Do Schools Kill Creativity? and a defense of testing

I finally had a chance to watch this 19-minute video from the TED conference earlier this year: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/66.  By Sir Ken Robinson, it's entitled: Do Schools Kill Creativity?  These sentences sum up his argument: "Creativity is as important in education now as literacy and we should treat it as such...We are educating people out of their creative capacities...Math is very important, but so is dance.  We all have bodies...It seems that the whole purpose of education all over the world is to produce university professors...We shouldn't hold them up as the highest form of human achievement."
 
While this sounds good -- creativity is like motherhood and apple pie; who could be opposed to it? -- I strongly disagree with his speech.  Even if one accepted his assertions -- he presents not a single shread of evidence to support his arguments -- I emphatically reject the statement that "Creativity is as important in education now as literacy and we should treat it as such."  Yes, creativity is important, but I would argue that if a student graduated from high school or college with a strong foundation in reading/literacy, math, science, history, etc., yet didn't have an ounce of creativity, he/she would do fine in life -- certainly wouldn't win a Nobel Prize, but could hold a good job, be a good citizen and live a happy, productive, fruitful life.  In contrast, one is well and truly screwed without these basics.  Does this guy realize that the majority of black and Latino 4th graders in this country can't read?!
 
While I'm sure there many ways schools could better foster creativity without sacrificing the basics, most of what he says is elitist drivel and, worse yet, is used by people who want to kill NCLB and tests in general.  You've heard the arguments many times: "So much emphasis on testing is causing teaching to the test and wringing out all creativity in our schools."  I've sent out three emails on why this is nonsense:
 
    A) At http://edreform.blogspot.com/2007/03/making-grades.html, I wrote:

I am SO TIRED of hearing about the mythical millions of children who  are being so well educated, yet somehow, mysteriously, can't add 2+2 or read  "see Spot run".  The problem isn't the test -- it's that a horrifying  large number of our children, thanks largely to the dreadful schools they attend, are ILLITERATE!  (58% of black 4th graders nationwide, 54% of  Latinos, 27% of Asians and 24% of whites, nationwide, are scoring Below Basic  on the NAEP reading test, which means they can't read a simple children's  story.)  

While I'm sure there's room to improve  certain tests, I wish schools would do MORE teaching to the tests  -- seriously!  A high percentage of the best schools I've seen (all  of which serve low-income, minority students) do a ton of internal testing, in  addition to the required annual tests.  This lets teachers know how the  entire class and individual students are doing, which skills they've learned and which they haven't, so that the teachers can focus their lessons on the  latter.  

    B) At http://edreform.blogspot.com/2007/02/nclb-opponents.html, I wrote:

 
This is the tired old canard trotted out by those who oppose accountability and who want to instead continue to use useless loosy-goosy metrics that allow failing teachers,  principals and schools to continue their educational malpractice, year after  year, with nobody the wiser and no consequences.  If they really want to  help needy children, they should be demanding MORE testing, because I've NEVER  ONCE seen a test of needy children that has failed to underscore how dire the situation is for these children and how much more needs to be done for  them.

While no doubt many of the  tests need improvement, the solution is NOT to abandon testing but to improve  the tests!

and C) At http://edreform.blogspot.com/2007/07/lets-teach-to-test.html, I wrote:

One of the main reasons I favor more (albeit better) testing is to  combat what Howard Fuller calls "happy schools": the principal is happy, the  teachers are happy, the parents are happy and the children are happy --  everything's great, except the 4th grade children still can't  read!!!!

 
The Washington Post's Jay Mathews wrote an excellent piece on testing  last year:

Conversations about this would go more smoothly if we didn't  have such distorted views of what teaching to the test means. We might instead turn the discussion to what methods of instruction work best or how  much time our children should spend studying.
 
In some classes, such as the Advanced Placement,  International Baccalaureate and Cambridge courses that have become popular  in Washington area high schools, the need to prepare for a challenging exam  outside of the teacher's control has often produced a remarkable new form of  teamwork. Teacher and students work together to beat an exam that requires  thought and analysis, not just memorization. If that is teaching to the  test, let's have more of  it.