The small or large existing gap between education and creativity was strongly identified in Guilford’s presidential address to the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1950.

Binet, a pioneer in modern psychological thought, remembers the painful moment that experienced during the exams in the Baccalaureate in Letters, when Martha, the teacher (whose name he mentions), spoke contemptuously when he made a mistake, “prophesying a daunting evolution of him” (Ogoemeka, 2011). Fortunately for Binet, there was no self-fulfilling prophecy, apart from bad memory. And this event between the teacher and the student occurred in the 19^th century.

Since the APA publication and Binet’s exams, statistical analysis has evolved, the research on creative process, product, personality and the correlation between teaching and learning, with innovation and productive thinking etc. (Guilford, 1985; Renzulli, 1992; Runco & Chand, 1995; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991; Treffinger, Isaksen, & Firestein, 1983; Torrance, 1981; Xanthacou & Kaila, 2011) has made us perhaps much wiser in o understanding some aspects of the multi-factorial phenomenon of creativity, with the gap, however, that Guilford identified in 1950 may not have sufficiently been diminished and behaviors like those of Martha have yet to disappear completely.

Both modern and ultramodern societies, due to globalization and technology, have been undergoing fast, unexpected changes, resulting in new problems, crises requiring individuals be adaptable to new conditions, with production skills, tolerant towards uncertainty and incompleteness, collaborative, not be afraid of taking risks, non-conventional and have a holistic approach to events. With this rationale, priority is given to the formation of a citizen with creative skills and attitudes, in a school and education environment where his/her creative potential can fully be developed. Teachers seem to be catalysts in all this, facilitating or inhibiting to some extent creativity. Teachers have many ways to “kill” students’ creativity: to cultivate competitiveness, create conditions for students with an expected reward, which is primarily external, and an evaluation, exercise too much control, without providing pupils / students initiatives and decision-making processes, give only strictly structured learning situations rather than those of problem solving, penalize pupils / students when taking wrong steps, not to provide a supportive learning environment, to create learning conditions of “assimilation” rather than of “exploration”, not to empower pupils / students to express themselves and their unusual ideas (Amabile, 1987; Xantacou & Kaila, 2011). Previous studies have shown that teachers have limited “perception” for Creativity (Fryer & Collings, 1991; Hosseini, 2002) and do not help their pupils’ / students’ creative potential. Nowadays, research converges on the need for training teachers on creativity during their studies, through continuing education services as well as through teacher preparation courses (Hosseini & Watt, 2010; Murdock, 2003). It seems that very few university departments in the USA have incorporated related issues in their curricula (McDonough & McDonough, 1987). During the last decade, in Greece there have been taken such steps individually by the Center for Research and Creativity at Athens University and by the University of the Aegean, to the best of our knowledge.

Amabile. T. M. (1987). The motivation to be creative. In S. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers in creativity research. Buffalo, NY: Bearly. Fryer, M., & Collings, Y. (1991). British teacher views of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(1), 7-14. Guilford, J. P. (1985). The structure-of-intellect model. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 225-266). New York: Wiley. Hosseini, A. (2002). Investigating the impact of the creativity teaching program on teachers’ knowledge attitude and skills. Tehran, Iran. Hosseini, A. S., & Watt, A. P. (2010). The effect of a teacher professional development in facilitating students’ creativity. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(8), 432-438 McDonough, P., & McDonough, B. (1987). A survey of American colleges and universities on the conducting of formal courses in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 21, 271-282. Murdock, M. C. (2003).The effects of teaching programmes intended to stimulate creativity: A disciplinary. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 339-357. Ogoemeka, O. H. (2011). Emotional intelligence and creativity in teacher education. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 1(4), 591-604. Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity through the pursuit of ideal acts of learning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 170–182. Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243–267. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). Creating creative minds. PhiDelta Kappan, 72, 608-614. Torrance, E. P. (1981). Creative teaching makes a difference. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.), Creativity: Its educational implications (2nd ed., pp. 99-108). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Firestein, R. L. (1983). Theoretical perspectives on creative learning and its facilitation: An overview. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17, 9-17. Xanthacou, Y., & Kaila, M. (2011). Creative problem solving. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers