Warning: I’ve got a jumble of thoughts and seemingly unrelated concepts floating around in my head that I’m trying to draw connections between and make sense of, so this post may ramble and/or lose the plot from time to time while I work things through.
Background
There are a number of different conversations going on across the web right now, each of which in some way discuss the notion of the need for educational change, the nature of the flaws in the current model, and the most effective way of moving this process forward.
Edupunk Battle Royale
The ongoing series (1, 2) of Edupunk debates between Gardner Campbell and Jim Groom are one example of this. My interpretation of the discussion is that Gardner argues that effective, sustainable and lasting change can only occur if you work within the system itself, and that subversive activities that seek to circumvent or undermine the system are both ineffective and counterproductive. This logic would seem to suggest that movements or ideologies such as Edupunk are highly disruptive and can in fact slow the change process by instigating debate and delineating an us-and-them attitude.
My take on Jim’s argument is that it’s not in direct contrast to Gardners, at least not completely. Jim recognises and advocates the organically developing, highly personalised and individualised ethos of the new media landscape. As such by nature and by necessity, there need to be as few externally imposed mandates and barriers as possible. Indeed as is the case with many disruptive technologies in general, mandates and barriers can and are frequently ignored and circumvented.
So in that sense, a notion of edtec civil disobedience is woven within the fabric of new media usage – especially in the Edupunk idealism. It runs contrary to existing structures where formality, process and heirarchy are explicitly layed out, and an unspoken rule of strict constructionism reigns – namely, that unless something is expressly permitted, you’re not allowed to do it.
By this logic, Thoreau’s notion of an individual’s obligation to defy any policy that they oppose puts this segment of the edtec community on a head-on course with existing structures, and making the us-and-them attitude largely unavoidable.
Flaws in the Educational System
The other source of brain-food lately has been Cole Camplese. Cole has just completed a month-long daily blogging exercise that saw him explore some very thought-provoking territory in which he explored topics of both immense frustration and systemic significance – namely the flaws in the current educational system and therefore the need for educational change.
In Worksheet Nation, Cole writes:
“I’ve come to think that we really do need to rethink our emphasis on the focus on the “industrial discipline” in our schools that Mr. Toffler discusses in the above video. That while learning how to sit and be may have been important during the turn of the century to create a society willing to participate in the industrial explosion happening within the US, times have changed. We talk of the rise of the creative culture on a global basis and that phenomenon has fundamentally changed the needs of the workplace. What I want in my schools is what I strive for in my work place — freedom to think, explore, and invent. I don’t particularly care about the rules and I certainly don’t want my children to be taught how to line up, stay in that line, and don’t march any way but the way you’re told. Just as I am not interested in a static and uncreative work environment, I hope for a new emphasis on these ideals for all ages.”
Change by Internal Influence versus External Pressure
Thus I’ve arrived at the question of which model is the most effective, and least painful means of affecting educational change: working within the system to change the system itself; or exerting sustained external pressure via civil disobedience, subversion, and disruption until the point is reached where the masses cannot be ignored any longer.
My ultimate response varies day to day, but for the most part I subscribe to the philosophy that a fundamentally flawed system cannot repair itself. It requires outside stimulus to change.
I do not take the phrase fundamentally flawed very lightly either, and yet based on Cole Camplese’s posts – and my own observations – it appears that existing institutional structures have long since passed the point where – at an institutional and organisational level – they are capable of recognising and resolving the deficiencies and systemic issues that plague the landscape. I believe this is the reason why the Edupunk concept struck such a strong cord with people. Cole’s posts highlight an individual bubbling with frustration about the state of formal education, and equally angry about his powerlessness to exert change within it.
To me the educational system is a multi-headed hydra with a myriad of interrelated, yet independant players – each of whom must be dealt with before lasting change can take root and grow. This is why change occurs so slowly in education. It’s also why I believe systemic change on a radical scale is unlikely to occur barring a fundamental abandonment of existing structures.
In effect edupunk, subversion, civil disobedience – or whatever you choose to call it – is a natural reaction to a system bent on self-preservation, and the maintaining of traditional structures and ways of working. It is borne from frustration and a desire for progress and innovation that has arisen in spite of the system, amongst a network of people who see a new way forward and are willing to explore it alone if necessary.
Wow Mike,
Brilliantly frames here, you understand the implications of all this far better than I do, and it is a relief to read your post which does so much to synthesize what is going on in people’s heads right now. I really like your final note, which I think is absolutely dead one:
Bravo! I don;t think I have read it so succinctly and precisely written yet, and I love the weaving in of Thoreau here, yet another figure who works beautiful into this landscape.
Hi Jim,
You’re too kind. I have to say that you have played a very important part in my intellectual journey so far. You are an inpiring leader by example and your work and vision is critical to the ongoing evolution of new media and participatory culture. I don’t think you give yourself enough credit really
Cheers,
Mike
NB: Apparently my OpenID login option isn’t working and I’ve had to deactivate it – apologies for that. The following comment is from Ed Webb.
