I’m also not sure whether you’re arguing that it’s “inaccurate,” that “it’s nothing new,” or both.

Both. The concept is nothing new, and the term is inaccurate.

My sense is that you have more in common with the ethos behind edupunk than you’d care to admit.

I think you’ve misunderstood me. I confidently believe I have LOTS in common with the ethos behind the term, mostly because the ethos is what I’ve embodied for the last decade that I’ve been a teacher. I’m not ashamed to admit that — quite the opposite. I’m proud to admit that I connect to that ethos. It’s in my philosophy statement and is the reason I created this blog (as well as my other one). What I’m uncomfortable with is A) the ethos being re-packaged / re-labelled as a new concept, and B) it being mislabelled as something associated with “punk” — which is, as I’ve said before, a concept I do not identify with.

I guess I cannot agree or disagree with your statement about the system of public education in your country, because I’ve never taught in it, nor have I been a part of it in any way. But I suspect (based on my colleagues) that there are many innovative teachers out there, even in the USA, who are encouraging their students to be critical thinkers and who toss caution to the wind when it comes to NLCB, Blackboard’s re-packaging, and the like. Exceptional, I’m not sure — I have to say I don’t know enough to say, as my first-hand experience in education has not yet included America.

Emphasizing anti-authoritarianism (which I think can be healthy) and anarchy (which I think is useless) willingly neglects the other more obviously progressive aspects. I much prefer critical engagement and an approach that emphasizes common ground.

I’m also not sure whether you’re arguing that it’s “inaccurate,” that “it’s nothing new,” or both. My sense is that you have more in common with the ethos behind edupunk than you’d care to admit.

Yes, most of my reflection has been about higher education (which, after all, was the field about which the idea was originally written– the meme expanded it and detached it from its original context). But I have also worked in elementary education, have a child, and know much about student organizing and active participation research.

My point about teachers who raise questions about establishments, authority, and corporations wasn’t so much a criticism of teachers as a criticism of an inequitable, antiquated, and, in many cases, oppressive system of public education in this country. Yes, many teachers work against those problems and encourage their students to do so too. But, they tend to be exceptional.

if people “latch onto” the anti-ness of it, that’s ultimately on the “people,” not the term, isn’t it?

No, I don’t think so. I think it’s because the term creates the misconceptions. The term is inaccurate.

Being critical is not the same thing as being anti or rejectionist, and while tying “punk” to “edu” runs the risk of confusing pedagogues, we need to approach it in a way sensitive to the inherent conflicts

Look at the rest of the definition. You will see this: which tends to create beliefs in concepts such as individualism, anti-authoritarianism, anarchism and free thought. That’s the part I was getting at. I agree that being critical is not the same as being anti or rejectionist, and this is the VERY reason why I believe the term “edupunk” is inaccurate.

We’d all benefit from concentrating on the work, rather than the labels.

Perhaps, but the label is important. It is what names the concept. I go back to the quote I chose in my original post from David Warlick. The term is important.

Not sure where you teach, but I’ve found in my experience that such teachers are the exception rather than the rule.

You can find more information about me and my background on the About page. And, as I said earlier, perhaps this is because the majority of the teachers you’ve seen are in post-secondary institutions. I scanned your posts over at cac.ophony.org and from what I could tell, it looks as though your experience is limited to this division of education. The most progressive, critical, and creative teachers I have met are those who teach 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds. So I very much have to disagree and say that the majority of teachers ARE critical of establishments, authority, and corporations. This is because we actively encourage our students to be critical thinkers, innovators, and problem-solvers, not rote-learners. Perhaps your experience, is different — like I said — related to the query I posted in Insightful Question #1, about universities (aside from within the Faculty of Education) not usually being on the cutting-edge of pedagogy.

So you agree that the metaphor creates problems, notably the one that people latch onto about having to be anti-establishment and anti-corporate.

Yes, I agree. The metaphor is problematic, because people are discussing what’s “punk” rather than the scholarship of teaching and learning. But if people “latch onto” the anti-ness of it, that’s ultimately on the “people,” not the term, isn’t it?

The definition of punk you cited is a little more nuanced, I think, than you give it credit for.

Punk ideologies have often included a critical view of the world; seeing modern day societies as placing extensive limits on humanity.

Being critical is not the same thing as being anti or rejectionist, and while tying “punk” to “edu” runs the risk of confusing pedagogues, we need to approach it in a way sensitive to the inherent conflicts… I believe it benefits from a more generous reading, a critical one. That’s more useful than tossing it completely out the window because one doesn’t want to be associated with punks, though one’s perspective intersects with the vague concept of “edupunk” in many ways.

let’s be those folks who question the authority, the corporations, and the establishments. But please — by doing so, don’t call us anything other than creative and forward thinkers.

