Open Monologue
Just because I'm making it up as I go along doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing

I was on Google Chat last night with Alec. One of the topics of our conversation was edupunk. We’re both attracted to some of the ideas that have coalesced around edupunk since its naming by Jim Groom and summation and further articulation by Leslie Madsen Brooks. Alec mentioned the ideals of being anti-authority and anti-establishment, but I didn’t want the identity of the – what is it? A meme? A movement? Maybe even partially a mid-life crisis? I didn’t want its identity to be a negation, I want it to be for something. But what? Alec suggested pro-disorder, pro-freedom, pro-messiness and pro-anti-establishment. That last one made me chuckle. Mike Caulfield eloquently describes what edupunk is against:

… it captures the cultural revulsion many of us feel with the
appropriation of the Learning 2.0 movement by corporations such as
Blackboard. Learning 2.0, like punk, is a DIY movement. Like punk it
favors technical accessibility over grand design.

If there’s anything that I want to be against, it’s the “two-point-oh” tacked on to anything to denote that we have created a new, shiny, happier version of something – a next step in its evolution. Edupunk, as I see it, isn’t about extending what has come before but rejecting it. We reject shrink-wrapped, profit motive driven, corporate branded education. We especially reject Blackboard, apparently.

But seriously … if edupunk is against all those things, then what is it for? I know some people will cringe at my attempt to define or list edupunk values. I’m cringing even as I type this. Definitions and lists might not be very edupunk of me, but if you disagree, I won’t take it personally.

OK – my edupunk values list/credo:

• We claim ownership of our words, our ideas, our learning, our teaching, our education. Jim says “Corporations are selling us back our ideas, innovations, and visions
  for an exorbitant price. I want them all back, and I want them now!”
• We claim the right to share these freely so that others can benefit without limits based on ability to pay. Creative Commons licensing is a means to enable this.
• We claim control of our culture. We claim the right to borrow, reference, allude to, mix and mash up the creative works that exist for the purpose of teaching and learning. We do this not to prevent artists and creators from earning a living but as a rejection of corporate control/hegemony of our culture.
• We believe that education is a gift, not a commodity. Education should never be commoditized, shrink-wrapped, marketed and sold. Education is a sacred obligation to our children and it would be indecent to contextualize that in economic terms. Again, this does not negate the fact that people need to earn a living. We just don’t want education being viewed as something that generates a profit.
• It’s about the learning, not about the technology. OK, that one is a negation, but it needed to be included. Technology can provide certain opportunities for learning, but learning can take place in junkyard just as easily as on the internet.
• We all contribute equally. There are no ‘A’-list edupunks or awards for best blog for educators. Any attempt to raise one of us above others will result in a pelting with rotten tomotoes.

Whew. I didn’t think I was going to go all Jerry Maguire but there is my stream of consciousness riff on edupunk. Feel free – in fact I encourage you – to disagree with me. I make no claim that this is a good statement on edupunk, but I need to start somewhere. You’re welcome to agree with me as well – my ego is just as voracious as anyones.