Creativity And Education: An Australian Perspective Arthur Cropley University of Hamburg, Australia In Australia in recent years there has been intense interest at policy making level in promoting creativity in schools because of its perceived benefits for society. However, this has not been accompanied by thoroughgoing implementation of creativity as a basic pedagogical principle. Such implementation is being hindered by a tendency to restrict understanding of creativity to artistic activities, to conflate creativity with giftedness or special needs, and to regard fostering creativity as incompatible with promoting traditional classroom skills. Nonetheless, some Australian theorists and researchers have emphasized the need for creative pedagogy in all areas of curriculum and with all students. Creative pedagogy is argued to improve learning and reduce misbehaviour, boredom, absenteeism, and the like. It requires appropriate concepts of creativity and well worked out terminology to facilitate communication among the various parties involved. These should flow into effective teacher training in creative teaching methods and guidelines for classroom processes such as assessment. Recent policy discussions of creativity and education in Australia such as the Australia 2020 Summit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008), the Creative Connection Program (Western Australia Department of Culture and the Arts, 2010). the Mel- bourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008) or the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 1999) reveal widespread acceptance at policy-making level, at least in the form of lip service, of the need for systematic promotion of creativity in the national education system. As is customary in such reports internationally, the contribution of creativity to national prosperity, social justice, health and welfare, and similar aspects of the life of the nation are emphasized as the practical basis for such interest, while the contribution of creativity to cultural life and personal well-being is also acknowledged. Despite this general enthusiasm for creativity, self-congratulations are not called for. Morgan and Forster (1999) conducted an in-depth study in a primary school in Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Arthur Cropley, Unit 3, 120 South Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia. E-mail: ajcropley@gmail.com All sources cited in this article were either published in Australia, are by Australian authors, or are by staff members of Australian universities (or satisfy more than one of these criteria). However, the article does not contain an all-encompassing review of Australian research on creativity and education. It is limited to an attempt to pinpoint some major issues in the creativity discussion in Australia and give an idea of how they have been discussed in this country. The review is also restricted to publications which specifically mention creativity or acknowledged “creative” activities such as art. I apologize in advance to Australian contributors to the study of creativity who have been overlooked and for major issues that have been omitted. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CREATIVITY & PROBLEM SOLVING 2012, 22(1), 9-25