Creativity and performativity: The case of further education

Abstract

This article examines the circumstances affecting creative teaching and learning within the specific context of English further education (FE)—a sector which has proved to be particularly fertile ground for performativity. Beginning with an analysis of notions of creativity in education and a description of the peculiar history and policy context of FE, the article problematises the relationship between representations of creativity and the current situation of teachers and learners. Drawing on a range of empirical studies and policy analyses, it is argued that FE is increasingly positioned at the ‘lower end’ of a largely class‐based division of post‐compulsory education in England. In such a division, the authors argue, meaningful creativity is difficult to achieve. Within the performative context of FE, attempts to interpret official discourse on creativity may only serve to reproduce and exacerbate existing inequalities in education.

Teachers' and Pupils' Perceptions of Creativity across Different Key Stages

“…Although this was over forty years ago, this may still be an issue as Fryer and Collings (1991) reported that research into teachers' views of creativity has been somewhat neglected and Simmons and Thompson (2008) have more recently commented on tensions surrounding creativity in education, one being the difficulty of defining it.…”

Liberal And General Studies In Further Education: Voices From The ‘Chalk Face’

“…In contrast, FE is today replete with rhetoric about the supposed importance of pedagogy. But whilst such notions are rooted, at least partly, in certain discourses of creativity and the demands of the so-called knowledge economy (Simmons and Thompson, 2008), LS/GS teachers were often at the forefront of classroom innovation, and pioneered student-centred learning in FE. Lorraine: What I thought was most worthwhile was .…”

How do practising teachers understand creativity?

“…Menken (2006:525) coined the term 'teach to test' to express the notion of primarily educating students to pass exams, with little emphasis on developing skills such as creativity. Simmons and Thompson (2008) argued that the expression of creativity allows teachers and learners to escape the narrow confines of the centralised curricula, but that the independence of teachers has been reduced by the overwhelming pressure to meet targets. In contrast, other researchers have suggested that the inclusion of creative polices alongside performance-driven criteria, such as targets, market competition and league tables, increases levels of tension for those learning and teaching (Ball, 2003;Jeffrey, 2003;Troman et al, 2007b).…”