Week 2 Blog for ECS 203

During class this week we went over some chapters from the two readings: Kevin K. Kumashiro’s Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice and A History of Education, by F. V. N. Painter. While reading these two pieces, multiple different types of perspectives came to mind. Here is a brief summary from my eyes when reading parts of the History of education which was published in 1886. To start off there are an abundance of terminologies and ideologies that in today’s society would be extremely controversial to go over in the classroom. There is an overuse of the word man, and plenty of references to God. There are also mentions of characteristics like being strong and brave, being the most important when looking at male students. The word discipline also comes onto the scene when talking about how one should be educated. It further goes on to teach those reading it about racist stereotypes, that are unfair and unjust. When information that is taught to sponge-like youth, when it is incorrect, it creates this domino effect of misleading information being spread throughout the population and generations.

On a lighter note, Kevin goes over some of his teaching experiences with specific kids and lessons. An Overall summary is about teaching children in a way that is a good fit and recognizing that all students learn differently. Us as educators have huge impacts on the students we teach. 

Some questions arise: what does it mean to be a good student according to “common sense”? From the traditional standpoint of what a “good” student looks like, would be expecting a child to sit still, and think what we want them to think. One thing to note is that it is not about what we want them to think, but about what we are taught to make them want to think. In other words, we are taught to become robots to make more robots. Robots do not have creative thoughts of their own, or have trouble sitting still in class, or struggle to wait their turn. Unfortunately our curriculum has become very copy and paste. Only recently are we starting to notice a change in welcoming inclusivity of those who think or learn differently. 

Now this gets into the more controversial side, however, sometimes- like Kumashiro mentioned- unfortunately sometimes you have to learn things that make you uncomfortable. Painter describes the most privileged students as those young white men who can speak proper English and will one day have a wife in the kitchen. In Kumashiro’s, he mentions how there were always the students who stood out, not intentionally, but because they could not “sit still”. That is where I believe some educators are stuck nowadays, similarly to Kumashiro, teachers have it instilled in their mind that if they cannot get a student to sit still and listen to what they are teaching, then they are a bad teacher. Unfortunately nowadays, a “good” student is a student that will sit at their desk, speak when spoken to, do their work- while exceeding the teachers expectations, all while playing like how a student should play. So if you cannot be “good” does that mean you are a “bad” student? The answer is no. It is outright sad to think that some students think that they are being bad all because they are not capable of sitting still.  Why is it a bad thing to regulate by wiggling- being “bad” with efforts of trying to be “good”. Why is it that students have to change and control their natural feelings to self regulate to our “norms”, why do they have to change but we don’t? 

Our belief of “common sense” is for children to conform to our strict expectations, when really, we should be flexible to fulfill the needs of all of the diverse learners.

Thank you for reading.

Best, Baylee