According to commonsense being a good student is behaving as the “typical” student would. In this sense it means that they behave well and do not disrupt the class, if they have a question they raise their hand and don’t blurt the question out, they glide through the curriculum as expected with no challenges, and they participate in class discussion. On the other hand, a bad student according to common sense would be one that is disruptive and loud, does not do the assigned work, and has trouble with the information being presented to the class. Kumashiro states that a student who is “unable or unwilling to do the work necessary to learn” is also a bad student. From an educator’s perspective this is not actually a bad student but from the public eye, this would be a bad student.
There are very few students who actually benefit from this definition of a “good” student. This definition leaves a lot of students out. Students with learning disabilities are considered bad students according to this definition and so are students who don’t have parents who can help them at home with homework or questions. Students who do not have educated parents are at a disadvantage as well. This could also leave out students who have a lot of responsibilities at home. Kumashiro mentions that it is harder for students to learn when they are in crisis. Since they are not learning, they would be considered a bad student even though it may not be their fault.
The painter reading illustrates how education has always “varied with the different social, political, and religious conditions of the people”. This enforces what Kumashiro says about the students in crisis. If they are in crisis financially or socially, their education will suffer greatly because of this. They also may not have access to quality education. It is known from history that only the wealthy were most likely to receive an education. This is still prevalent today in that the wealthier a person is, the higher quality of education they can access.