According to commonsense, a “good” student is typically someone who conforms to the standards and expectations set by an educational institution. These standards and expectations often include obedience, punctuality, timely completion of assignments, stillness, and attentiveness, among many other things. A “good” student is expected to learn course material quickly and efficiently with minimal added help. Further, they will unquestioningly follow all rules and instructions laid out by their teachers. The commonsensical idea of a “good” student is strict and does not consider student distinctions. 

The students who are most privileged by the commonsensical definition of a “good” student are the ones who come from dominant groups. For instance, a non-disabled student with no history of mental illness, who comes from a nuclear family with high socioeconomic status, would have more success fitting the mould of a “good” student than an ADHD-diagnosed student from a blended family of lower socioeconomic status. Commonsense is oppressive and exclusive. It does not consider marginalized groups. Instead, it focuses on Westernized-colonial ideals. Teachers need to be aware that students come from different backgrounds and require various needs. Thus, as Kumashiro explains, teachers should be flexible. They must be “aware of the unpredictability of their [student’s] responses” (pg 31) and ready to adapt to varying circumstances. Realistically, I do not believe there is such a thing as a “good” student. Being a “good” student is completely circumstantial. For example, although student A may perform phenomenally under specific circumstances, student B may require an entirely different set of circumstances to demonstrate the same performance. Kumashiro explains this further when he states, “M’s varied behaviours were indirectly communicating something about what it did or did not mean for M to learn. It was not that M was trying to be bad or could not distinguish bad from good. It was not that M was unable to learn or did not want to learn. Rather, there was something about what it meant to learn in a traditional classroom that did not work for M, and M’s way of communicating that mismatch played out as “misbehavior” (pg 20). The commonsensical model of education is not advantageous to all students and did not work for ‘M.’

Historical factors shape the concept of a “good” student. Differing societal norms, cultural values, and overall contexts during varying historical periods have resulted in contrasting ideas about education and students. More specifically, social stratification of different locations and time periods has played a prominent role in influencing the definition of a “good” student, with educational systems frequently perpetuating social hierarchies and privileging certain groups based on race, gender, class or other social markers. What it means to be a “good” student has varied from each civilization. As explained in A History of Education, China believed a “good” student to be one who honours generational tradition, respects authority and achieves high scores in rigorous examinations. In contrast, India favoured a spiritually devout student who progressed slowly and steadily and was apt to recite information. Hence, there is not only one definition of a “good” student, but several, and they are constantly changing depending on numerous societal and historical factors.

The above paragraphs draw from the following readings:

•  Painter (1886). A History of Education Pages 1-21 
• Kumashiro (2010). Against Common Sense, Chapter 2 (pp. 19 – 33) – “Preparing Teachers for Crisis: What It Means to Be a Student”