school kills creativity more than it develops intelligence

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "school kills creativity more than it develops intelligence". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate

School makes tests that are standardized and that do not fit everyones strong aspects they expect everyone to rote learn it and write it exactly as it is

You're describing a real problem — standardized testing IS rigid and one-size-fits-all. But you're confusing a *flaw in how we test* with a flaw in *what school does to creativity*. Those are completely different things. Here's the thing: the existence of bad tests doesn't prove schools kill creativity. It proves we're *measuring* creativity poorly. That's actually an argument FOR better schools, not against them. A kid who can't pass a standardized test might still be developing incredible problem-solving skills in group projects, art class, or debate club. You're looking at the thermometer and concluding the patient is sick, when really the thermometer is broken. And rote learning? Yeah, some subjects require foundational knowledge first. You can't compose a symphony without learning music theory. You can't paint expressively without understanding color and form. School gives you the *tools* — what you build with them is your creativity. The standardization you're complaining about is the scaffolding, not the prison. Here's my real challenge for you: **Name me one creative field where the world's best practitioners *didn't* spend years drilling fundamentals in school or apprenticeship.** Because I can't think of one. Every brilliant musician, architect, writer, or engineer started with the "boring" stuff you're dismissing. So is the problem really that school teaches standards, or is it that you're romanticizing creativity without realizing it needs structure to actually mean something?

creativity = / to rote learning whatsoever i am talking abt how students are told that they are unintelligent if they dont score good marks on a test

Here's the real issue: you're calling out a *measurement problem*, not a *school problem*. Those are completely different things. You're right that standardized tests don't accurately portray how much students know and may not reflect a student's knowledge or ability. And yes, IQ tests may fail to serve as an accurate measure of broader definitions of human intelligence inclusive of, for example, creativity and social intelligence. That's legitimate. But here's where your logic breaks: **telling a kid they're "unintelligent" based on one bad metric is a problem with how we *interpret* tests, not with school itself.** A faulty thermometer doesn't make you sick — it just gives you wrong information. The real culprit is when schools—and society—treat test scores as *the entire definition* of intelligence. Intelligence is not a single property of the human mind; rather, there are many intelligences which may be relatively independent of one another and which do not easily lend themselves to measurement by short-answer, pencil-and-paper tests [1]. So the problem isn't that school teaches structure or rigor. The problem is that we've *outsourced our judgment* to a broken metric and stopped seeing the actual kid in front of us. Here's my challenge: **If school didn't exist, who would teach you those fundamentals you need to build on your creativity?** Self-taught? Okay—but how would you even know *what* to teach yourself? School's job is to expand what's *possible* for you, not shrink you into one test score. The system failed you—but that's a failure of *implementation*, not the institution itself. What specific moment made you feel labeled as "unintelligent"?

you are completely twisting my words and you just proved my point . It IS the schools that tell students they are not intelligent also i never said a thing abt schools being useless my problem is with how the system is executed not the idea of the system itself.

You're right—I apologize for misreading you. You're **not** saying schools are useless. You're saying the *system's execution* is the problem. That's actually a much stronger position than I gave you credit for. But now I need to flip this: **the system executing poorly doesn't mean creativity is being killed—it means intelligence *measurement* is broken.** Here's the real issue: Teachers and parents report that high-stakes tests lead to higher levels of anxiety and lower levels of confidence in elementary students, with some high school students who failed standardized literacy tests experiencing "shock," "degradation," and identity crises [1]. That's devastating, I agree. But listen to what's actually happening: Standardized tests fail to capture the "soft skills" that reflect a student's ability to develop good study habits, take academic risks, and persist through challenges [1]. Notice what that means—the *test* is incomplete, not the *student*. The same kid who "failed" is still developing creativity, resilience, and problem-solving. The test just doesn't see it. Your complaint is that schools tell kids "you're unintelligent" based on a flawed metric. I agree—that's the system's sin. But the solution isn't that schools kill creativity. **The solution is that we need to stop mistaking test scores for actual intelligence.** The system executing better would mean teachers recognizing emotional intelligence, creativity, motivation, adaptability, and social skills as crucial factors for long-term success that are often missed in standard measurements [1]—not removing the structural learning that makes creativity *possible*. So here's my challenge: **Can you name a creative skill that doesn't require foundational knowledge first?** Because if creativity needs building blocks, then a *better-executed* school system isn't the enemy of creativity—it's its prerequisite.

My point is that schools arent letting students be creative in the first place

Now I can actually engage with your real argument. You're saying schools don't *permit* creativity—they lock it down. That's a different claim than the original debate topic. But here's what you're wrong about: Schools ARE actively teaching creativity. While teachers and education policy makers consider creativity and critical thinking as important learning goals, the OECD worked with networks of schools and teachers in 11 countries to develop pedagogical resources that exemplify what it means to teach and learn creativity in primary and secondary education [1]. These aren't alternative fringe schools—they're working across mainstream systems. The bigger problem with your argument: **you're confusing classroom restrictions with a lack of creative *opportunity*.** Creativity is not a fixed inborn trait and can be taught and developed within different academic domains and school subjects [1]. Indoor and outdoor academic and socially-oriented out-of-school activities facilitate adolescents' creativity [1]. Notice what that means: **School itself isn't preventing creativity—rigid *testing* is.** But those are separate things. The standardized test is a measurement problem. The school provides the environment, projects, collaborations, and freedom that *build* creative thinking. Your real complaint seems to be that standardized tests make students feel dumb when they're actually creative. I agree with that. But that's a reason to fix testing, not to say schools kill creativity. Schools literally contain the clubs, arts programs, projects, and collaborations where creativity thrives—you're just not seeing them because tests overshadow them. **So here's my challenge: Can you name a creative skill you've developed outside of any structured learning at all?** Because most people who become genuinely creative—musicians, designers, writers—spent years in *structured environments* learning from mentors and peers. Schools provide that. Tests just measure badly.