“A History of Education” by Painter references that every generation and nation of peoples has received education to fit their lifestyles and “careers,” he mentions that “uncivilized” peoples received education that was not much more than physical, he even goes as far as to call them barbaric. This way of thinking is very Euro-centric, assuming that western teachings and education is superior to other cultures. Drilling further the idea that western culture is, in a way, superior. When mentioning the “ranking” of education around the world Painter places Europe and America, after the reformation, as number one. He places Asian and African countries in last place, and does not feel obligated to add any nations who are “uncivilized,” which is pretty safe to assume he is talking about Indigenous cultures, because they have a very traditional way of education that is often discredited by Eurocentric education. The way that Painter talks about “the oriental nations” is very stereotypical, (referring to China, Egypt, Palestine, India, and other places) he mentions that Chinese people are very intelligent, however very “dishonest” and apt to become tyrannical. This is putting all Chinese people in a box based on very limited understanding of the people as a whole. Painter by saying this is giving into propaganda and generalizations. He also says that their idea of education is memorization, rather than developing off of past ideas. Painter talks about education in India by saying that they spend too much time on arithmetic. I do not believe that he meant to see other countries in a negative toxic way, I think that this was just a product of a toxic Euro-centric mindset that was common in this time. The way he sees education in other places ranges from “very bad” to “not horrible but worse than us,” which we now know that there is no right or wrong in education, as it can vary based on many factors. Kumashiro tells a story about a student named M, who was not a traditional “good student,” M had a hard time sitting quietly and following instructions, however during individual activities with more freedom she was very creative. He mentions that teachers are often guilty of having a “perfect student” in mind. We always would love a student who absorbs what we teach, and enjoys how we teach; however this ideology is not realistic. Students are all different, and they should not suffer just because they think differently. According to my previous common sense a “good student,” is somebody who follows instruction well, does all of the required work, and for the most part can understand it easily. This idea around a “good student” is damaging for anybody who learns differently. If a student has a learning disability or an attention deficit disorder, or a student whos first language is not English. This can be damaging for people who think differently in any way. I feel a bit guilty because I believed in this idea of a good student, even though I was never considered one. I was quiet so teachers never had a problem with me, however I was a student who would not do work if I found it pointless. I had to understand the purpose of it in order to see the reason for doing it. The students who are privileged by these expectations are students who are good at memorization, and who are at a cultural or language advantage. The idea of a good student was shaped historically by our Euro-Centric ways of thinking and viewing learning. The article by Painter was written in the late 1800’s and the belief then was that “our” way of learning is better than “their” ways of learning. Its bringing in an us vs. them mindset, which is very toxic to the group who is in the minority in the educational system.