Ava Araujo

English 101
Professor Ferarra
7 November 2020

Do Schools Kill Creativity?

TED is an American Media Organization where free distribution of influential videos are

shared. Expert speakers share their ideas, thoughts, and expeditions on their passionate subjects.

In this case, we look at Sir Ken Robinson, and his discussion on how public school systems are

killing creativity. Robinson focuses on the essence of creativity using various arguments, in an

attempt to persuade the minds of his audience to give more attention to this ignored issue.

Instead of using a very bland and monotone persuasive method, he uses his pathos, logos, and

ethos in an interactive and comedic take.

As the Ted Talk begins, Ken Robinson begins to explain his take on the education system

and why it is being corrupted by a confined creativity establishment. He includes many personal

experiences through a humorous explanation, and with an easily identified relaxed take on the

audience. Robison is not there to force you to charge your mind to see his perspective, but rather

just open up the idea and view to people who may not have crossed the idea themselves. This

helps Robinson emphasize his pathos by using his humor to make himself approachable. First,

Robinson uses a story of his own experience from when he was a professor. Robinson noticed

that as he looked at fellow teachers teaching methods, he saw them to be close minded. He

noticed they rarely allowed any sort of idea or belief other than their own in their classroom.

Robinson states “There's something curious about them, not all of them but typically, they live in

their heads, they live up there, and slightly to one side.” (Robinson). By saying this, we can
assume Robinson views teachers as more to “one side” meaning they can only stick to what they

believe, and it is impossible for them to see other people's perspective and point of view.

Believing something like this will make professors unable to recognize differences in their

classroom environments, and not allow for changes in their teaching methods and it will ruin

their students chances of academic success. Robinson tends to believe this way of teaching is

unsympathetic and close-minded. Using pathos, Robinson discusses how creativity is completely

ignored and put to the side when considering the way teaching students should be. For example,

Robinson uses his pathos again when telling a story about a girl named Gillian. She was simply

assumed to have ADHD, and said she just wasn;t good at school. Instead, Gillian needed a way

to express her creativity that was being blocked in agt school. She had so much energy and

outbursts that ADHD and therapy was simply the easiest answer for everyone to give her and

her refusing parents. This creates an emotional response from the audience, and can help

persuade them to take part in listening to Robinsons ideas and examples.

Additionally, ethos are presented in Robinsons argument as well. He presents his ethos

by speaking on how the school system could be improved if effort was involved. I agree with his

thoughts, that we could promote creativity and expressionism easily in the school environments.

Robinson wants the audience to realize that each person has potential. He persuades his audience

by using the intelligence and trustworthy information of a university professor which is

persuasive as a rhetorical appeal. He believes all children could be much more creative if just

given more room to explore. Something that I believe caught the audience's attention as much as

mine is when Robinson says “children are discouraged from certain activities because they

simply will not make enough money.” (Robinson). For example, a child that is into ballet may be

turned away from this idea because dancers do not make as much as possibly a doctor. Our
academic abilities are deemed to be the most important to our careers and futures, which is why

the most important academics are at the top of our importance list in school. For this reason,

many talented young people are suppressed of their creativity, and rejected at schools that could

help them grow into their wanted career, because they were never given their full potential.

Through this use of rhetoric and persuasion, Robinson gains the respect and understanding from

the audience in his continuing use of humor, real life experiences, and professionalism.

In addition to the use of pathos and ethos, logos are also used in Robinsons effort to

persuade the audience to see through his eyes. His logos are used by comparing statistics that are

relevant in his argument, and showing their continuous effects and relevancy to his argument.

Robinson states “In the next 30 years, according to Unesco, more people worldwide will be

graduating through education since the beginning of education history. However, some 50%

employees are not engaged in their work today, costing the nation around $300 Billion dollars in

lost productivity.” (Robinson). The use of statistics such as this one shows the logos Robinson

uses during his argumentative presentation, and represents he has some if not almost entirely

enough background information to cover his ideas. Robinson believes in rethinking the education

and learning process with the use of expression and creativity. Robinson further emphasizes his

use of logos by going over three specific components of intelligence. According to Robinson,

these are “diversity, dynamic, and distinct”. These components show a very vital and key

relationship between learning, and intelligence. I can agree from personal experience of public

school learning with Robinsons ideas as well. Being raised and taught in a public school system,

I have learned alot about myself and my creative skills through having access to photography

courses, art courses, dance, choir, and many other courses that are not always deemed as
academically inclined. Therefore, the logos used by Robinson help defend his initial argument on

creativity vs its structure and spread throughout the education system.

It is apparent that though many may disagree or have not seen the ideas Sir Ken Robinson

has brought onto his audience and listeners, his use of an interactive and humorous argument on

the education system stands broad and probably gained a lot of insight from the viewers. I

believe the target audience, including myself as a distant audience have found this style

appealing and welcoming, because instead of just a bald talk trying to harshly convince people

that the school system is corrupt and oppressive, he leaves the room with a positive vibe

throughout the audience and a well engaged ending. His tone is informal and humorous, but in

this case that works well to keep his viewers engaged and listening to his essential main idea.

Robinson demonstrates a strong appeal by showing that it is not right to deny people an

opportunity to do what they want by showing what is better for society, for example, using their

difference in salaries to show the importance of creativity in the classroom. I agree with Sir Ken

Robinson's ideas, and think that if we gain creativity, differences, and talent back in the

classrooms, we should create a stronger bond between essence and effectiveness.

(No logical fallacies in my opinion)

Bibliography

Hagen, Laurel. “Experience Institute.” ​Offering Uniform Learning Experience​, 2008,

https://expinstitute.com/sir-ken-robinson/. Accessed 11 09 2020.

Robinson, Sir Ken. “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” ​Ted Talk​, 9 2 2006,

https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_creativity?language=en.

Accessed 11 2 2020.