Ever since I started teaching, I have questioned whether our education system prepares youngsters for a world filled with uncertainty, challenge and opportunity - or whether we have maintained a traditional system through a lack of imagination and an acceptance that alternative models would be too costly or logistically challenging.

This line of thought was sparked by Sir Ken Robinson’s “Do schools kill creativity?” TED Talk - viewed more than 46 million times since 2006 - in which he argues that the outdated UK education system was conceived solely to meet the needs of the industrial revolution.

The emeritus professor of education at the University of Warwick should know what he’s talking about. He advises governments, Fortune 500 companies and some of the world’s leading cultural organisations. He describes a system within which pupils are afraid to make mistakes. It was designed to create good workers, rather than creative thinkers. Making mistakes and taking chances should be what a young person’s formative years are all about.

While the current system doesn’t exactly foster creativity, it doesn’t necessarily kill it. Recently, one of my pupils was awarded a full scholarship to the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. Every day, I walk corridors full of astounding artwork produced by our pupils and on a Friday afternoon I see pupils hacking drones, writing innovative code and playfully working on our new green screen, as part of the curriculum. Schools do support creativity, but it’s not given the priority it should be.

So, how much has our education system really changed since its industrial roots? Is it possible that schools as we know them in the UK are no longer best suited to equipping youngsters for life beyond the classroom?

I am not convinced that discrete subjects and a high-stakes exam system based largely on factual recall are really of benefit to youngsters. That said, I am acutely aware that binary thinking is unhelpfully prevalent in education. The system is either seen as broken or not broken - there is no middle ground, which is so often where the reality is found.

One independent school in the US has evaluated the traditional educational model and concluded it is inadequate.

NuVu, the brainchild of three Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduates, is an innovation school for 11- to 18-year-olds in Boston that is reimagining education.

It is a place in which students and teachers explore ideas outside of the traditional disciplinary boundaries and immerse themselves in the innovation process.

Under the guidance of designers and experts, pupils solve real-life problems through a critical, rigorous and iterative process. Mistakes are not chastised, but encouraged.

The NuVu pedagogy is rooted in the architectural design studio, but its team has expertise in industrial design, architecture, robotics, engineering, fashion, art, music, filmmaking and graphic design; this diversity fosters an innovative environment that complements the passion and potential of learners.

Real-life problem-solving

There are no grades, no exams and no bells at NuVu, yet their pupils have achieved remarkable success. Take, for example, Kate Reed and Mohammad Sayed, whose 3D-printed products improved wheelchair efficiency and gained them an audience with President Barack Obama in the White House.

Instead of traditional courses, NuVu has studios in which students work with coaches to solve open-ended problems. Rather than learning separate and segmented subjects, pupils move between a studio that requires them to design a robot to another that requires them to reimagine Boston with a cable-car system.

Just last month, Kelvinside Academy secured an exclusive partnership to bring NuVu to Europe for the first time. From the moment we started to work with them, it became clear how different their approach to learning and teaching is from the traditional model.

I suspect Robinson would approve of all this. And so do I. While I do not fully subscribe to the belief that our education system has aged, declined and become fundamentally broken, an argument can be made that the subject content is somewhat arbitrary, insufficiently challenging and too constraining. However, as I started this piece, my pupils were studying for their exams and I think a desire to work hard, acquire knowledge and do well in assessments is a noble and useful one.

Perhaps instead of viewing the system as broken or not, we should see it as evolving. After all, in the 19th century, schools focused almost exclusively on Latin and Greek, while rarely offering any maths beyond algebra. Throughout the 20th century, girls and boys were often offered separate “gender specific” classes. Clearly the system has evolved and it must continue to do so.

I find myself as frustrated with the traditional educational system as I am with those who are quick to denounce it, but who do little to improve matters. Kelvinside Academy and NuVu share a conviction that creativity should be a central component of pupils’ learning.

This summer, NuVu and our school arranged to run studios together in Glasgow under the theme of “Human++”.

The combined intelligence of humans and machines has been explored through the topics of biofashion and swarm robotics. We have been delighted to welcome NuVu coaches from the likes of Harvard and MIT, and I know that our pupils will benefit greatly from this opportunity.

Broken, not broken or evolving? Three different lenses through which we might choose to view the UK’s education system. The groundbreaking work of my colleagues at NuVu has given me great optimism. It seems clear that everyone at Kelvinside will learn from our partners at NuVu, and our practice and curriculum will evolve accordingly.

Perhaps the lessons that will be learned from this collaboration can also fuel the broader evolution of the UK education system. I look forward to seeing what the future holds.

Ian Munro is rector at Kelvinside Academy in Glasgow