Constructing the Ideal Student: Power, Normalisation, and Inequality in Education

Introduction 

In contemporary educational discourse, the image of the "ideal student" is often taken for granted: self-motivated, emotionally regulated, compliant, and high-achieving.  However, it must be noted that this figure is not a neutral benchmark, but rather a construct shaped by underlying power relations. This essay draws upon Moya Lloyd's  Beyond Identity Politics (2005) to explore how power is manifested through educational norms, constructing and privileging certain student identities while marginalising others.  The crux of this analysis lies in Michel Foucault's notion of productive power, as interpreted by Lloyd. This concept elucidates the manner in which institutions such as schools do not merely regulate behaviour, but rather actively influence subjectivities and determine which identities are considered legitimate or successful. 

This discussion is situated within broader themes of inequality in education, as  explored throughout the Challenging Education and Inequalities course. Course materials have emphasised that inequalities are frequently individualised, with explanations attributing to students' motivation or effort, as opposed to being recognised  as outcomes of structural forces. Concurrently, the escalating predominance of therapeutic and neoliberal discourses within educational praxis accentuates self regulation and personal accountability, frequently obfuscating the systemic contexts that engender student adversity. This contradiction is particularly evident in contexts such as Finland, where the education system is celebrated for its commitment to equality but continues to normalise whiteness and middle-class values, as demonstrated in research by Peltola and Phoenix (2022). 

By analysing the formation of the "ideal student" through disciplinary and performative frameworks, this essay critically examines how educational norms contribute to the reproduction of inequality. In doing so, the following question is posed:  This paper sets out to explore the characteristics of the ideal student, and to what extent these characteristics are embodied by the student body. Furthermore, it will examine the political consequences of these constructions for those who do not embody the characteristics in question. The essay posits that a re-evaluation of the concepts of power and identity within the context of education is imperative for the construction of more equitable future outcomes. This assertion is supported by a synthesis of Lloyd's theoretical insights and course readings. 

Power, Discourse, and the Making of the Student 

Lloyd (2005) builds on the work of Michel Foucault to explore the multifaceted  nature of power, highlighting its capacity to be both repressive and productive. She argues that power is not merely a tool of control but also a catalyst for change, shaping realities, producing subjects, and establishing norms. In Beyond Identity Politics, Lloyd  explores how power operates not by simply prohibiting actions, but by constituting what is thinkable and sayable. Within the domain of education, this form of power manifests in the establishment of norms dictating behaviour, intelligence, and success. The concept of the "ideal student" is produced through the implementation of routines,  assessments, and expectations, serving as a model to be aspired to and emulated. 

The notion of productive power is realised through discourse. As Lloyd (2005)  explains, discourse does not merely reflect reality; it constructs it. Within educational settings, discourses surrounding success, effort, and responsibility establish constrained parameters for student behaviour. These discourses are internalised by students, who come to see themselves through the language of performance, ability, and worthiness. The concept of the "ideal student" encompasses not merely academic excellence but also the capacity to align one's behaviour, thoughts, and emotions with the institution's expectations. 

Upon reflection, it is evident that this ideal was communicated in subtle, everyday practices during my own educational experiences. This is illustrated by the following examples: those who were more frequently called on in class, those who received praise for leadership roles, and those who were encouraged to apply for academic competitions. Judgments were seldom based on pure academic ability; rather, they were contingent on aligning with a specific archetype that encompassed aspects such as appearance, behaviour, and even emotional tone. 

This concept is closely related to the themes explored in first week of the course,  which examined the ways in which educational inequality is often individualised. The prevailing discourse posits that students' academic outcomes are predominantly influenced by personal attributes such as motivation or resilience, rather than by systemic inequalities inherent in educational systems. By focusing on individual adaptation, the education system avoids accountability for the systemic barriers it produces, including biased assessments, cultural assumptions and resource disparities. This redirection of blame serves to reinforce the authority of dominant norms  and to punish deviation from them. 

This phenomenon can be considered as a reflection of more general societal  discourses in which systemic inequalities are frequently reinterpreted as the result of  individual deficiencies. Television programmes such as Glee and Elite portra educational environments in which marginalised students are depicted as either exceptional "against the odds" or as causing disruption, rarely acknowledging the  systemic biases that shape their experiences. These portrayals serve to perpetuate th notion that success is merely a consequence of individual effort, effectively avoiding the  more uncomfortable realities of institutional exclusion. 

The Therapeutic Turn and the Responsible Learner

Building on the idea that students are shaped through discursive norms, we can now consider how these norms extend into students’ emotional lives, further deepening the demands placed on them. The conception of the "ideal student" has evolved in recent decades to encompass emotional and psychological competencies. As discussed in the second week of the course, the "therapeutic turn" in education has led to a shift in focus towards emotional regulation, mental well-being, and resilience as fundamental competencies for student success. Whilst these frameworks appear to be supportive,  they are also indicative of a broader neoliberal logic that effectively shifts responsibility from institutions to individuals. 

In this instance, Lloyd's discourse on the notion of power as being both diffuse and  disciplinary proves to be highly advantageous. In her analysis, she employs Foucault's  concept of power as the internalisation of norms, resulting in the formation of subject who self-regulate and monitor their behavior. The student who engages in mindfulness practices, emotional intelligence, and rapid recovery from setbacks is to be celebrated,  not because these traits are inherently virtuous, but because they align with institutional  needs for efficiency, order, and self-governance. 

This phenomenon is reminiscent of the pervasive "that girl" aesthetic that has become prevalent on social media, characterized by the dissemination of videos depicting young women engaging in morning routines, including journaling, meditation,  physical exercise, adherence to a specific dietary regime, and academic success. Whilst these portrayals are presented as empowering, they also reflect the pervasive influence of neoliberal values of self-management and constant productivity on our perceptions of success. The student is not merely expected to learn; they must also curate themselves into an optimized, mentally balanced subject. 

Brunila et al. (2021) propose the terms "psychologization" and  "educationalization" to denote the process of redefining social issues as personal psychological challenges, with the objective of their management within educational institutions. Rather than addressing the systemic causes of distress, such as socioeconomic instability or academic pressure, education systems promote individual solutions, including resilience training and self-care workshops. This further reinforces the notion of the ideal student as not only academically competent but also emotionally self-sufficient. 

It is imperative to acknowledge that well-being programs, while undoubtedly valuable, cannot substitute for fundamental structural reforms. It is evident that university well-being campaigns that promote yoga and mindfulness are not always aligned with the reality that students are often experiencing excessive workloads,  insecure employment, and significant financial debt. The notion that individual coping strategies are sufficient responses to structural inequality not only depoliticizes distress but can also engender feelings of personal inadequacy in students who encounter difficulties. 

Reflecting on this, it becomes evident that these expectations are readily internalised by individuals. Conversations about burnout among peers frequently devolve into discussions of personal inadequacy in "managing stress better," rather than offering critiques of the pervasiveness of stress in the education sector. 

Performing the Ideal: Performativity and Parody in the Context of Student Life 

In Chapter 7 of Beyond Identity Politics, Lloyd transitions to a discussion of Judith  Butler's theory of performativity. This theoretical framework offers a compelling perspective on the notion that identities, such as 'student', are not inherent but rather enacted through repetitive actions and behaviours. The archetypal student, therefore, is not merely a figure to be emulated; rather, it is an enactment that must be perpetually actualised through behaviour, language and appearance. 

This concept helps explain how students are subject to constant evaluation, not  only through grades but also through subtle acts of surveillance, such as teacher attention, classroom participation, or peer validation. The enforcement of performativity is rooted in the fear of failing to appear competent or well-organized. In this manner,  educational environments are responsible for the creation of what Butler refers to as a  "regulatory fiction", namely a fantasy of what a student should be, sustained through repetition and anxiety. 

Popular culture frequently critiques or parodies this ideal. In television programmes such as Sex Education and Never Have I Ever, adolescent protagonists encounter challenges stemming from expectations that are not of their own creation. Deviating from the ideal—whether by being emotionally expressive, non-conforming, or politically outspoken—often results in social and institutional punishment. These portrayals are indicative of the insecure position of student subjectivity, characterised by the perpetual oscillation between authenticity and acceptability. 

Lloyd's observations are significant in the context of performativity, as he notes that while it imposes constraints, it simultaneously creates opportunities for subversion.  The utilisation of parody and non-conforming performances has the capacity to expose the contrived nature of the ideal. Students who adopt a resistant stance through the mediums of humour, disengagement, or alternative modes of dress and linguistic expression challenge the entrenched nature of educational norms. However, as demonstrated in the readings on race and class in Finnish schools, such resistance frequently results in disciplinary action or exclusion, particularly when enacted by racialized or working-class youth. 

In the context of my own educational experience, acts of minor resistance – such as voicing concerns regarding inequitable grading practices, establishing informal peer tutoring groups, or opting for alternative dress codes – were rarely commended.  Conversely, these individuals were regarded as impediments to the smooth functioning of the system, thereby reinforcing the perception that conformity was not merely desirable but imperative. 

Conclusion 

The concept of the "ideal student" is not neutral or universal; it is shaped by discursive, disciplinary and performative processes that reflect and sustain existing power structures. As Moya Lloyd's theoretical lens and course materials illustrate,  educational systems play an active role in shaping subjectivities that align with dominant norms. These norms are often grounded in whiteness, middle-class expectations, and neoliberal ideals of individualism. 

This conceptualisation of the ideal student effectively marginalises those who do not, or are unable to, adhere to these expectations. Furthermore, it obscures the structural inequalities that exert influence on educational experiences and outcomes. By placing emphasis on personal attributes such as motivation, emotional regulation, and resilience, educational institutions effectively transfer responsibility to the individual, thereby concealing and maintaining systemic barriers. 

The challenge of these norms demands more than the mere addition of diversity to the prevailing model. This approach needs a fundamental reimagining of the very purpose of education, moving beyond the mere production of adaptable and resilient workers to nurturing critical, diverse, and resilient forms of subjectivity. Popular culture, student movements, and quotidian acts of parody demonstrate that students are already identifying methods of resisting conventional expectations. The challenge for educators and policymakers is to listen to open spaces where difference is not merely tolerated but valued, and to finally acknowledge that true educational equity demands dismantling the very ideals we have long taken for granted. 

Perhaps the future of equitable education lies not in measuring how students meet existing standards, but in co-creating new ones with them.

REFERENCES: 

Brunila, K. (2012). From Risk to Resilience: The therapeutic ethos in youth education. Education Inquiry, 3(3), 451–464. 

Brunila, K., Mertanen, K., Tiainen, K., Kurki, T., Masoud, A., Mäkelä, K., & Ikävalko, E.  (2019). Vulnerabilizing Young People: Interrupting the ethos of vulnerability, the  neoliberal rationality, and the precision education governance. Suomen  Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society, 43(3), 113–120.  https://doi.org/10.30676/jfas.v43i3.82737 

Lloyd, M. (2005). Beyond Identity Politics: Feminism, power and politics. London: SAGE  Publications. 

Peltola, M., & Phoenix, A. (2022). Doing Whiteness and Masculinities at School. In  Finnishness, Whiteness and Coloniality. Helsinki University Press.  https://doi.org/10.33134/HUP-17-7 

Saari, A., Brunila, K., & Vainio, S. (2024). The Psychologization of Student Subjectivity in  the Finnish Academia. Sociological Research Online, 29(2), 334–350.  https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804231221949