I’m having a problem with whom Diane Ravitch has referred to as the Super-Edu’s. She’s talking about them in an institutional sense – the unelected Superintendents of Education that some States in the US employ (at great cost) tasked with ‘sorting out’ the mess of education in decline – and how assumptions are made about implementing a one-size-fits-all unifying solution.
I’m wondering if the same can’t be said of (bordering on celebrity) advisory Edu-guru’s like Ken Robinson and creativity? Dave Cormier and rhizomic learning? Doug Belshaw and Mozilla’s digital competence badges? Tom Bennett’s ResearchEdu initiative? I am in fact inspired by much of what these players champion but find I have to keep the totalising contagion in check. As Ravitch points out, it’s the long (academic?) game of dogged pursuit of social values and ideals that we have to hope wins out… the exercise of which is in tension with innovatory, nimble and responsive practices in the classroom – the ones I associate myself with… These too can lead to a “what works?” mentality…
“Improving schools requires teamwork, collaboration, professionalism, and a steady course. Stars come and go. The builders are steady, reliable, consistent, persistent, dedicated to ideals greater than themselves.” (my emphasis)
http://dianeravitch.net/2014/01/03/the-myth-of-the-hero-superintendent-dont-wait-for-superman/
Making is Learning 