Do schools and educational institutions stifle creativity

The suicide rate per 100, 000 amongst Korean students was estimated at 9. 1 in 2018 (Yonhup, 2020). The standard of educational institutions; entrance exams and high grades, seem to be the unavoidable hardship of students. The concept forces young people to attend university to guarantee a better life in the future. Unfortunately, the vague existence of creative courses in school education leads most students to tend to think that the main subjects will encourage them to succeed in their lives rather than art and music. On the one hand, the significant benefits of creativity in the classroom. Art and music programs should be encouraged along with academic knowledge. Educational psychologists believe that schools and universities should encourage diverse ways of thinking to people, especially children and adolescents (Frazelian, 2013). Shulman (2020) claimed that to develop students’ creative perspectives, there should be little room for creativity. That is to say. The provided area could expand the creative ideas of students in terms of problem-solving. For instance, students could develop their thoughts through the problems from artworks, and their main challenge is to find the solution to the problem. As well, Adelodun (2004) describes creativity as the way to invest and produce uniqueness through imaginative skills. Furthermore, creativity allows students to enter their happy zone and have fun (TechThought, n. d. ). Students could pursue and express happiness in their preferences outside of academic frameworks, a sense of contentment leads the students to a decrease in stress and anxiety. Dancing or singing along with a school class with their friends could let them feel more comfortable and relax from study tension. By this, the classroom provides the stage for them to enjoy and perform creative activities without restrictions. Therefore, the school needs to understand the desire of students in order to strengthen their effective performances. On the other hand, educational institutions are not always advantageous for the development of creativity. Numerous countries stifle creativity in the schooling system, there are several factors in the circumstances. According to Power (2015), cultural norms are considered to be a vital factor of insatiable creativity. For example, international schools in Thailand encourage students to learn through the concept of out-of-the-box thinking more than Thai public schools (2015). Bentley (2000) also stated that students often comment that education teaches them knowledge, but never teaches them how to learn. Dr. Apinan Poshyananda the chief executive of Bangkok Art Biennale claimed that the Thai cultural influences in the school section push children to pursue conventional career paths; doctor, engineer, and banker in order to earn a high salary. As well, there is an enormous gap between the creative and academic sectors (Suriyanon, 2017). This is followed by the concept of respect and deference to the parents and teachers; the sense of authority and responsibility is the essential factor that affects creativity in Thai society (Pimpa, 2011). In the other words, the strong sense of traditional values has limited the imaginative capacity of Thai people, especially young individuals (Mulder, 1996). In addition, most of the school teachers are trying to give students only academic knowledge (Fazelian, 2013). As seen from the evidence; Korean students have to study for many hours per day - high school students stay past 10 pm to study more after their regular classes in order to prepare for university entrance exams (Goh, 2019). The education institutions always emphasize the main subjects in school; mathematics, science, and English (Robinson, 2007). Therefore, it is difficult to deny that schools limit creativity and leave it in an ambiguous position in the educational sector. The limitation of creativity inevitably leads to a number of negative consequences. Changes in school performance in terms of lack of concentration in the lesson may turn out to be an abnormality. Nwazuoke (1996) argues that that creativity can be used as synonymous terms self-discovery, uniqueness, and originality. For instance, Gillian Lynne was already predicated on having ADHD by her teacher because of her inability to sit still and concentrate. However, according to the doctor, she is not sick but she is a dancer (Robinson, 2007). Additionally, if education closes the door of creativity, there is a possibility of health issues; physical and mental health. The negative health effects of being stressed may result in high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, obesity (Ashley, 2018). Due to the high rate of suicide amongst Korean students; a large number of them commit suicide because of depression (Goh, 2019). They are suffering from disappointing self-school performance, which mainly refers to their poor grades. That is to say. They have no place for relaxing in terms of art and music. Plus, they are obsessed with the university because they believe failure to get into a good university means their life itself will be a failure (2019). As a result, the school curriculum is the key indicator of learners’ lives. In conclusion, it is better to have more creativity in the school curriculum because it provides students with ideas in terms of problem-solving skills and maintains mental health. Simultaneously, there are a wide range of school barriers towards creativity; the cultural norms and ideas themselves, reduce the value of creative works. Therefore, creativity becomes clueless in society. If students study without a place to develop their creative thinking, they are likely to fail in their school lives by being depressed.