Ken Robinson and Creativity (Group B)

After reading Marisol's response (http://mmc22.blogspot.com/) and Kathryn's response (http://kstocza2.blogspot.com/), both seem to be half convinced of Robinson's argument but desire more. Marisol points out that Robinson does not offer any solution to changing the educational structure and its stifling of creativity, while Kathryn points out that Robinson limits the cause to education rather than the social promotion of individuality and egotistical interests. Both are correct, but I do not think either is completely correct. Robinson is speaking to the solution, i.e. educators (us), and he does not exclude the problem of societal structures stressing individuality and egotism because education shapes and molds those structures while it is also reciprocally shaped and molded by those structures as well. We are talking about change...beyond modern industrialism, degrees, and the rat-race for the highest paying job (perhaps). Teachers may find themselves more free or constrained in the future. How are the goals of education changing? No Child Left Behind can be a major obstacle, or it can be a minor nuisance. Educators themselves need to be creative. Is their a "right" and "wrong?" How does a teacher tell a child he or she is "wrong" without stifling creativity (this obviously differentiates with age)? Honestly, I feel that people come before work/study, and that schools are overly academic vs. social. To incorporate this into my future classroom setting, I think creativity falls in line with openness, acceptance, and social responsibility which are the main pillars of my goals of education.