Sure. You can name yourself anything you want. The mission still overlaps with some of what edupunks want. We’d all benefit from concentrating on the work, rather than the labels. This was a provocative and playful idea Jim put up on his blog (long-time readers of Bava know this), not a manifesto or a line in the sand. It should be treated generously and with humor.

Finally,

You are talking about being critical of establishments, authority, and corporations. (an aside: And really, what teacher isn’t?)

Not sure where you teach, but I’ve found in my experience that such teachers are the exception rather than the rule. Pleasant to find, indeed.

This from Wikipedia’s entry on Punk Ideologies:

In its original nature, the punk culture has been primarily concerned with individual freedom, which tends to create beliefs in concepts such as individualism, anti-authoritarianism, anarchism and free thought. Punk ideologies have often included a critical view of the world; seeing modern day societies as placing extensive limits on humanity. Punk ideologies are usually expressed through punk rock music, punk zines, independently-published literature and spoken word recordings.

Hopefully, after reading this definition you can understand why the term “edupunk” is inaccurate. You are talking about being critical of establishments, authority, and corporations. (an aside: And really, what teacher isn’t?) But the term “punk” implies something that goes farther than being critical.

The notion of a movement of folks who approach these questions in a way sensitive to all of the forces at play is appealing.

I agree. But I don’t think that movement should be labelled edupunk. It is a misnomer. And it’s not a distraction to discuss what a punk is and whether we want to be one because it’s part of the definition of the term!

Instead, let’s be those folks who question the authority, the corporations, and the establishments. But please — by doing so, don’t call us anything other than creative and forward thinkers. To attach the word “punk” to this kind of thinking is inaccurate at best.

And you inadvertently answered Insightful Question #1, btw, when you said, “By focusing on the rejectionism absorbed by the meme, we perhaps lose sight of the value of the critical stance towards the way things are “done” in higher education that lay behind the genesis of the term.” (emphasis mine)

The way things are often “done” in higher education is not the same as in primary and secondary education. I appreciate that you mentioned the genesis of the term in this manner, because that is one of the things I have been wondering about, and the reason why I posed Insightful Question #1 above.

If “edupunk” is anti-establishment and anti-corporation, does that mean a true Edupunk does not use any tools provided by large-scale companies? So does that mean no Google? no Flickr? no QuickTime?

This passage points to one of the problems with the metaphor; it makes easy the circulation of the notion that one must be anti-establishment and anti-corporate rather than critical of establishments, authority, and corporations. By focusing on the rejectionism absorbed by the meme, we perhaps lose sight of the value of the critical stance towards the way things are “done” in higher education that lay behind the genesis of the term.

“Edupunk,” in my view, originated as a reaction against a single entity (Blackboard, LLC) that encapsulates many of the broader problems existent at the intersection of commerce and education. BB’s dominance challenges progressive notions of teaching and learning, and many of us are trying to answer how best to combat the trend. The notion of a movement of folks who approach these questions in a way sensitive to all of the forces at play is appealing. “Edupunk,” whether or not it’s the “right” term, got those folks talking to one another, and that’s a good thing. It’s a bad thing, I think, that we’re all trying to understand what a punk is and whether or not we want to be one. That, I fear, is a distraction.

All this said, some of the tools you cite are central to the “mission,” because they empower teachers and students. That, I think, is the ultimate goal of edupunks like Jim Groom. The overthrow of capitalism is second. A close second. But second.

Maybe we should coin a new term for this and start an edu-meme about the power of the mid-standing Edu-rads?

“If ‘edupunk’ is anti-establishment and anti-corporation, does that mean a true Edupunk does not use any tools provided by large-scale companies?” I was wondering how any new” -ism” can be anti-establishment. I was thinking that would be a paradox, especially Edu-Punk-ism because it spread so quickly and became so firmly solidified as a philosophy in our online environment.

Still thinking, yet I have been of the opinion that it is the “radical middle” that really describes what many stand for within the education “zone of proximity”. The middle stands for itself while taking from the left and right philosophies, as well as the corporate and open source communities.

We can use the -ism, but not be part of them.
Thanks again for this thoughtul post;D

I like the “clickable” option you mention, too. That would definitely make it easier to trace a word, or concept, throughout the text to see how it changes throughout.

Anyone know how we could do that? (I’m a techie, but don’t know how to design that kind of stuff.)

Another option I enjoy enabling in my tagclouds is the “drill down” / filter. Say that the unit of measure is actually a “speech”, for example. Now say somebody clicks “god”, above. Then you go through, selecting only the speeches that contained the word god, and regenerate the cloud.

Man, I wish I had the time to work on stuff like this :)…

http://www.shakespearegeek.com