Are School Standards Inclusive of Every Student or Only the “Good Students”?

Kumashiro (2010) argues, “we often find comfort in commonsensical ideas that make sense of the status quo, just as we often feel uncomfortable with ideas that disrupt norms” (p. 27). This idea can be applied to how we react, as teachers, when a student behaves in a way that has been deemed “bad”. Often, teachers will become angry with the student(s) and instill a punishment to reestablish their authority, as well as to redirect the behaviour of the student(s) to exhibit “good” behaviour. The idea of a “good student” is quite consistent across every westernized school. Kumashiro (2010) states, 

I remember consistently feeling quite frustrated by such students, not only because I assumed that being a student required behaving and thinking in only certain ways, but also because I felt pressure from schools and society to produce this type of student (p. 21).

Schools do place a lot of emphasis on reinforcing certain behaviours in the classroom and discouraging other behaviours. A reason for this could be that society has deemed certain behaviours as acceptable, and schools are trying to prepare students to be functional and accomplished members of this society when they leave school. 

A “good student”, according to the commonsense, is a student who can learn the material presented to them in school. Currently, “the insistence on ‘meeting standards’ is an insistence on complying with what some in society have defined as common sense” (Kumashiro, 2010, p. 27). In education, standards have been set to communicate what knowledge students are supposed to acquire by the end of the school year before they advance to the next grade level. If a student is unable to achieve these standards, they become a “problem” or “bad” student in the view of the school. In present-day society, we tend to focus on instantaneous things; we do not have the patience to prolong our time to learn something. This is problematic in the classroom because some students take a longer time to understand information than their peers, and are essentially punished because of this. This idea of a “good student” only benefits the students who are quick-learners and have the support to focus their attention entirely on school and the subject material.

According to the commonsensical view, “educated students were those who ended the school year with more than they began, and effective teachers were those who helped fill students’ minds” (Kumashiro, 2010, p. 24). This is just another way of phrasing that “good students” are students who can learn quickly and effectively. A defect of this view is “that the standards . . . that currently define what all students are supposed to learn contain very little that explicitly addresses oppression” (Kumashiro, 2010, p. 27). Kumashiro (2010) further explains that this means that students are not learning about oppression in their studies, but I think this statement also means that the standards are not created concerning students who are facing oppression or disadvantage in their lives. The standards are not created for students with physical or cognitive disabilities. The standards are not created for students who live in poverty and are going to school on an empty stomach. The standards are not created for students who are dealing with trauma after being discriminated against because of their race, sexual orientation, or anything else. The standards are created for students that can solely focus on their studies and that have the support at home to aid them in their learning. So, if we continue to term “good students” as the students who can learn every standard that was created for them, then we are further harming the students who are needing the most support and attention.