Creativity

November 2026

Few words in education currently enjoy the status of creativity. It appears in curriculum documents, school mission statements, skills strategies, and speeches about economic growth. Employers demand it, policymakers celebrate it and educational leaders promise to cultivate it. For much of the last two decades, creativity has occupied a privileged position in educational discourse. It is regularly presented as a response to technological change, economic uncertainty, and the demands of a labour market transformed by automation and artificial intelligence. The future, we are told, will belong to those capable of thinking creatively. The proposition sounds difficult to contest. Yet the prominence of creativity raises an obvious question: what exactly do we mean by it? The answer is less straightforward than the confidence with which the term is deployed might suggest.

Yet the more creativity is promoted, the more difficult it becomes to define. Historically, creativity often carried a mildly disruptive quality; creative people challenged conventions, exceeded expectations, or saw possibilities that others overlooked. Contemporary policy discourse, by contrast, increasingly presents creativity as something that can be embedded, nurtured, measured, and scaled. Creativity becomes something education systems can reliably produce. In this framing, creativity begins to resemble a form of human capital. Schools are encouraged to develop creative learners because creative learners are expected to become innovative employees, adaptable workers, and entrepreneurial citizens. Creativity is no longer merely a cultural virtue; it is increasingly presented as an economic resource. There is nothing inherently wrong with this position. Education has perhaps always served social and economic ends. The difficulty is that it encourages us to think of creativity as a stable characteristic that individuals possess in greater or lesser quantities; creativity becomes something that can be identified, measured, and ultimately increased.

Research offers a more complicated picture. Decades of psychological and educational research have generated competing explanations of creativity. Some accounts locate it in cognitive abilities, others in personality traits, and still others in particular environments or social conditions. Despite extensive study, agreement remains elusive. Perhaps this is because creativity is not simply an individual property at all. The psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi famously argued that creativity emerges through relationships between individuals, bodies of knowledge, and the communities that decide what counts as valuable. On this view, creativity is not just something that exists independently waiting to be discovered. It is also a judgement that people make.

An idea is rarely considered creative merely because it is new. Novelty alone is insufficient. To be recognised as creative, an idea must also be judged worthwhile, useful, meaningful, or valuable by a particular audience. A student's response becomes creative when teachers recognise it as such. A scientific insight becomes creative when a field acknowledges its significance. A work of art becomes creative when others find value in it. This shifts the question considerably.

Like many influential educational terms, creativity gains power from its positive associations. Few people oppose it, meaning its underlying assumptions often escape scrutiny. Discussion quickly moves from whether creativity is desirable to how more of it can be generated. Educational language matters because it shapes what is funded, assessed, supported, and celebrated. Recent findings from Arts Council England's Creative Young Lives research suggest that creativity remains highly valued by young people themselves. At the same time, access to creative opportunities remains uneven, shaped by factors including geography, income, and educational pathway. The issue, then, is not simply how much creativity exists but whose creativity becomes visible and valued.

The most interesting question is therefore not whether education should promote creativity. Few would answer in the negative. Rather, it is what visions of creativity are being advanced, and to what ends. For a word used with such certainty, creativity tells us remarkably little on its own. Its meaning depends on who is using it, in what context, and for what purpose. Far from being self-evident, creativity remains one of education's most contested ideas. And that may be precisely why it is worth examining.