In order to be a “good” student according to commonsense, one must do what is expected of them by the school. For example, they need to listen quietly in class, follow instructions well, and perform well on exams. A “good” student is a student who does not question why things are done the way they are. As Kumashiro describes “learning meant completing certain assignments and repeating on exams the correct definitions or themes or analyses in a strong essay format, and the closer a student got to saying the right things in the right ways, the higher the student’s grade would be” (Kumashiro 21). “Good” students are the students who, when asked to, can best replicate the procedures and ideas taught in class.
There are students that are privileged by this definition of a good student. However, because of this definition, there are many children that will be labelled as a “bad” student for things that they may not understand or be able to control. Kids who benefit from this definition are the ones who can sit quietly without fidgeting, follow instructions easily with little help from the teacher, and can do well on tests and exams. This means that kids who tend to fidget or have trouble paying attention in class, such as kids with attention-deficit disorders will be deemed a “bad student” just because they may need a little bit more help than other students. Also, even if a child knows the material, if they do not perform well on tests or exams they will be deemed “bad students.” Kumashiro also mentions another reason that students will be seen as “bad.” He says, “addressing the unique learning styles, needs, and desires of students is important” (Kumashiro 22). Not all students learn the same way and students that do not learn well from lecturing will likely be left behind as that is the method of teaching that is most present in a lot of classrooms.
The idea of a “good” student has always been shaped by many historical factors. In the past, education was something that was only for white, English males. Woman were not allowed to receive an education and people who were not white were not seen as civilized enough to receive one either. Society wanted to create someone who could easily fit in with the rest of society and perform any job that was required of them. Painter proves this when he says, “education aims at developing a noble type of manhood. . . . Man has various labors and duties to perform in the world, which require special training, and a wide variety of knowledge” (Painter 3). School and knowledge was simply a way to train young men in order to make them working members of society, but since they wanted to create a noble man, anyone who was not white was deemed unfit for an education because it was believed they could never be civilized enough to be noble, working, members of society. This way of viewing a “good” student does still have an affect on education today because students are still expected to learn how to be functioning members of society and if teachers believe that they cannot do this, they are deemed a “bad” student.
Works Cited
Kumashiro (2010). Against Common Sense, Chapter 2 (pp. 19 – 33) – “Preparing Teachers for Crisis: What It Means to Be a Student”
Painter (1886). “A History of Education.” (pp.1-21)
Overall, you cover the content pretty well. You commented using both of the sources as required. I think you could have mentioned the sections of Painter’s book that covers the different civilizations. Regardless, I like how clear things are, and I also cited the “noble manhood” in my response–so, cheers.