————————–
Mike, I endorse Jim’s kudos – you write very well about this stuff.
I wonder about that last sentence, though. None of us in this loose network of troublemakers is alone – that’s the essence and power of the network. It may be illusory, but I feel supported in my wacky experiments in the classroom by a small number of colleagues within my institution, but also a much larger number beyond – including you and Jim and many others.
Ed Webb
Hi Ed,
Quite true about the power of networks. My main emphasis was on the notion that people are willing to go it alone if necessary – fortunately as we know, it isn’t necessary.
I benefit tremendously and continuously from the amazing network of people we associate with – you and Jim are both influential and appreciated in that respect.
So thanks very much to you both for the valuable insight you both bring to the discussion!
Cheers,
Mike
Mike
What a thought-provoking post. I have been thinking about the common wealth and deference of late. I think I have enormous freedom at present to explore the differentiated environment you consider here. I have been thinking too about the Obama phrase leading by “the power of example rather than by the example of power”. You are a beacon of power by example!
best wishes
Keith
Thanks for this thoughtful analysis/synthesis. It’s a great read. I do want to clarify a couple of things about what I said and what I meant. (I’m willing to believe I just wasn’t clear about them in the heat of the conversation!)
I’m not much on ideologies, no. For me, they repeat the problem they agitate against. That said, I do not believe debate slows change. Not at all. If I did I wouldn’t have debated Jim. I do believe that an us vs. them argument (and I’m not sure Jim is making that argument, at least not all the time) gets things bogged down very quickly and will typically turn ugly.
I’m caught on the horns of a dilemma here, of course: how can one attack practices without attacking the practitioners and their rationales (or rationalizations)? I think it can and must be done, but I may be wrong, and my ideas of how to do it may result in too much talk and not enough action. I guess I’m willing to accept that risk, until the options are exhausted. I don’t think they’re exhausted yet. I think there’s plenty of room out there to make our case (I truly do believe it’s “our” case–a common cause shared by many more than we might imagine) that education needs significant, systemic reform and it needs it now. That EDUCAUSE and its leaders gave us a platform and an occasion for the discussion makes me feel very hopeful (it’s a great example of the freedom of inquiry we all support). I just don’t think that making the case necessarily means identifying an enemies list–yet–though that’s not to say that there are not powerful enemies of this kind of reform out there. There are, and both Jim and I know this all too well. We’ve both lived through some pretty ugly times along those lines.
I hope it’s clear from the debate and the conversation around it that I passionately agree with every single part of the final paragraph from your post, the one Jim rightly singles out for praise–except for that word “traditional.” There are many traditional structures in education. Some of them are not only worth preserving, they’re the very thing we’re pinning all our hopes on. I think the word “traditional” frames a dichotomy that can throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think the appeal of the word “tradition” as a target for those feeling frustrated and rebellious–as we all are–finally risks the superficial rejection of possibility that we’re all so opposed to.
I know my calls for companionship and conversation run the risk of keeping the current power structures intact. I worry about that risk, a lot. At the same time, I also think that the current power structures we’d like to see changed would welcome and co-opt the wrong kind of resistance. It may be that by trying to evade this possibility, one runs the risk of being co-opted in the other direction. I don’t know.
Jim and I do disagree about the nature and necessity of leadership. I suspect that argument will go on for a long time. I just can’t embrace anarchy. But I’ve learned a great deal from Jim, and from the Edupunk discussion, about the nuances of leadership possible in a rebellion. I’m seeing connections between reform and rebellion that I hadn’t seen before, and I’m really happy to be learning from all sides of the discussion.
It’s interesting and entirely appropriate that you bring up Thoreau in this context. I yield to no one in my admiration of HDT, but in the end, the writer of that era who means the most to me is Hawthorne. For me, “The Scarlet Letter” and especially “The Custom House” go deeper than “Civil Disobedience” or even “Walden.” But I wouldn’t want to be without any of them.
One more clarification: by “without attacking the practitioners and their rationales” I mean *personal* attacks. I certainly do believe we must attack (but not violently) the practitioners and their rationales if they are not good-faith participants in the conversation. Tough to draw that line sometimes, I realize.
Sorry for the lack of a timely reply, Gardner. I have every intention of getting to your well considered thoughts as soon as I can wrestle a free moment from the clutches of the tech support nightmare I’m currently entrenched in.
No worries–and good luck with the tech support nightmares.
Pingback: Affecting Cultural Change | TechTicker
Educational Change is always something to discuss. It’s good that they want to change the system, but they should be careful not to change it to the worse. Here in Germany, they try to change it for years. Here a bit and there a bit. The teachers sometimes don’t know which of the education rules they should follow. I remember one of our teachers prepared for a new rule when the government took a step back and said that the rule is now optional.
I hope this doesn’t happen to you too. It was confusing for pupils and teachers. Nearly every year had different rules for their final exams. Most only slightly different, but that made it easier to confuse each rules.