goal; teachers shouldn’t try to “add one more thing” to the syllabus. Teachers need to take things off their plate to make room for the skills and content needed for success now, in the 21st century.  

​Axing content and skills can make teachers skittish. Innovation, however, is not about slashing and burning decades of curriculum. Innovation doesn’t always mean “out with the old, in with the new;” sometimes, it is about approaching the “old” in new ways. Inquiry-based approaches, experiential learning, and student-directed questioning are some of the ways Havergal teachers are attempting to engage and empower their students with innovative thinking.

With any great independent school, there are a lot of stakeholders who are passionate about the things that make (and made) the school great. Change doesn’t necessarily mean that everything we were doing is bad; it means that there may be a better way or it may mean that the great school that “was” can’t be the great school that “will be” going forward.  During my short visit, I saw a lot of amazing things happening at Havergal; the administration and faculty are willing and able to invest resources, space, finances and time into a number of innovative projects. From the “Forum for Change” and “the Global Experience Program”, to the rotating Chair of Teaching & Learning, Havergal is well on its way to becoming a learning, changing and adapting organisation for its students.
 
Thanks to Garth for carving out his time to meet with me and to share his thoughts and experiences (and his reading list) and to Jennifer Goldberg (former Chair of Teaching & Learning) for allowing me to pick her brain as well.

One of our goals as an educational institution is to prepare students for a bright and prosperous future. This includes teaching students to read deeply and to communicate effectively orally and in writing; students need to have numeracy skills, critical thinking skills and have an expansive understanding of themselves and the world around them (e.g., humanities, sciences, social sciences, arts, health, etc).

There is, however, a problem with the mandate of preparing students for the future: the future is unknown. What future are we preparing students for? Parents and teachers are tempted to prepare students for the sort of future they faced. This isn’t always a bad thing, unless, of course, we are at a watershed moment in history. I am convinced we are at a watershed moment in the history of education, economics, history and civilisation itself. The future is going to be decidedly different place than the future of our parents or grandparents.

A point of clarification about “crystal-balling” the future… It always concerns me when educational pundits predict the future; too often the “unknown future” becomes a leveraging tool for fear-mongering and manipulation… and sometimes for speaking gigs, book deals and consulting fees. The professional development poster cries out “Beware of the future [insert problem]; this can only be solved by reading my book, coming to my lecture, attending my workshops”… The “unknown” is always a root cause of fear, and fear tends to cause hasty decision-making and short-sighted reactions. Since the future hasn’t actually happened yet, it is essentially “nothing.” As Shakespeare put it, we have a tendency to “make much ado about nothing.” We should base current decisions on the unknown “nothing” of the future.
​
Nevertheless, some of the ways we can “project” into the future is to look at current practices and values, compare the present to past epochs of human activity and to look at trends.

​The chart below shows similar trends as the one above; however, this graph also indicates “shares of the workforce” (Florida, 2012). 

Both the “Service Class” and the “Creative Class” are on the rise; agriculture workforce and the industrial labour workforce are on the decline (Florida, 2012). Florida defines the Creative Class as the “workers in science and technology, arts, culture and entertainment, healthcare, law and management, whose occupations are based on mental or creative labor” (Florida, 2012). He notes that the Creative Class “generates more than $2 trillion in wages and salaries—more than two thirds of the total US payroll;” Florida also predicts (based on data from the "Bureau of Labor Statistics" projections) that there will be “an additional seven million or so Creative Class jobs will be created over the next decade” (Florida, 2012). Without a doubt, "creativity" is bringing home the bacon.

Similar trends are emerging in Canada as well; below is a graph showing job growth in rural Ontario.

Creativity is no longer a skill just for introspective, tortured artists dabbling in bohemian lifestyles while the real business of life is attended by more serious and mature citizens… Creativity is becoming the key differentiator for future employment and productivity.

Florida argues that we must invest in “the creativity of every single citizen and human being—in order to upgrade and generate new higher-paying jobs, address the gross inequities in our economy and society, and lay the institutional foundations for a new era of shared prosperity” (Florida, 2012).
​
In the minds of parents and teachers, “creative” pursuits are often equated with a diet of dessert. This is most evident in the realm of the arts (e.g., music, drama, painting, creative writing); desserts are nice to have but they are not necessary. As we look at the trends above, we see that creativity is no longer an optional “dessert” but rather a hardy and nutritious meal. We need to move creativity from the periphery of teaching and learning (i.e., “dessert”) to the heart of education (i.e., “dinner”).

Reference
Florida, R. (2012). "Creativity is the New Economy" The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2 May, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-florida/creativity-is-the-new-eco_b_1608363.html

Yesterday I visited the Junior school at Hillfield Strathallan College (HSC). The principal, Shailau Spivak, gave me a tour of the school to show me the various ways the Junior school students and faculty are working to establish a culture of innovation and creativity. What a remarkable place!

Walking around the classrooms and the halls, one cannot help but see creativity explode in both the arts and academics. This is not surprising, given the fact that younger aged children are incredibly creative. Dr. Kyung Hee Kim, a professor of education at the College of William and Mary, gathered data on levels of creativity in American students. She used the “Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking” and found that creativity “declines throughout a lifetime, as 95% of 3 to 5 year olds test as creative geniuses. By the time they hit 20 years of age, that number is around 2%” (21st Century Skills).

