You can see the idea of a “good student” very clearly in Painter’s article from 1886. Throughout the reading it is very clear that a white middle-class Christian male student was the only type of person worth educating. Therefore, any other gender, race, class, or religion was being oppressed while white middle class Christian boys were being overtly privileged. Now adays, the idea of a “good student” isn’t so explicitly advertised but it definitely still exists just in different ways. A good student seems to be a student who can sit nicely and say, do, and think exactly what or how the teacher wants them to. This concept is especially seen in Kumashiro’s article ,especially in the following quote, “ I was a teacher who wanted to have control over the classroom. For me, M’s behaviour was a sign that I was … not reaching M, and therefore that M was not learning and becoming the student that I desired” (20). In both of the texts, it appears that they both consider a “good student” to be a student who can learn through lecture teaching and doesn’t question what they are learning or why they are learning it. This advantages only one type of learner while the rest are left trying their best to learn in a way that doesn’t work for them.
I really like the point you made on how the idea of a good student is not explicitly advertised but still exists. I do believe that you could have went more in depth on who is marginalized by the definition of a “good” student. However, I did also enjoy the point you made on how the education system only advantages now type of learner.
Hi Kass, I liked your blog post, it was very closely related to what I talked about as well. I find that when teachers talk about students and being a good student it revolves around if they can behave in the classroom with respect to their teachers. I found your blog interesting to read and I agree with what you’ve said about the reading.