Many highly talented, brilliant, creative people think they’re not — because the thing they were good at at school wasn’t valued, or was actually stigmatized.

Ken Robinson (1950–2020), a British educator and influential critic of standardized schooling, repeatedly argued that modern education systems privilege a narrow range of academic abilities (especially those aligned with testing and traditional “core” subjects) while marginalizing other forms of intelligence and creativity. This remark fits the themes he developed in talks and writings about how school cultures can label certain aptitudes—artistic, practical, kinesthetic, divergent thinking—as distractions or deficiencies rather than strengths. In that climate, students whose talents fall outside what schools reward may internalize a sense of inadequacy, even when they are genuinely gifted in domains not recognized by conventional measures of achievement.

The quote highlights a mismatch between innate ability and institutional validation. Robinson suggests that self-belief is often socially produced: people judge their worth by what schools praise, grade, and publicly esteem. When a student’s strongest capacities are ignored or stigmatized, the student may conclude they lack talent altogether, confusing “not valued here” with “not valuable.” The broader significance is a critique of narrow definitions of intelligence and success. It implies that education should cultivate diverse forms of excellence and provide environments where different kinds of aptitude can be recognized, developed, and respected—so that creativity becomes a source of confidence rather than a reason for shame.