A “good” student can be defined in many different ways and has been defined by many different people. In Kumashiro’s article, society and schools define a “good” student as a child who behaves and thinks in a certain way; a way that is believed to be the “only right way” (2010). Educators feel a great amount of pressure from within the schools and the greater public to produce the “proper” type of student. This type of student is understood through commonsense to be a child who: participates, respects others, follows directions, offers to help out, follows rules, uses a quiet voice, pays attention, asks questions, is ready to learn, and always does their best.
There are a few different types of students that would be privileged by this definition of a good student, but given the mass population of students, most would be left unprivileged. A wealthy family would be privileged by this definition as they have the funds to afford every advantage for their children. A wealthy family is able to purchase tutors, technology, and private lessons to ensure their child is viewed above their classmates. As well, students who are neurotypical and able to follow the product model of curriculum would benefit from this definition of a “good” student. Many students are simply not able to follow along in class, or pick up on information quickly, as stated in the article: “M did not follow instructions well … M was restless if required to sit for too long and [became] rowdy if required to sit quietly for too long” (Kumashiro, 2010). The situation with student M highlights how the commonsense definition of a “good” student can disadvantage those students who experience learning difficulties.
The image of a “good” student has been shaped through the passing of time. Over the years expectations for students have changed, and they will continue to change as time goes on. The curriculum that is still used in education systems today, was created around the historical factors that believed that a “man has various labors and duties to perform in the world, which require special training, and a wide range of knowledge,” (Painter, pg.3) furthermore suggesting that “the end of education is complete human development” (Painter, pg.2). The idea that all students should be learning the same material at the same rate, derives from past views surrounding education. The curriculum was created without any account for students who learned different or held life goals outside of a college education.
References: