A “good” student is a subjective thing and teachers and policymakers will always have their ideal student when reflecting on their experience. But this idea of a “good” student limits those who do not fit those standards. Common-sense in schools has created this image of a child who is a quiet listener and follows all instructions. This would be ideal as it is how our school systems have been set up to operate. But, each child learns in a different way and accommodating those different learning styles is the only way to offer students an equal chance to learn.

Common-sense implies that a teacher should “have control over the classroom” (Kumashiro, 2010, p. 20). And students should listen to their teachers, who have authority, and interact with their peers. A “good” student should listen intently to lectures, complete assignments when asked, and then later show their knowledge to prove they learned. All students must complete these tasks in the same ways within a similar time frame. But, as Kumashiro describes his experience with one of his students he saw that often that was not the case. Common-sense does not take into account the different learning styles of students, or the fact that some students need more or less structure to complete tasks appropriately. In education there is not a one-size-fits all approach, we must accommodate when necessary and be mindful of our students’ differences.

Some students do still fit this ideal of a “good” student, and these students are often the one’s viewed as being ahead of their peers while those who do not fit this definition are “delayed” or “slow to learn”. This system of only teaching for the ideal student only benefits those who can listen to lectures with little loss of focus. Or those who test well and can complete assignments independently with little structure or instruction from teachers. And, it leaves students who struggle with this style of learning with a lack of gained knowledge as the lessons often progress before a student has learned successfully.

Historically education has always been an extremely structured environment and only recently has it been more accommodating to those who learn in different ways. In our reading from Painter we see an “un-ideal” student being described, a student who does not fit the “ideal” of a white student in the western world. This document clearly describes the character of an “ideal” person which in-turn describes the ideal student coming from a foreign country. When describing the Indian population Painter writes “they are gentle, docile, polite, industrious, and faithful in service” (1886, p. 16). Writing about these characteristics shows the ideals that educators had for these students despite having an entirely different society and societal expectations. This idea of judging character based on beliefs and societal differences limits the success or abilities of those being judged. So, if students from other countries come into the western education system there is already a preconceived idea of who they are and this limits their learning. Just as an ideal of a “good” student limits the success of those who do not fit those standards.

 

References

Kumashiro, K (2010). Against common sense. Chapter 2. (pp. 18-32). Preparing teachers for crisis: A sample lesson. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JMhySclU27gK-Vo3v4Oesfzp3dVKqG9r/view?usp=sharing

Painter, F. V. (1886) A history of education. 1-21. https://archive.org/details/historyofeducati00painiala