Reply to Sir Kenneth...

cjwainwr says,

On the one hand there are Sir Kenneth's view. On the other hand is Professor John Hattie's research synthesis of twelve meta-analyses of 685 studies of 'creativity programmes' in schools, colleges and university completed during the last fifteen years. Hattie concludes, "Overall, creativity programs have a large positive effect..." on student achievement. (Hattie, 2009, 155)

Such programs are increasingly 'mainstream' across all learning areas in all Australasian schools.

Additionally, arts education processes of generating-realising-responding are daily conducted within, around and between family households. Children, dads, mums, siblings and other family members, friends and neighbours....not to mention local libraries, shopping malls, A & P shows; and a veritable phalanx of community locales, hobby and crafts associations, buskers, music festivals/competitions, church and community halls and members up and down the country - each  are participants at various points in these arts education processes.

Such processes are essentially 'creative' when they arouse and develop the aesthetic capacities.

These facts suggest Sir K's 'input-output' box has many leaks: whereas the engagement of the community and of school students and teachers in processes of creativity and of arts education appears to be solidly based and multifareous.

Sir K's version of events is too mis-leading, inaccurate, glib and dismissive for my taste.

Reference.
Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Oxford: Routledge.