Two of the most pressing questions educators are left with are (1) why is there a decline in creativity and (2) what can we do about it? Part of the solution is to change the way we do "creativity" at all levels of education, not the least of which is Early Education.
 
What makes the Junior school at HSC unique is that they aren’t taking creativity for granted; instead, they are systematically fostering a culture of innovation in their classrooms. Just like literacy and numeracy, creativity must be developed and honed if it is going to be sustained as the children grow older. The Junior school at HSC is intentionally building the intellectual, social and emotional infrastructure needed to sustain the habits of innovative thinking.

​One of the key distinctives is the “Wonder Wall,” which goes beyond differentiated instruction to personalised learning. In almost every classroom, students are given the opportunity to go beyond the curriculum and ask a wonder question.

This kind of inquiry is foundational to creative thinking; it teaches students to observe the world around them and to ask questions. As students wonder about things that interest them, they will also begin to wonder about real problems in the real world. To ask “I wonder how airplanes can fly?” is a similar wonder question that Leonardo da Vinci or the Wright brothers asked when they sought to resolve heavier-than-air flight.

It also empowers them to seek their own answers and discover their own solutions rather than look to the authority in the room (i.e., the teacher). Curiosity and creativity are inextricably linked.

Placing a premium on curiosity is one of the things the "Wonder Wall" does well: "publishing" the students' questions on the wall teaches them to value good questions rather than just valuing right answers. This not only fosters a Growth Mindset, it also fosters creative and innovative thinking. Innovation, like education, is a process not a destination. Although answers and solutions do matter, they cannot be reached without good questions drawn from observations in the real world. While watching birds, da Vinci wondered how we could fly; even though he was wrong about flight, da Vinci's "pattern of thinking behind the idea was exemplary" (Perkins, 2000, p.3).  

Beyond learning to ask good questions, students learn the process of finding answers. The "Wonder Wall" encourages students to “wonder” and then they are granted time (e.g., “genius hour”) to explore and research. There is a "trial and error" approach to learning this way; there are no textbooks or worksheets ready to guide the students to the best answers. Students need to cast a wide net to find answers. Thomas Edison called this the "draghunt technique," where a range of ideas and solutions are explored; others call this approach "roving far and wide" (Perkins, 2000, p.91). In this messy and at times inefficient approach to learning, students are discovering how to be innovators. Author David Perkins explores the nature of innovative and transformational breakthroughs: the first step is what he calls “the long search” (2000, p.9). The Wonder Wall teaches students to ask tough questions and to keep looking for answers. Most innovations in history resulted from people asking “I wonder?” followed by intensive research and experimentation.

One of the essential ways, then, that we can sustain creative thinking as students grow older is to help them associate creativity with hard work. Thomas Edison famously asserted that invention is “1% inspiration and 99% perspiration” (Perkins, 2000, p.14). Without a doubt, hard work is an essential ingredient to innovation. The Wonder Wall is deliberately instrumental in nurturing this habit in the Junior school students. 

​Collaboration is another factor in fostering cultures of innovation. The teacher and fellow students come alongside the learner as guides and "co-sojourners" in the quest for answers. The opportunity to work together with peers and teachers (as well as librarians and other support staff) shows the students that finding answers is often a group effort that takes time and perseverance.

As I stated earlier, what the Junior school at HSC is doing is giving students sustainable infrastructure to wonder about their world, identify real problems, and work hard to resolve the questions and overcome challenges.

How do we teach creativity?

If ever there was an area in need of bridging theory and practice, then creativity theory is top of the list. When thinking of creative people, we often recall “outliers” like Shakespeare, Picasso, Disney, Bach, Austen, Gates, Jobs, The Beatles, and so on. Examining their lives seems to give us varied and circuitous paths to creative genius. Some might say that creativity is in our DNA or it isn’t (Wagner, 2012, p.23).
Teresa Amabile, Harvard Business Professor, wrote a seminal essay entitled “How to Kill Creativity” (1998). In her essay, she shows how current practices in business and education stifle creativity; but she also suggests ways to foster creativity as well.
​
See her Venn diagram below.

Creativity and innovation is an area of pedagogy that is linked to constructivist and connectivist learning theory. How do we create an environment that fosters risk-taking, ownership, and exploration? I am hoping to investigate this further in the coming months!
 
Cited Resources

• Amabile, T. (1998). How to Kill Creativity. Havard Business Review. Retrieved June 08, 2016, from https://hbr.org/1998/09/how-to-kill-creativity
• Coyle, D. (2009). The Talent Code. New York: Bantam. Print.
• GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (n.d.). Retrieved June 08, 2016, from http://www.gemconsortium.org/country-profile/122
• Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. New York: Little, Brown and Co.. Print.
• Pink, D. (2005). A Whole New Mind. New York: Riverhead Books. Print.
• Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13.
• Wagner, T. (2012). Creating Innovators. New York: Scribner. Print.
• ——   (2008). The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don't Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need--and What We Can Do about It. New York: Basic. Print.
  
• Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Print.