Playing it safe: Teachers’ views of creativity in poetry writing Debra Myhill, Anthony Wilson Participants’ Janus-like capacity to look two ways at once: their reactions to the notion of making judgements about quality of learners’ poetic composition and to the notion of constraints and rules within poetic composition. In both of these areas teachers are unconsciously using a ‘safety first’ model of poetry writing pedagogy, which in the long run is sufficient neither for learners nor themselves as teachers of creative writing. Literature: Teachers’ conceptualisations of creativity Research in the European context shows that the notion of creativity, how it is to be taught, taught for and measured in schools, are not stable constructs. Kampylis et al. (2009): no major/large-scale studies of teachers’ conceptions of creativity since Fryer and Collings (1991). Kampylis et al.(2009): only three cross-cultural studies of teachers’ thinking about creativity (Runco & Johnson, 2002; Seng, Keung, & Cheng, 2008; Spiel & Korff, 1998). (Banaji & Burn, 2007a, 2007b): the competing ‘rhetorics’ of creativity in education in England Runco, Johnson, & Bear (1993): some teachers’ idiosyncratic implicit theories of creativity act as prototypes against which students’ creative behaviour is measured. Alencar (2002, p. 15):‘inhibiting practices’: the need for correct responses; emphasis on reproducing information; scant emphasis on students’ capabilities to engage in imaginative thinking (Kampylis et al., 2009, p. 15). Abstract This paper reports on the beliefs, attitudes and values revealed by a large scale study of English teachers in England. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with lesson observations, teacher interviews and student interviews in the form of writing conversations. Underpinned by a socio-constructivist model of play as a vital precursor to creativity and mastery of language (Vygotsky, 1962) we find that, while these teachers are enthusiastic about teaching poetry, their conceptualisations of creativity are not fully theorised. This is especially true of their views of about poetry as freedom from the constraints of ‘normal’ writing. This includes a stated reluctance towards evaluating the poetry written by pupils. We argue that these teachers are inculcating their pupils in a schooled version of creative language use, one which is divorced from the model of creativity as theorised by writers and creative writing practitioners alike. Also of interest in this study is Vygotsky’s notion of private speech (1962) as a kind of utterance which is directed at and regulated by the self when facing tasks that are challenging. As has been argued by Wilson (2009), poetic composition in the context of other writing in schools is both personal and especially challenging. In part this is due to the nature of poetic composition itself, for poetry offers the challenge and capacity for language play, where meaning can be stretched to its limit, within forms which are themselves a challenge to the writer. Therefore poetry makes demands upon learners’ writing in schools because at some level it requires a subversion or ‘unlearning’ of the normal rules of writing (Wilson, 2009). Findings: Creativity The model of creativity that has been internalised is one where: Assessment of creative work is either not permitted to intrude, or one where the language of such evaluation has yet to be constructed and applied. The rules and conventions of poetic forms are constraining, not a source of potential ‘freedom of expression’. Creativity resides in the temperament of the individual and cannot be taught. This implicitly questions the purpose of teaching poetry writing in schools, and by extension all creative endeavour, if it is to be found only in the ‘ability’ of a lucky few who either show talent for or disposition towards it. Freedom Teachers recognise the distinctive contribution that poetry can make to learners’ knowledge about the possibilities of language and language use: The ‘rules’ and ‘boundaries’ of ‘normal’ writing either do not apply or do not need to apply. Constraints of language and poetic form are viewed as a route into creativity rather than a blockage to it. Methodology 32 comprehensive schools in England, representing social and cultural diversity, took part in the study: this comprised 32 classes of students aged 12–13 (n = 744). One lesson was observed per unit of work, followed by one interview, giving 3 lesson observations and 3 interviews per teacher (total number of observations and interviews = 96 of each). This article draws on the 32 interviews which were collected during the teaching of the poetry unit of work. This can be called a ‘safety first’ approach for two of reasons. 1. On one level, teaching poetry writing is ‘safe’ because it is peripheral within the writing and creative writing curriculum in schools. 2. The untested writing that is produced and parallel low stakes can appeal to teachers as a potentially fertile and creative space. Because the writing that is made within this space is untested, assumptions and beliefs about poetry and how to teach it creatively also remain under-examined. Poetry’s lowly status in the curriculum can therefore be seen as double-edged. It is at once a space of so-called ‘freedom’ and one where the possibilities of that freedom are not fully explored. Dr Anthony Wilson Graduate School of Education University of Exeter