The Martin Prosperity Institute of the University of Toronto began studying the “creativity index” several years ago. Here is a portion of the summary for their report, Creativity and Prosperity: The Global Creativity Index:
The economic crisis has challenged popular conceptions of economic growth, both in terms of what it is and how to measure it. While engendering growth and bolstering competitiveness remain high on the agenda, immediate attention has shifted to creating jobs, lifting wages, addressing inequality, and fostering long-term, sustainable prosperity. This new edition of the Global Creativity Index (GCI), which we first introduced in 2004, provides a powerful lens through which to assess these issues.
The GCI assesses the prospects for sustainable prosperity across 82 nations according to a combination of underlying economic, social, and cultural factors that we refer to as the 3 Ts of economic development—Technology, Talent, and Tolerance. It also compares the GCI to a series of other metrics of competitiveness and prosperity—from conventional measures of economic growth to alternative measures of economic equality, human development, and happiness and well-being…
Creative Class:
The Creative Class—made up of workers in fields spanning science and technology, business and
management, healthcare and education, and arts, culture, and entertainment—is a driving force
in economic growth. The Creative Class makes up 40 percent or more of the workforce in 14 nations. Singapore has the highest creative ranking, followed by the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Norway, and Germany. Canada ranks 12th, with 40.84 percent of its workforce in the Creative Class, and the United States ranks 27th, with 34.99 percent.Technology:
Technology is a key factor in economic progress. From new inventions like software, robotics, and biotechnology to improvements in manufacturing systems and processes, technology makes economies and societies more efficient and productive. We assess technological capacity through three measures: research and development spending, R&D workforce, and patented innovations. Finland takes the top spot in technology, followed by Japan in second place, the United States in third, Israel in fourth, and Sweden in fifth. Canada ranks 11th.
Talent:
There is a broad consensus that the ability to generate, attract, and retain skilled and enterprising people—talent—is essential to sustained economic success. We measure a country’s talent as a combination of two factors: its average levels of educational attainment and the percentage of its workforce in the Creative Class. Scandinavian countries leap to the top, with Finland and Sweden taking first and second place, Denmark in fourth, and Norway sixth. Singapore ranks third, with New Zealand in fifth and Australia in seventh. The United States is eighth, just ahead of Greece and Slovenia in the ninth and tenth spots. Canada ranks 17th.
Tolerance:
Tolerance is the third key factor in economic growth and prosperity. The ability to attract both talent and technology turns on openness to new ideas and openness to people. We measure tolerance as a combination of two variables, based on Gallup surveys of openness to ethnic and racial minorities and openness to gays and lesbians. Canada takes the top spot, followed by Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Australia. Spain, Sweden, the United States, Uruguay and the United Kingdom round out the top ten.
http://martinprosperity.org/research-and-publications/publication/global-creativity-index
Download Creativity and Prosperity: The Global Creativity Index. (2.68 MB)
Read “Towards a Broader Conception of Economic Competitiveness“, our MPInsight discussing the Global Creativity Index.
The question is whether creativity can or should be taught?
Erik W. Robelen writes in the Education Week article, States Mulling Creativity Indexes for Schools
At a time when U.S. political and business leaders are raising concerns about the need to better nurture creativity and innovative thinking among young people, several states are exploring the development of an index that would gauge the extent to which schools provide opportunities to foster those qualities.
In Massachusetts, a new state commission began meeting last fall to draft recommendations for such an index for all public schools, in response to a legislative requirement. Meanwhile, the California Senate last month approved a bill calling for the development of a voluntary Creative and Innovative Education Index.
And Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin recently announced plans for a public-private partnership to produce an innovation index for schools, which she described as a “public measurement of the opportunities for our students to engage in innovative work….”
The emerging state efforts to promote creativity and innovation among their students pick up on a theme that’s been gaining steam for some time in American political, business, and education circles.
“Building capacity to create and innovate in our students is central to guaranteeing the nation’s competitiveness,” declared the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities in a report last year.
In addition, fostering creativity has become a high priority among some of the United States’ top economic competitors. In a recent Education Week Commentary, Byong-man Ahn, a former South Korean minister of education, said that “creating the type of education in which creativity is emphasized over rote learning” is a top education goal for his government. (“Education in the Republic of Korea,” Jan. 12, 2012.)
Researchers have recently examined the subject of teaching creativity, but experts are just beginning to determine what makes some students more creative than their peers and how the classroom environment can nurture, or smother, that capacity.
