When looking into what it means to be a “good” student according to the common sense, we see a lot of limitations. In general, a “good” student seems to be the complete opposite of M and N in the reading “Preparing Teachers for Crisis: A Sample Lesson” by Kumashiro. The idea of a “good” student comes from the fact that “mainstream society often places value on certain kinds of behaviours, knowledge, and skills” (Kumashiro, 2010, p. 22). This involves students “behaving and thinking in only certain ways” (Kumashiro, 2010, p. 21). A “good” student is one who is to always follow instructions and listen to the people who are seen as superior to them, such as the teacher. They do not challenge the mainstream approaches to learning that are being used in the classroom. When it comes to M and N, we see that they do not conform to these ideas of what it means to be a “good” student because rather they are seen as a stereotypical “bad” student. M is a student who would not participate in the scheduled class activities, struggled to listen, and would speak out of turn. These are all only seen as bad behaviours because of what society has set out to be the good behaviours in the traditional learning environment. This goes the same for N who often questioned why they learned the way they did or why the teacher taught a specific way. They had a different idea of what it meant to learn. There is also the idea that “good” students are associated with those who meet the expected learning goals and can show that they have reached these goals through the standardized method of assignments and tests. A “good” student will not hesitate to follow the traditional approach to learning that is set out for them, which includes lectures, note taking, assignments, and tests. With this said, “the closer a student got to saying the right things in the right ways, the higher that student’s grade would be” (Kumashiro, 2010, p. 21). They are also able to effectively use this method to understand new concepts and overall achieve good grades.

It is obvious that there are certain types of students who are privileged by this definition of a “good” student. We see that M and N are not privileged by this definition, being that they were unable or unwilling to be the students that society expected them to be. It is the students who are able to efficiently learn under these structured circumstances that are privileged by it, with these circumstances being those falling under the common sense understandings. These are the students who learn best with the traditional memorization method and who do not need any more than what they are being provided, meaning they are the students who learn as they are expected to. There seems to be a pressure on teachers “from schools and society to produce this type of student” (Kumashiro, 2010, p. 21). It is interesting to think about the idea that even if a student has excellent grades, they still might not experience privilege since being a “good” student in this case mainly depends on behaviour in regards to learning. Those who require or desire unique or different learning approaches are the ones who are typically seen as the “bad” students and will not be able to benefit like others can. In general, it can be observed that those students who are able to learn in these ways come from a privileged background where they are used to being exposed to the common sense. It benefits those students who are not oppressed in any way.

There are several ways in which the “good” student is shaped by historical factors. We are able to understand how we have come to this common sense understanding of a “good” student in the reading “A History of Education” by Painter. He describes the function of education in the past as being something in which “the processes of physical and mental growth must be assisted and directed during the formative periods of childhood and youth” (Painter, 1886, p. 2). The term directed is something that we see when it comes to a “good” student because they are the ones who are seen as being able to follow this strict direction method of learning. This is similar to the statement that “education is not creative” (Painter, 1886, p. 5). A “good” student is not associated with any forms of creativity being that they conform only to what they are told to do. When it comes to the end results of education within history, there seems to be a focus on preparing the students for a future that is already laid out for them, including things such as work. There was the idea that “education does not aim to develop a perfect man or woman, but to prepare its subjects for their place in the established order of things” (Painter, 1886, p. 9). With this comes the need of being good at listening and following instruction, much like we see within a “good” student. The traditional methods of learning and teaching is also a factor that can be seen as something that has historically shaped this idea of a “good” student. The students back then were seen as being good if they could learn something and then prove that they learned it, much like we see with this definition of a “good” student. We also learn that in the past, people endured oppression and did nothing to challenge it. This is still being seen today within the ways we think about learning as we look into what being a “good” student is all about.

References:

Kumashiro, K. (2010). Against Common Sense. Chapter 2- Preparing Teachers for Crisis: A Sample Lesson, pp. 19-33.

Painter, F. V. N. (1886). A History of Education, pp. 1-21.