What does it mean to be a “good” student according to the commonsense?
Looking at the example of the student named M, which was provided to us by kumashiro at the start of chapter two of his book, Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Towards Social Justice we are given insight into how a “good” student does not behave. M was described as being a “handful”, who did not listen to instructions well, would only create things un related to the required task, and would struggle to listen quietly when being lectured to. M would become rowdy and restless when required to sit quietly, and often spoke loudly and out of turn. (Kumashiro, pg. 19). The commonsensical view of “good” student behaviour makes us think that as a teacher we can come in and take complete control of the classroom and student’s who have “good” behaviours unlike M. These “good” behaviours reflect our affective teaching strategies, and the ones with “bad” behaviours need to be punished. As Kumashiro put it, “it…seemed as if the student the school and I wanted M to be, was not a student that M could be.” (pg 20). These commonsensical assumptions on “good” student behaviour in fact oppress students like M, deeming them as bad, and unable to learn. Viewing them as the problem because our affective teaching strategies result in “good” student behaviour.
Which students are privileged by this definition of the good student?
I think the students privileged by this definition are the ones who are able to quietly sit and listen to what they are being told. Ask and talk about things the common-sense makes us think is valuable. They follow instructions and complete the objective of each task given to them, and do it how they are told to do it. Children who are unable to conform to these notions of “good” student behaviour are unable to be the “good” student that the common-sense notion expects them to be.
How is the “good” student shaped by historical factors?
According to Kumashiro, “good” students are shaped by knowledge already learned from the family, the community, the media and life experiences. This also includes prior schooling, or that certain beliefs, values and feelings are proper or natural. The problem with this is that, much of this knowledge is collected from the cultural myths, stereotypes, and taken for granted assumptions- “common-sense”, that permeate daily life. So, if historical factors such as those shape “good” students, then “good” students have learned things that help them to feel comfortable with what gets repeated in daily life. (pg. 25) This is problematic and leads to “good” students who have learned to “feel comfortable with uncritical assumptions that support the status quo.” (Kumashiro pg. 25) These comfortable feelings in turn prevent students from learning how to critically examine what is being learned, how it is being learned, and why it is being learned. Students need to learn discomforting things to, “unearth the oppressive tendencies, and anti-oppressive possibilities inherent in the very ways that we taught the disciplines”. (pg. 29).
It is true how students with “bad” behaviours are always punished. However, students should not lose privileges or to be removed in a classroom environment to decrease behaviour. This article reminds me of the essay I wrote about disability. How bad behaviours can not only distract but discriminate a student with a disability. It is not easy to take control of certain behaviours but teachers will soon start to understand the reason of the student’s behaviour along the way. Students with bad behaviours can also be the “good” student when they have better and good days.