In “We Should Cherish Our Children's Freedom of Thought,” Kie Ho appeals to the growing tendency of people in the United States to complain about the quality of the education system. Ho supports this system and advises his readers to reconsider the characteristic virtues of American education. He strongly emphasizes how he guarantees and even encourages and supports the freedom of his students, especially the freedom of self-expression. In general, I agree with Ho's point of view that it is very important to give children the opportunity to develop their creativity and free thinking. In today's world it is important that our children become creative and critical thinkers with strong values ​​and that they are able to see things in a different light and also see the world in a distinct and personal way. I also agree that America has a long and rich experience in using creative learning and critical thinking approaches. However, Ho's view that the United States' strength as a “country of innovations” is tied to its school education system remains a biased opinion and oversimplifies an otherwise complex issue. Ho's failures make me believe that the American school system is far better than those of other countries because its evidence is weak and flawed. The lack of strong supporting points and examples makes Ho's argument flimsy and somewhat unbelievable. To challenge overly anxious critics of the American education system, Ho formulates his main counterargument in one question: “If American education is so tragically inferior, why is this still the country of innovation?” (113). Although it initially appears to be a very effective approach to building your persuasive argument, the… middle of paper… problems and managing personal finances. A purely creative education system, which Ho idolizes, would meet none of these needs and, consequently, would not benefit America. A more realistic comparison of the American education system with other systems around the world could be based on a variety of factors, including comparative achievement in mathematics and science, useful geographical and world historical knowledge plus knowledge of other subjects, not just the ability to create art from everyday objects, as Ho seems to believe. American innovation often comes from engineering and hard science, where the application of “uncreative” facts and formulas is routinely applied. Overall, Ho's argument reminds me of a popped balloon. This is something that started out very bright and promising, but ultimately turned out to be just a worn out piece of rubber.