What does it mean to be a "good" student according to the commonsense?
From my understanding of the reading, a “Good student” is one that does not question authority. They simply follow what is said, do not offer their opinions, and continue with their life like a little ball of “moldable clay” without any distinct shape or opinion to themselves. A “Good student” follows the grain, and in lack of a better term, the “Good student” is a sheep to educators to indoctrinate. However, that’s just my opinion.
Which students are privileged by this definition of the good student?
The good kids that sit and listen patiently, participate in group discussion, hand all work to the best of their abilities and place themselves where they know they can succeed are the kids we all envision when we think of school. While those students very much so exists, they are also the students that thrive the most in school. Any students that suffer from a social anxiety would be less enthused with group discussion, or students who have their own opinions that don’t mirror the majority would definitely suffer in other subjects such as History or Social Studies.
What is made impossible to see/understand/believe because of these commonsense ideas?
In my experience, I’ve never been the “Good Student” and it’s always caused issues for me. I never applied myself, and never had any enthusiasm for things unless it shadowed my own interests. I know this is hard for teachers to understand, and they don’t want to believe their student is struggling with things everyone else was thriving in. It’s impossible to truly understand things you yourself are not struggling with and I think thats the main takeaway. Teachers and educators need to have more understanding for those not-so-rare cases, and not just label kids “problematic” because they don’t see the world you see.
No comments:
Post a Comment