In fact, some emerging research seems to point to two critical aspects of creativity that can be hard to teach: the willingness to take risks and learn from failure, and the ability to transfer ways of solving problems between seemingly unrelated situations. (“Science Looks at How to Inspire Creativity,” Dec. 14, 2011.)
Robert J. Sternberg, the provost and a professor of psychology and education at Oklahoma State University, who is an expert in intelligence-testing and has studied creativity extensively, said he’s encouraged by Oklahoma’s interest in developing an innovation index. He said it’s important for schools to teach creative thinking, and developing some form of accountability around that is a good idea.
But, in an email, he cautioned that there are risks.
For example, “We don’t want an index that trivializes creativity, such as by counting numbers of activities that, on their surface, sound creative rather than exploring what is actually done in the activities to encourage creativity,” he wrote. Also, “We don’t want to encourage quantity over quality of activities.”
The apparent originator and a leading proponent of the index idea is Daniel R. Hunter, a playwright and founding partner of a Boston-based public relations firm who previously served as the director of Iowa’s cultural-affairs department.
“This is not an effort to overthrow standardized testing,” but rather “to provide schools with incentives to spend more time and resources” fostering student creativity, said Mr. Hunter, who also previously led a Massachusetts advocacy group for arts and culture that has disbanded.
“If the only public measurement of your school is a standardized test, then schools have every incentive to teach to the test,” he said. “The index is a tool to get to what is happening in the classroom.” http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/02/02/19creativity_ep.h31.html?tkn=WVZF1T1gOdAjXSPDyFwHiU0kImS%2F3%2F335Q%2Fk&intc=es
Robert Sternberg wrote a thoughtful essay for the Chronicle of Higher Education about creativity in higher education, although his thoughts have wider application.
In, Teach Creativity, Not Memorization, Sternberg opines:
As educators, then, we need to do a better job teaching students to mobilize their creativity successfully. Let me suggest 12 ways to encourage creativity in the classroom.
Redefine the problem. We can promote creative performance by encouraging students to define and redefine their own problems, projects, presentations, and topics for papers, subject to approval; to choose their own ways of solving problems; and sometimes to choose again if they discover that their approach was a mistake.
We cannot always offer choices in the classroom, but having choices is the only way students learn how to choose. Giving them latitude helps them develop taste and good judgment, both of which are essential elements of creativity.
Question and analyze assumptions. Everyone has assumptions, although they are not often widely shared. Questioning assumptions is part of the analytical thinking involved in creativity. We can help students develop this talent by making questioning a part of the daily exchange. It is more important for students to learn what questions to ask—and how to ask them—than to learn the answers. We need to avoid perpetuating the belief that our role is to teach students the facts, and instead help them understand that what matters is their ability to use facts.
Teach students to sell their creative ideas. Everyone would like to assume that his or her wonderful, creative ideas will sell themselves. But they do not. When I was a first-year assistant professor, the second colloquium I was invited to give was at a large testing organization. I was delighted that the company was apparently interested in adopting my ideas about intelligence, even though I was only 25 years old. My career seemed to be off to a spectacular start. I took the train to Princeton, N.J., and gave the talk. It was an abject failure. I went from fantasizing about a dazzling career to wondering whether I would have a career at all.
Students need to learn how to persuade other people of the value of their ideas. That selling is part of the practical aspect of creative thinking. http://chronicle.com/article/Teach-Creativity-Not/124879/
In Critical thinking is an essential trait of an educated person, https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/critical-thinking-is-an-essential-trait-of-an-educated-person/ moi said:
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the state of education in America. A lot of that dissatisfaction comes from the belief that the education system fails to actually educate children and to teach them critical thinking skills. The University of Maine at Augusta defines an educated person:
An educated person exhibits knowledge and wisdom; recognizes and respects the diversity of nature and society; demonstrates problem solving skills; engages in planning and managing practices; navigates the on-line world; writes and speaks well; acts with integrity; and appreciates the traditions of art, culture, and ideas. Developing these abilities is a life-long process. http://www.uma.edu/educatedperson.html
Essential to this definition is the development of critical thinking skills. The University of Michigan outline, Critical and Creative Thinking links critical thinking and creativity. http://www.engin.umich.edu/~cre/probsolv/strategy/crit-n-creat.htm
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle
The school is the last expenditure upon which America should be willing to economize.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
Derek Bok
Resources:
The Global Creativity Index http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2011/10/global-creativity-index/229/
The Rise of the Creative Class http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html
Dr. Wilda says this about that ©
drwilda 
One Response to “What is a creativity index and why are states incorporating the index into education?”